edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well I too rise to support the first reading of this bill the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill. People who are tuning in to Parliament will be aware that quite often members on both side of the House support legislation and in essence it's being covered—this bill is about ensuring that New Zealanders continue to have access to global capital through the EU by being up to speed with EU regulations and requirements around a particular element of the financial markets in the financial benchmarks. And so we need to get our law in shape by 1 January 2020 so as to enable continued access by New Zealand banks and major financial institutions to European funds. I suppose the only point I'd make is that when we talk about access to global capital that is a highly topical issue at the moment. And this bill shows that the Government is prepared to do what needs to be done in order to maintain that access to global capital. But they seem to be totally blind at the same time to the effects of other Government policies which are actually reducing our access to global capital whether it's our foreign investment rules or whether it's the introduction of a major new tax on investment the capital gains tax. So we support this bill. This is logical sensible stuff that needs to be done to ensure that we have access to global capital but we do lament the fact that the Government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to the impact of the other pieces of legislation that they are considering.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I too wish to rise and take a short call in support of this bill. I do want to acknowledge the member Ian McKelvie who has been I guess honoured by many speakers in the House for his tenacious will to bring to the fore the agenda of cattle rustling. I recall that in my first term of Parliament when I saw that bill I sort of laughed but as the issues have been highlighted and the Primary Production Committee has considered that particular piece of work this Government has picked it up and I think made it into a strong piece of legislation. I want to commend Ian McKelvie for continuing that fight and of course the Minister of Justice and the Primary Production Committee for picking up that piece of work.The House has really touched on a lot of the key facets of this particular bill. As we know in social democracies and modern civilisations the norms change regularly and what seemed OK 20 years ago now with today's generation is simply laughable or a distant memory. So this particular bill will obviously bring archaic laws in line with our social norms and in line with the contemporary values of this country. I think it's timely. The law around blasphemy—I'm sure my grandmother will be turning in her grave but her great-grandkids certainly don't see a need for it and I think this is a move in the right direction.The member the Hon Mark Mitchell also mentioned in his contribution the importance of making sure the repeal of spousal immunity. He highlighted a really good case there that I think really shows the importance of this particular piece of work to make sure that in circumstances like the one he described we don't protect those who perpetrate crimes and to make sure that in fact those who in the eyes of the court have a case to defend—I think they should be able to be brought in front of the court to defend that case. He highlighted a particular case of importance to the entire country which I'm sure has left a scar on the memory of our country and I want to commend him for using that example and of course the Minister for making sure that that particular part of the Act no longer applies—is repealed.Just in conclusion I thank the Justice Committee for the work that they have done on this particular bill the Minister and the previous Minister for continuing the work that's done in this space. As we look towards many of the more contemporary issues that confront us—and the biosecurity issue was mentioned—I think this is a move in the right direction that best reflects where our country is headed to and where we like to see ourselves. In actual fact when we look across much of the law and legislation in this country it isn't in line with that. So without further ado I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. There are two things I would like to touch on in my contribution on this bill. The first is the repeal of blasphemous libel that Angie Warren-Clark's bill first dealt with and it was taken up by the Minister in this amendment bill.Obviously the House thinks that this is an appropriate repeal. I just want to recognise and acknowledge that there were a small number of submitters who opposed it and they did oppose it on grounds of their own personal faith. I just want to make an observation that we should quite appropriately defend people's right to have religious views and it's something which this House sees on a number of occasions. But those views whatever their religion may be should not influence the content of the law itself. That's a separate thing altogether. So whilst I utterly respect the right of those submitters to their religious views there is no place in our law for the enforcement of religion through the arms of the State.The other thing I want to do is touch on the year and a day rule. Obviously the House is unanimous in agreeing that it should be repealed. But I want to address squarely the objection of Dr Smith—his view that it should be retrospective in application. I want to say right away that it was not accurate. He must have misheard because there was no personal abuse hurled across the House but there was considerable disappointment in his view. He asked: should it be the case that for a person who builds a building today or yesterday and it falls down in 30 years' time the engineer should be able to avail themselves of the year and a day defence. And I say quite clearly yes because what we are not in the business of doing is making something a crime tomorrow in respect of which the act occurred yesterday. If you did the act yesterday you are subject to the law that was in place at the time you committed the act. The crime and the defences at the time the act was committed are applicable. To do otherwise would be to take rights—vested rights—away from people retrospectively and there is no place in the law for that. Madam Assistant Speaker that is my contribution.
Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Crimes Amendment Bill in this third reading. The bill does three main things. It repeals three provisions and those provisions are repealed because—and it has been canvassed widely over the past three readings and committee of the whole House—they are outdated and one of the important things within a robust democracy is that the population and the country and the people of the country have trust in the justice system. One of those things in order to have that is that they understand and they trust that their justice system is modern up to date and applicable.The three provisions that this bill will be repealing are no longer applicable within modern-day society. Those three things are removal of the provision of a spousal or civil union immunity from prosecution for accessory after the fact blasphemous libel and the year and a day after rule. I also want to add that there was an amendment Supplementary Order Paper added that creates two new offences to address livestock rustling which was added in the committee of the whole House.I'd just like to say in this short speech that unfortunately this was intended to be a non-controversial piece of legislation and moved through the House but unfortunately there was an individual that decided to take a very serious matter which was the one year and a day rule and try and gain some political points and political manoeuvring out of it. It's unfortunate that that occurred. I'd like to say for people that have been following this bill through the House that Minister Andrew Little actually not only handled that issue well but also gave a very impassioned speech directly to the families of the victims who died in the CTV Building. Exactly why that individual was taking a political stance and not a practical one nor a right one—because if one looked at what that individual was attempting to do even in its basic form it would not work. The emotive arguments that were used to try to push that one person's agenda were in my opinion—and I think it's safe to say everyone on this side of the House's opinion—an utter disgrace.I would just like to finish on that note but New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. It's a common-sense bill. It really does a simple thing which removes those provisions which are outdated. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker.Chlöe Swarbrick: Go Bish!CHRIS BISHOP: I hear the good member Chlöe Swarbrick saying Go Bish!" I intend to go and I intend to go quickly because this is a sensible piece of legislation that the National Party has supported the whole way through. We've canvassed in the committee stages both at the Justice Committee and also the committee the whole House the changes around blasphemous libel which of course is outdated and archaic. We support its repeal. Frankly I think Parliament could have moved a bit quicker in the past to get rid of blasphemous libel from the statute book; although having said that the last prosecution I think from memory was in 1907—so one could say that after 112 years it was not going to be used any more.Hon Tim Macindoe: Was Mr McKelvie in the courtroom?CHRIS BISHOP: Mr McKelvie was not in the courtroom. That's a gross insult to Mr McKelvie Mr Macindoe. You're going to live to regret that remark. The manager of the parliamentary cricket team does a superb job.So we support the blasphemous libel changes and we also support the other changes around the year and a day rule. My colleague Nick Smith has I believe attempted unsuccessfully to move some changes around that at the committee of the whole House.We support the sensible changes around spousal immunity from being an accessory to a crime after the fact. This is one of those I was going to call it "tidy-up" pieces of legislation; I think that's a bit unfair. It is a piece of legislation that does a bit more than tidying up; it does make some relatively minor but chunky changes to the Crimes Act.I think it's good that our criminal law is passed with unanimity or at least some cross-party consensus. It's the criminal code for New Zealand—or at least the partial code for the criminal law. The National Opposition supports the bill and we commend it to the House."
