edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry; Wade-Brown Celia; McLellan TraceyRESIGNATIONSGolriz Ghahraman Green Party of Aotearoa New ZealandSPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Golriz Ghahraman resigning her list seat in the House with effect at 5 p.m. 18 January 2024.LIST MEMBER ELECTEDGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—Celia Wade-BrownSPEAKER: I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Celia Wade-Brown to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Golriz Ghahraman from her list seat. I understand that Celia Wade-Brown is present and wishes to make an affirmation of allegiance. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right.MEMBERS SWORNCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Ko ahau ko Celia Wade-Brown e kī ana i runga i te pono i te tika i te ngākau tapatahi me te whakaū anō ka noho pirihonga ka noho pūmau ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture.[I Celia Wade-Brown solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III His heirs and successors according to law.]RESIGNATIONSHon Rino Tirikatene New Zealand Labour PartySPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Hon Rino Tirikatene resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight Sunday 28 January 2024. LIST MEMBER ELECTEDNew Zealand Labour—Dr Tracey McLellanSPEAKER: I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Dr Tracey McLellan to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Hon Rino Tirikatene from his seat. I understand that Dr Tracey McLellan is present and wishes to make an affirmation of allegiance. Would she please come forward to my right?MEMBERS SWORNDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): I Tracey Lee McLellan solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III His heirs and successors according to law.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 30 JANUARY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Wednesday 20 March 2024 - Volume 774
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Motion not agreed to.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members the time has come for me to leave the House. The House is adjourned until 2 o'clock tomorrow and Mr Shaw may want to adjust his watch so he arrives on time. The House adjourned at 10.06 p.m.
Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 66New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 57New Zealand National 49; New Zealand First 8.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill will be considered by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.
Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 6Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 117New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Motion not agreed to.
5. Question No. 5—FinanceHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement from yesterday's question time asking whether New Zealanders can see $123 billion worth of value generated for the $123 billion worth of Government debt racked up since 2017.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her commitment to not cut front-line public services; if so how does she reconcile that with the Police Association's comments today that the indefinite freeze on hiring non-sworn officers is already causing backlogs and delays and that this policy would take police officers off the street?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. That is an operational matter for the police.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis that obviously we will need to increase health funding at a minimum at the rate of inflation."?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In a rare breaking out of bilateral consensus across the House National in its fiscal plan had the same quantum of cost pressure funding for health as the Labour Party and I agree that that was a good amount.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she commit to increasing funding for Whaikaha to maintain crucial front-line services?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she see as a greater priority for her Budget allowance: respite care for Debbie the parent of two adults who have disabilities in my electorate of Mana who has been a caregiver for 36 years and a sole caregiver for 30 years or meeting the $800 million blowout in the cost of tax cuts for landlords?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the assertion at the back of that question.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why are Government's coffers an open pit for landlords but not for disabled communities?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well I reject that entirely and I would note and caution the member that the ministry for disability services is operating on the appropriation that the previous Labour Government gave it."
3. Question No. 3—HealthDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 3—Health3. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to deliver better cancer services?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Speaker. In our first few months we have made progress in both the cancer diagnostic and cancer management spaces. These announcements have been backed up by the introduction of an ambitious faster cancer treatment target. That target aims for 90 percent of patients to receive cancer management within 31 days of a decision to treat. This will help ensure the delivery of timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders.Dr Hamish Campbell: What steps has the Minister taken to improve access to diagnostic cancer services?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Just last week the Prime Minister and I were at the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau. This is a great example of taking health services directly into communities and is expected to reach up to 6000 women a year. These mobile units will have an important role to play in our recently announced age extension for breast cancer screening which was announced as part of our 100-day plan.Dr Hamish Campbell: Why is it so important to improve access to diagnostic cancer services?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Improving access to diagnostic services will save lives. That is why it is so important to us. The extension of breast cancer screening means that around 120000 additional women will be eligible for screening every two years. We know that catching more cancers early means better treatment outcomes. I'm informed an additional 22 lives could be saved every year on the current uptake and 65 with full uptake.Dr Hamish Campbell: What other steps has the Minister taken to improve access to diagnostic technology across New Zealand?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I thank the member for his question—I'm sure that as a representative for the South Island this answer will be of particular interest to him. The Government recently announced that Health New Zealand has approved funding for an updated set of criteria that will allow for about 1000 more publicly funded PET/CT scans per year in the South Island. For example this will remove geographic variation that previously meant people in the South Island would have to travel to the North Island to access publicly funded PET/CT scans.
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Speaker. I was intending to take a very very short call to allow the member whose bill this is before the House Greg O'Connor to actually have the vote take place prior to the House suspending but he's given quite clear guidance that he's actually not keen to have a vote on this bill at all tonight. Actually I'm not going to even drag this out because actually I want to have the vote on this bill tonight—and I've got a vote and I want it to count. So we are not supporting this bill.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): There's been a lot of supposition as to who this side of the House is actually representing. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh we know.CAMERON BREWER: We are representing Mr McAnulty people like those that were victims of the Christchurch earthquakes for example that might have moved out to other suburbs beyond Christchurch and are in a fight with the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and insurance and the Christchurch City Council and they've been forced out of their homes. Why can't they have a say? Why can't they have a say on who governs and how their property taxes are spent? Why can't the people of Muriwai that have been forced out of their houses and moved into other parts of Auckland—why can't they have a say on how their property taxes are governed and how they are spent when they are forced into another house in Auckland when they're up to their eyeballs with EQC with Auckland Council and with insurance? Why can't the people of Esk Valley that might have moved out of the Napier electorate and moved to Tukituki—why can't they have a say in their abandoned house with EQC with the council and with the likes of insurance companies? Why do they have to forgo their say? Why do the people of Coromandel after Cyclone Gabrielle—some of them were forced out of their area. Why can't they have a say with how the territorial local authority spends their money? Why can't the people of Kaikōura have a say—those that were forced out of Kaikōura in 2016 after the Kaikōura earthquakes? Why can't they have a say on how their district council spends their money while they face abandonment on their home ground?We are representing people from all over New Zealand who can't live in their houses for whatever reason but who need to have a say. They've got a vested interest in their property and so that's why we are not supporting this bill.
Wade-Brown CeliaCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Well I will briefly go back to 1852 where the franchise was based on property—but we have moved on. I want to start with a quote from the Dominion Post 8 June 2010: A voting loophole that could give property owners multiple votes has been labelled undemocratic by a Wellington mayoral candidate"—couldn't think which one. "The Wellington branch of the Property Council has sent a letter to property investors urging them to sway local body elections by utilising the little-known ratepayer roll. The Property Council letter urges members to register a nominee for each of their property interests. 'Often the sway of elected representatives can be a matter of only a handful of votes' says the letter signed by branch president Ian Cassels who lives on the Kāpiti Coast."Well if we go to the most recent by-election as the member said that was 45 votes. That was 0.5 percent. It wasn't even 1 percent of the votes so it could make a huge difference. So it's something to take seriously. But who pays the rates? Is it the property owner or is it the person renting? Excuse me but we expect generally that the rents would cover the costs of the house including the rates. So I say the citizenship the residency is what matters.The UK the USA states that I've been able to look at France Switzerland Denmark—there's a fairly random set of countries we call democratic; none of them—none of them—have got a ratepayer roll. So voting should be based on residency and citizenship not property ownership. I don't often quote David Farrar but he did say "I hope the bill passes first reading at least as it would be good to have a select committee process."Give it a chance. Have a think. Don't let those margins be caught up by a narrow pressure group that cares more about the value of their property and low rates than for libraries community services swimming pools roads cycle lanes. Whatever is done or not but done by the local council should be a matter for the people living in that area. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm going to join in congratulating the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for having her bill drawn. I'm not quite sure why we do that because it's a matter of luck—but you have to be in to win as they say so you were in to win on this one.New Zealand First is not going to support this bill and that is basically on the basis that we think there is other legislation which has been talked about already in this House which is going to be more comprehensive and we don't want to take too much of the House's time—valuable time—to consider one bill when a more comprehensive approach is planned to be taken.Look these issues are a balancing act. They're a balancing act between providing for business people's safety. I think we are a little concerned about that concept of the mental safety" because that could be—you know physical safety is one thing but mental safety is something which we could see some fairly long bows drawn and what we don't want to see is people hiding behind those sort of things and it being too hard to administer.But I think one point that I would make is that we've often seen—you know I could almost say "the late"—Fair Go operations like that where they have said "Look there is an issue some business is not behaving in a way which it should be behaving to its customers and its clients." Of course the media want to go or other people want to go and actually knock on somebody's door and say "Well hey Mr Business Person Mrs Business Person how are you doing are you behaving fairly to your customers?" I think the ability to be able to access those people and to be able to hold them to account actually is a really really important one.So finding the balance here between the safety of the business person and their responsibility to the people who are their clients is a really really important one. So we think that a more a more holistic approach that the Hon Andrew Bayly has talked about is the right way to go and we will not be supporting this bill."