Williams PotoCRIMES AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 21 February.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): When we were last reading the Crimes Amendment Bill Greg O'Connor had nine minutes and 16 seconds remaining to speak. It appears that the member will not take his call.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to take a brief call not so much on the title because it would be hardly likely to name the title of this with anything other than what it is but I did want to take a call on what is a slightly unusual—well in my experience a little bit unusual in that the commencement date is the commencement date but interesting there's a retrospective piece in this bill which deals with the prospective of purchase of bloodstock. It's quite an unusual addendum to the legislation in that respect in that it allows irrespective of the commencement date of the bill that these are treated retrospectively back to effectively the date of purchase prior provided it is after 1 January 2019. I thought it was worth mentioning in this brief call I'm going to take on this part of the bill because it is a bit unusual and as I said—Andrew Bayly: Call it a Winston Peters special.IAN McKELVIE: Yes you could do too. But as I said earlier in a contribution to an earlier part of the bill it was a piece of legislation that was designed to achieve something which it clearly hasn't achieved initially. It may well do in the future but we'll see. But I just thought I'd take a very brief call to just point out the fact that it is unusual and that that part of the legislation—in fact clause 133B and from there on—would have become I guess effectively treated as retrospective legislation and anyone who purchased a yearling prior to the implementation of this bill could have worked to claim that tax exemption on it. So Mr Chair that was just the brief contribution I wish to make to that part of the bill. Thank you.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Mr Chair thank you. This is going to be a very brief call. I thank the Minister for answering the question I put to him a little while earlier about KiwiSaver contributions and why not a lower threshold at 2 percent.The Minister in his answer said—and I have to paraphrase a little as of course the Hansard isn't out yet. But the Minister in his answer said that at the moment there are around 2.9 million people in KiwiSaver and therefore that appeared to evidence that the 3 percent threshold was fine. Well I believe the rough number the Minister used of 2.9 million people is the number of people enrolled in KiwiSaver. And we well know that the number of people enrolled in KiwiSaver is not equal to the number of people making regular contributions to KiwiSaver. If the number of people not making regular contributions to KiwiSaver were significant that would in itself—I would contend—be a very good sign that perhaps the current lowest threshold at 3 percent is not low enough.So my question to the Minister is quite simple: if there are around 2.9 million people in KiwiSaver how many of them are not making regular contributions at this point in time? Thank you Mr Chair.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The question is that the Hon Stuart Nash's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 188 and 189 be agreed to.Gareth Hughes: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We're in the middle of a vote.Gareth Hughes: It regards the vote Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we just complete—Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I was just under the understanding that Supplementary Order Papers 188 and 189 would be voted on separately.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just let me take some advice on that. OK. We will do that.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Williams PotoPart 3 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Now we come to the debate on Part 3 which is clauses 104 to 222 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007" and Schedules 1B 2 and 3."
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much. Just answering a couple of questions that have come up in the sort of five or 10 minutes I've been here. Mr Alfred Ngaro: no I won't be using my discretion at all to charities but what I would say is there is a review of charities law at the moment. If you are interested in submitting then I recommend you do. It is a fulsome review and it may well address some of the concerns you have and that you've brought up with regard to this piece of legislation. So have a go there.With regard to the last speaker: yes I am very very comfortable with the commissioner's role. The commissioner will not be breaking the law in any way shape or form. I am very comfortable with the safeguards in place and certainly now knowing how Inland Revenue operate of course they will operate well within the bounds of the law. You did point out yourself sir that the word may" is here which does not compel the commissioner in any way shape or form to undertake any course of action. The commissioner may apply to a District Court judge—well I suppose that is if the commissioner feels that that would add value to an investigation or they need someone more independent than the commissioner herself or himself or whoever is the commissioner at that point in time. That the judge has the jurisdiction of a civil court action—at this point in time I would suggest that it is civil; it's not criminal. You may find that out of any investigation or out of any inquiry there comes a criminal investigation but my understanding in reading this is that it is an inquiry at this point in time; it is not a trial and no one has been determined to have done anything wrong hence the reason for civil. That would be my reading of it.You are right. We have given the judge certain powers. But again I would suggest that the judge will use his or her powers with discretion in determining the best course of action to undertake and complete an inquiry. Again there's no compulsion here and hence—and you yourself mentioned this—we are not compelling the judges by saying that they must do this. It is really saying that if the judge feels that in the course of the inquiry they need to bring interested parties in or they need to take this course of action then they have the ability to do that as opposed to a compulsion saying they must do this. But back to the commissioner's powers: the commissioner does have wide-ranging powers in terms of investigation as should be the case. But I am very comfortable—having sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for a number of years and had a look at this legislation—with the powers that we have conferred upon the commissioner to undertake investigations and in fact I'm very comfortable with the powers we conferred upon the commissioner to undertake her job full stop. Thank you."