Trask LauraLAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you. Firstly I just want to congratulate the member the Hon Deborah Russell for having this bill pulled from the tin. I also want to acknowledge her predecessor or her former colleague Sarah Pallett for her work in raising this issue. I also want to acknowledge our coalition partner and the Hon Andrew Bayly for the work that he will be doing in this space as well.The member's bill is very similar to a member's bill that actually I had in the ballot. I may say that I feel that ours could have quietly been a little bit more superior because it was covering a few more of these wider issues that we've seen discussed here tonight. Once I put my member's bill into the ballot I was inundated with messages of support and other complaints from many different people—mostly women but there were all kinds of different people. There were issues with stalking domestic violence violent threats fraud even the likes of spam mail for example going to people with their business's address.The thing is: if you're a director of a small business or a company do you deserve to have your public address made available? I feel personally as a former director of a company that this is actually very scary and very dangerous and it is not appropriate. I heard from a few people during the time that I did have my member's bill in the tin that there were concerns that you know big corp will be hiding their directorship. Well news flash: they already do. Because if you open a business or a company via an accountant the accountant's office is there—which I can tell you our business was. So this issue didn't directly affect me.Who it affects the most is actually your sole traders. It's your hairdressers it's your tradies it's your people that are working from home as well—and during COVID we saw quite a few businesses established from home. And to have your work address and your home address publicly displayed that is really unacceptable. What would be the benefits of having an address on the register at all? So this bill actually allows for an alternative address but really what is the benefit from having any address publicly available? I really honestly don't see the benefits. I want to support this bill considering that it was very similar to my own and it would be silly for me not to—acknowledging the fact that my colleague Andrew Bayly will be doing some work on this. I want to see it go to the select committee and hash out some of these issues that we are seeing.And yeah really that's all I have to say on it. I just want to congratulate the member again and say that I support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I rise in support of the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. As a true Marxist I'm not really one to stand up for the petite bourgeoisie but I think what this bill is trying to do is address structural issues relating to violence that may occur as a result of the way we have created a disclosure regime that does put people at risk of violence because of how easy as the previous speaker actually demonstrated it is to find some of that information. I think this bill has merit in that regard to unpack especially at a select committee stage how we can as we've identified utilise a test that protects people from those threats of violence and harm and therefore have a regime that would allow for people who are at risk to be protected.I think it's also worth unpacking at a select committee stage how do we create none the less the ability for companies' directors to be properly held to account for example by media. Media has often used those registers actually to then be able to hold companies' directors to account when there are things of public interest.So I think the select committee stage would've enabled a proper unpacking of specifically the concerns that the previous speaker raised and would've allowed for a more substantive debate on the nature of how do we protect people who under the current systems and structures are more at risk of violence and physical and mental harm while at the same time ensuring that companies' directors are held to account and we continue preventing phoenixing which is a practice that was identified as one that is still a problem in Aotearoa. For that reason we support this bill.
Valedictory Statement — Hon Grant Robertson
Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I start by acknowledging our colleague Rima Nakhle who has put her name to this amendment bill and who will be the one to see it through the process. It is a very-much-needed bill. It seeks to amend section 8 of the Corrections Act 2004—the focus of section 8 is to empower the chief executive of Corrections to establish and maintain processes to ensure that there is no unwanted contact by perpetrators of crime against their victims. Then there is section 12 which also provides that authority to prison managers to again establish and maintain the processes that will prevent unwanted contact.As I went through preparation and reading of this bill I am surprised myself that there remain opportunities and that these opportunities have been used a number of times by people who are in prison already to contact their victims. Central to crime particularly family violence is this assertion of power and intimidation and this intimidation cannot be allowed to carry on even as the perpetrator has already been put in prison. The process is long and so there are many perpetrators who are intent on disrupting that process and possibly continuing on with intimidatory contact with their victims to prevent them possibly from testifying in the cases particularly if they are themselves the claimants. So it is unbelievable that contact is continuing to be made.We have been given various and multiple examples of how this contact has been made. Multiple letters sent over time multiple repeated phone calls—up to 100 times; up to 90 times. I understand that the opportunity to make a call is given to prisoners and a call is able to be made to people on a list and these people would have given their consent to receiving a call. So there have been machinations about frustrating that list and having the very victims of the crime put on that list so that they are able to be called and contacted.The examples also have shown that continued calling and intimidation over the phone has resulted in a prolonged process where victims have themselves been cowered to not participate in the process and not testify to their experience as a victim and to add to the court process and facilitate the process. So it is clearly necessary that that unwanted contact and continued intimidation be stopped. The bill authorises the Corrections chief executive and prison managers to make sure they establish those processes to stop the unwanted contact. It is a necessary bill. We cannot not have this bill pass through. I commend this bill to the House.
Ferris TākutaTĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka otirā tēnā tātou. E Rima tēnā koe tēnā koe i tō kawe mai i tēnei pire ki mua ki te aroaro o tēnei o ngā Whare. Kei te hāngai tonu te titiro o Te Pāti Māori ki tēnei pire me te tautoko ake te tautoko ake i tā te whakaaro e mea nei kia āwhinatia te hunga kua tūkinotia i roto i te wā iti. Ā kia kaua anō hoki rā te hunga kua tūkino e tūkinotia anō e te kaitūkino.Nō reira e tautoko mārika nei mātou i tēnei tū a koutou me taku mahara ake ki a koe e Rima me tō tō ake i tēnei pire hei kawenga māu hei hāpaitanga mō ngā tamariki mō ngā mokopuna tae atu ki ngā whānau.Heoi anō kei te whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero kua puta i tēnei o ngā huihuinga me te mea nei kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero engari ngā kōrero i puta ake nei i tēnei taha kei te manako nui kei te hāpai tonu i tā te taha ki te tangata. Engari anō i tā mātou titiro ki ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga hou me te tango nei i te tahua pūtea mō te section 27 mai i te Tāhū o Justice me te tango ake i te 7AA i a Oranga Tamariki he tūkinotanga he turakitanga o ngā mana o te iwi Māori i raro iho mai i te Tiriti o Waitangi ka tahi.Heoi anō i roto i tēnei o ngā kawenga e Rima kei te kite ahau i tētahi paku whitinga o te rā kei te whai whakaaro nui te Kāwanatanga hou ki te mana o te whānau ki te mana o te wahine o te tāne o te tamaiti heke mai ki te mokopuna. Nō reira tēnā rā koe i tērā ōhākī ōu.Nō reira kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero engari ki te toko ake nei i tā Te Pāti Māori tautoko i tēnei o ngā pire. E Rima tēnā koe otirā kei te Pīka tātou katoa tēnā tātou.[Thank you Madam Speaker indeed greetings to all of us. Rima well done well done for bringing this bill before this of our Houses.The gaze of the Māori Party continues to focus on this bill in support in support of what the concept proposes—i.e. to assist the people who have been abused in a short time. Also that those who have been abused are not further abused by the abuser.And so we absolutely support your position as I consider you Rima and how you have brought this bill as a responsibility for you to uplift the children the grandchildren and also including families.However I consider the statements made during this assembly and I will refrain from repeating those statements but the comments that arose from this side are aspirational and continue to support humanity. But also in our observation of the actions of the new Government that include the removal of the budget for section 27 from the Ministry of Justice and the removal of 7AA from Oranga Tamariki this is abuse this is the subjugation of the authority of the Māori people that was granted under the Treaty of Waitangi firstly.However within this commitment Rima I see a small ray of sunlight in that the new Government is considering the authority of the family the authority of women of men of children and all the way down to the grandchildren. So thank you for that final commitment of yours. So I will not repeat the statements made but will endorse the Māori Party's support of this one of the bills. Rima thank you indeed Madam Speaker all of us greetings to everyone.]
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill and I would also like to acknowledge the member Rima Nakhle for bringing this bill to the House.Sadly many individuals are so obsessed that they will stop at nothing to contact their victim. I have worked with a number of victims who have lived in fear and have not known how to cope. Even though the perpetrator was behind bars they still lived in fear and they still held even shame of the actual crime.I feel that this bill is a wonderful way for us to now just add that extra level of protection for those who have suffered at the hands of crime some heinous crimes and often the perpetrator is very skilled and knows how to stay in the victim's head. And this is one way that the victim can be sure assured that there will be an extra level of protection. So it's something that's very close to my heart to be able to speak on this bill especially when you hear that people continue to carry the trauma of crime and it doesn't have to be that way.New Zealand First is very very happy to support this bill. New Zealand First is a party that prioritises the safety of all New Zealanders and we believe that we need robust measures in order to protect victims of crime and anyone who is vulnerable no matter how many years after a crime has taken place. So we will support the bill. It reinforces the principles of victim protection especially within the corrections system and it very much aligns with our goals New Zealand First goals of prioritising victims' rights to ensure there is accountability within our justice system.So how will this bill do this? Well as I already mentioned there is a new function for the chief executive to establish and maintain processes. They have to be established and I'm hearing what the members opposite are saying to ensure that there are secure processes and that these people are protected. This function is extended to managers as well. This will ensure an extra layer of accountability within the process. In any process you need a segregation of duties. You need more than one person assigned for one task. So this will be one way to ensure that at least there is some manageability within the process. And the third part of the amendment that I find to be very very good is that there is going to be that extra level of accountability to ensure that the processes have been carried out and that they are recorded and recording them in the department's annual report every year is one way of doing that. You cannot manage what you don't measure and if it is not recorded and accounted for then there is no way. So this bill will enhance transparency through this public reporting. I think that's probably about all I have to say. I've said a lot about the victims. I really wanted to focus on the victims who I am sure will feel that extra level of certainty and safety and know that the system is protecting them. So I commend this bill to the House on behalf of New Zealand First.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Te Pāti Māori requesting that the House remove GST from all food sales in Aotearoa and note that 19864 people have signed a petition to this effect.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: 2022-23 annual report for the New Zealand Productivity Commission.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of the Public Service Commission.SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Pugh MaureenWEDNESDAY 20 MARCH 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSMAUREEN PUGH (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 6
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.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 6 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 6 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the Schedule. The question is that Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to the Schedule inserting new clause 17A to Schedule 1AA 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.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan's tabled amendment to the Schedule replacing all actions" with "any actions" in new clause 18(2) of Schedule 1AA be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan's tabled amendment to the Schedule deleting "and declared to be and to have always been lawful" from clause 18(2) of Schedule 1AA 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 the Schedule 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.Schedule agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment."
O'Connor Greg; Kuriger BarbaraHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move That debate on this question now close.
Xu-Nan Lawrence; Doocey MattDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I think this is the third time that we are back talking about the ACC bill as part of the committee stage. So just to recap from last night if I may very briefly so when we are looking at clause 6—now clause 6 is the crux of the bill and one of the reasons that the Greens are not supporting this bill is because of the retrospective nature particularly as seen in clause 18 in new Part 5 inserted into Schedule 1AA.I know that previously the Minister for ACC has very kindly gone through some of the background and talked about the fact that this whole process in terms of the retrospectivity—and the reason that this is coming through as part of the legislation has been agreed upon by ACC and the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment but not necessarily had obviously the time to consult with businesses. I wanted to check with the Minister whether from a legality perspective the retrospectivity has been tested against the presumption against retrospectivity as one of the legal presumptions. The reason I mention this is again like in terms of any form of presumption we're looking at from a legal perspective there need to be some sorts of checks and balances and some sort of accountability and some sort of scope in which case it's not going to create a butterfly effect so to speak when we are introducing a particular bill into the House or that potentially has a follow-on effect in terms of both case law but also in terms of some of the other legal elements.So I guess my question to the Minister is: from a legality perspective has this been tested in the context of the presumption against retrospectivity and has there been any work done in terms of checking through case law on the broader implications this will have on other potential bills in the future that will be introduced that potentially will introduce a retrospective element or the historical context and precedence that was set as part of this retrospectivity? Yes we have previously explored the operational and the business—and I also understand even like colleagues from across the House talking about the potential burden on ACC if the retrospectivity was not introduced and the kind of legal implication it may have for ACC. But yes we talked about the operation bit but I wanted to ask from a legality perspective whether this is something that the Minister has considered or has been given advice on. So yeah that would be my question. Thank you.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Well thank you very much Mr Chair. To respond to my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan who's leading the charge in this epic hourly debate of the ACC bill: as he knows because it's been traversed many times before retrospectivity guidelines go through the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines and this bill meets their threshold.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move That debate on this question now close.
O'Connor GregTUESDAY 25 JUNE 2024(continued on Wednesday 26 June 2024)ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (INTEREST ON INSTALMENT PLANS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clause 6 Schedule 1AA amended (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good morning committee. We are resumed. When we finished last night we were on the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill.
Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.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.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
McCallum Grant; Kuriger BarbaraGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Well we are a Government that believes in delivering and fixing problems unlike the previous Government who procrastinated. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Tangi Utikere—this is a contested split call from earlier call No. 6 and Tangi was the first person to stand up and call.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you. This bill is pretty straightforward really. It's about common sense. It's about practical amendments that provide clarity. Therefore I commend it to the House.
Bates Carl; Kuriger BarbaraCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker. Business appreciates certainty; this bill provides certainty and clarity. I commend it to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. Camilla Belich.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a good opportunity to stand up and summarise I think the fact that the Minister for ACC has answered plentifully any concern raised from the opposite side. This is a very important administrative bill to make sure that it goes through and I'm very pleased on that note to be able to commend it to the House.
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker and a pleasure it is to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill. In New Zealand First we support this bill because it ensures that ACC's past practices of charging interest are legally validated preventing any legal ambiguities in potential disputes—so removing that potential risk to the Crown and ACC. New Zealand First also believes that the bill will promote transparency and fairness in how interest rates are determined and applied.So therefore we believe that this bill actually aligns also with our principles as a party of fairness and transparency providing necessary legal clarity and protecting the interests of both ACC and the levy payers as well thereby ensuring that our compensation system which is world renowned—and many of us have used it or our families have used the system. We've been reliant on it to support us through injury and into a healing pathway back to full health. So whatever we can do to ensure that our system remains robust with that fairness and transparency as well is going to ensure that we have a fair system for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm taking this call to support the third reading of the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill and I'm taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party. As the name says Interest on Instalment Plans" so that is what this bill is to fix. This is an issue about the interest on instalment plans that has been charged by ACC and this is something that has been happening for around 20 years. So it's not something new—Government after Government didn't notice this but it has been noticed now so it is important that we fix it.So what this legislation does is it validates the practice that ACC has been practising for a number of years—that is charging debit interest on one of the instalment plans. We know that ACC is a system that we all like and I know that it is the envy of a number of countries around the world. So ACC provides that support that is needed by those who get injured in an accident; this is regardless of fault and this takes cares of those bills that people might incur because of the GP visits. This also takes care of compensation for people missing out on income from their work. We want to see that the reputation of our ACC scheme is maintained and we also want to see that we are not exposing the Crown or ACC to any kind of legal risk and that's why this legislation is really important to be passed.It's important to note that what ACC does is it provides that option of paying a levy—of course people can pay their levy on an annual basis the whole amount—but then it gives the option of taking up the instalment plan and then people can pay in three months six months or 10 months. What has been happening is that for the 10-month plan ACC has been—in that payment that they received back from these people—charging debit interest. It is not very clear—it is not in the current legislation that they could do it and that is what we are trying to fix through this legislation. So basically ACC will be allowed to make the decision of charging debit interest once this legislation goes through.I have heard from members from the other side of the Chamber especially the Green member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan about the retrospective nature of this legislation. I want to emphasise that retrospective nature in any legislation is not common but in this legislation it's really important because this is something that has been happening for a number of years and it is about protecting the reputation of our ACC scheme and not exposing the Crown to any kind of risk. It's important that we fix this. It's not going to benefit an individual; it's about benefiting the whole scheme to make sure that the reputation of the scheme is intact. So the ACT Party is supporting this bill and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Doocey Matt; O'Connor GregThird ReadingHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): I move That the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.As I have mentioned the amendment bill will make it clear that ACC has the legal authority to charge debit interest on payments of work account levies by instalments. Instalment plans are an important resource for businesses and self-employed levy payers that may otherwise be unable to pay their ACC levies on time without other more expensive forms of finance. Charging debt interest ensures that both ACC and the levy payers who pay their levies in lump sums are not disadvantaged by having the option for paying by instalments available. The amendment bill clarifies that charging this debit interest is lawful ensuring that ACC can continue to charge debit interest in future. It also resolves an uncertainty over ACC's past and current practice of charging debit interest and draws a line under it.The amendment bill also provides a way for dividend interest on instalment plans to be updated in future. Any updates to the rates will only be made after public consultation on options and there will be no changes for levy payers when the amendment bill initially comes into force. The bill is preserving a reasonable and fair practice so it can continue.I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Tuesday 23 July 2024 (continued on Wednesday 24 July 2024) - Volume 776
Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill — First Readings
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Speaker and I'm sure the House will forgive me; just a few seconds to acknowledge Roy Williams of Levin quite possibly the first New Zealander to receive the British Nuclear Medal was presented on Monday. Only a few living survivors and veterans from that time and a very special day for him and his family and I'd just love to acknowledge Roy.From those in their senior years of life to those just starting out and this bill and I want to particularly focus on changes to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 and the work that this bill is doing to ensure paid parental leave policies are inclusive considering a diverse range of family structures that we might have these days. In particular I just want to highlight two important changes as I read through this; one starting around clause 45 is the protections that were sort of touched on briefly before for preterm babies: when a baby is born early and that extra leave is needed that doesn't impact the entitlement that the parents might otherwise have got to ensure that that baby gets the best start to life that it can which is so important to us. Secondly to those who might choose to stop work—a number of parents obviously want to return but some shortly after birth might choose to stop but they don't lose that entitlement thanks to these changes to still get that paid parental leave that they had earned by working leading up to that. I think that's really important. These bills going through are all about improving the effectiveness and the efficiency decreasing the administrative and bureaucratic burden that employers face so that we can let them get ahead and drive this economy and so that we can support families and young parents in particular as I focus on that one bill that's impacted to get the best done life for their family; so important to us. I commend this bill to the House. Motion agreed to.Bills read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is That the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is That the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to rise and speak to the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill. Indeed it's the first time in my experience that we have considered two bills as such as one before the House. I think it's an interesting exercise and a good use of the time within the House and within our parliamentary system to get a number of things done all at once in the best way that we possibly can.Can I also acknowledge the Minister Hon Melissa Lee for her work that she has done on this particular piece of legislation—the good work should I say Minister. In fact it is an omnibus bill that contains amendments to legislation administered by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—MBIE.I do acknowledge I guess the shift in tone from a couple of the last pieces of legislation in this House. The Māori wards legislation was a difficult one where we debated to now actually having some sort of consensus. I think that that's a good balance for our mental health within the day and for our country for that matter. At the same time I acknowledge the Minister's points around the importance of growth and productivity in this country and our attempt in this bill to address some of that. And I guess the little bit of ambition that I might see from this Government in this legislation to take Aotearoa New Zealand forward in some sense. I just wonder is this as ambitious as we get from this Government?What this bill does and my particular interest is how it modernises technology it looks at the systems that we have in place the regulatory systems. In fact it actually works across 24 pieces of legislation and 24 is a large number so it is a good use of our time in this House. Those Acts are: the Auctioneers Act Auditor Regulation Act Building Societies Act Charitable Trusts Act Contract and Commercial Law Act Crown Research Institutes Act Electricity Industry Act Fair Trading Act Financial Markets Conduct Act Financial Reporting Act financial services providers Act Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act Heavy Engineering Research Levy Act 1978 Industrial and Provident Societies Act Motor Vehicle Sales Act New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Act Partnership Law Act Personal Properties Securities Act Plant Variety Rights Act Standards and Accreditation Act—here's one that the Government loves the Takeovers Act—Telecommunications Act Trade Marks Act Weights and Measures Act. That is 24 Acts in this House that we are considering in these two pieces of legislation. It's a good use of time.We look forward to considering these across select committees in particular the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. And in due course I commend this bill to the House.