Visitors — Canada—Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Mr Chair thank you very much. It was interesting hearing Alastair Scott talk about KiwiSaver. I look forward to his contribution on Part 4 which I think deals with KiwiSaver and in terms of abatement rates that was quite interesting as well. But that's also another section of the bill. My understanding is that we're doing this part by part. If they wanted to do the bill as a whole then I'm sure we can consider that. But this is just about the annual rates that Mr Scott said were outdated. Well they have been there since 2010 so if the Government of which Mr Scott had been part of the previous Government—if they had wanted to change it you had a long time to do it son. You didn't do it. They haven't been done. We think they're pretty good at the moment but what we have done is we have asked the Tax Working Group to take a look at this and take a look at the fairness the balance the integrity and the structure of tax in general. So as it is—where it stands at the moment—is that these are the rates. It's one clause. A simple clause—very easy. Let's keep the debate on to that or we'll have to close this down. Thank you very much.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 5 MARCH 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSCanada—Commonwealth Parliamentary AssociationSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome the honourable members of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association led by Yasmin Ratansi MP who are present in the gallery.
Thursday 7 March 2019 - Volume 736
Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 April 2019 and that the Social Services and Community Committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
12. Question No. 12—Māori DevelopmentRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori DevelopmentQuestion No. 12—Māori Development12. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: Is the Ahuwhenua Trophy important for Māori agribusiness; if so how?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): The Ahuwhenua Trophy is the most prestigious award in Māori agriculture and it highlights the huge contribution that Māori have made to the agricultural sector. This year there are three finalists—and much to the pleasure of our colleague Meka Whaitiri all from Te Tai Rāwhiti—in the beef and sheep category of this competition. The Māori economy is worth $50 billion to Aotearoa. Over the past three decades the Māori agribusiness sector has grown exponentially not only in sheep and beef but also in dairy. I'm pleased to announce that horticulture will be a new category added to the competition and will be recognised for the first time next year. Māori are seeking to move into the value-add space increasing returns from their whenua and contributing to the well-being of their whānau community and the New Zealand economy and the Government wants that success to grow. Rino Tirikatene: What is the long-term prognosis for Māori agriculture?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Well while we don't have a crystal ball and while we celebrate the success of Māori in the agricultural sector we can always do more. Over 40 percent of Māori land is considered underutilised; there are thousands of acres of undeveloped Māori land with no governance structure and many small land blocks with fragmented ownership that inhibits the viability of their development potential. We're making changes to support a package of reforms that will comprise targeted amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act an improved data and information base to assist governance and land capability decisions and support for Māori landowners to organise themselves to plan towards their development aspirations for their whenua and whānau. We want Māori landowners to tap into the potential of their land by encouraging hands-on participation good governance and decision making. These reforms will help deliver intergenerational change and better well-being outcomes for whānau. Rino Tirikatene: What role does the recent $100 million whenua fund announcement play in growing the potential of Māori agriculture?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Fantastic question and thanks to our coalition partners of the Government the announcement of the $100 million Whenua Māori Fund within the context of the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) is designed to support the move towards higher-value land use complement other whenua initiatives that ensure there is end-to-end support for Māori landowners such as capability building and feasibility work and enable Māori to access capital required to progress projects which are investment-ready. The PGF funding will not only help Māori landowners who find it difficult to raise mainstream bank finance but also make our regions more prosperous just like we said we would.
Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers (Continued)
11. Question No. 11—EducationSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 11—Education11. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his policies and actions around the review of vocational education and his work in the portfolio?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.Simeon Brown: Is legislation in the process of being drafted to reform vocational education?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a variety of work streams on this one of which is looking at if the model as proposed proceeds what legislation would be required to enact that. As part of that they're also canvassing other alternatives as well. Simeon Brown: What functions will be centralised into the proposed single national polytechnic and has any modelling been undertaken to determine how many jobs will move from local polytechnics to Wellington?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question decisions haven't been made on that yet which means the answer to the second part of the question is no.Simeon Brown: Will he commit to ensuring any jobs established by the consolidation of back-office functions are kept out of Wellington and kept in the regions especially given the Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement which commits to relocate Government functions into the regions"?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.Simeon Brown: Did he listen to concerns from Otago Polytechnic on Tuesday that brand matters for polytechnics and will he commit to local polytechnics such as Otago polytech retaining their own local brand and brand name?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question yes. In answer to the second part of the question that's something we're getting a lot of feedback on and I think they're making a very compelling case."
9. Question No. 9—JusticeGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 9—Justice9. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Justice: What recent reports has he seen regarding victims' views of the criminal justice system?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I have seen the preliminary results of the Strengthening the Criminal Justice System for Victims survey run by the Chief Victims Advisor. The survey shows that of the participants who responded 76 percent felt that their views concerns and needs weren't listened to throughout the justice process while 79 percent felt that they hadn't had the information or support that they needed. As the survey shows we have to do better for victims of crime and this Government is committed to making reforms in our criminal justice system that does just that.Greg O'Connor: What other results did the survey show?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The survey results also showed that 83 percent of participants don't feel that the criminal justice system is safe and secure for victims. That accords with what victims and their advocates are telling me. They wanted to know clearly where they stand and what their place is in the system and they want to be respected and treated with dignity in it.Greg O'Connor: Why is it important that the Government hear from victims of crime?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One thing that sets victims apart from every other participant in the criminal justice system is that they haven't made any choice to be there. I was privileged to attend a workshop this week of victims and their advocates and their message to me was very clear: victims want their voices heard they want access to support and they want to be treated with dignity. Our criminal justice reforms must ensure that justice is done not just to offenders and the community but also to victims.
6. Question No. 6—EducationJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding gifted children in New Zealand?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Last Wednesday I was very pleased to announce at MindPlus East a one-day school for gifted learners at Riverina School in Pakuranga a $1.27 million package of funding that includes support for one-day schools for New Zealand gifted children. There are an estimated 40000 gifted learners in New Zealand and restoring support and funding for gifted education is a priority for this Government and is one of a suite of education policies inside our coalition agreement. Along with the funding for one-day schools we have upgraded the gifted website to help parents and teachers and introduced new awards for gifted students.Jenny Marcroft: When was the last time funding for gifted children was addressed?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Gifted education funding was reduced in 2009 from $2.7 million down to $1.27 million. Since 2009 this funding was used solely for the professional development of teachers. This time it's all about the children. We have redirected the funding in recognition that these children require different interventions to have their needs met; for example giving them the opportunity to learn alongside like-minded peers in one-day schools. We have developed this package in consultation with a group of experts and practitioners on gifted education. This group will also assist in the monitoring of how well the needs of gifted learners are met.Jenny Marcroft: Supplementary?SPEAKER: No before the member does ask it I'm going to insist that the Minister answer the question.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I believe there was possibly an enlightened Minister of Education in a previous Parliament—I'm not sure I can refer to him by name without actually breaching the Standing Orders—but I understand he was one of the wise individuals that originally noted gifted children needed this support.Jenny Marcroft: And why do our gifted children need this support?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: As you possibly well know every child should be supported to be the best they can be. We recognise that gifted learners are unique and have diverse needs. Just like other students with additional learning needs gifted learners deserve the extra support to ensure that they receive the right educational opportunities. I am pleased that through this Government's prioritisation we have been able to make this happen.
5. Question No. 5—EducationMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 5—Education5. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What feedback has he received during his visits to institutes of technology and polytechnics as part of consultation on the reform of vocational education?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Quite a lot. During my recent visits to NorthTec and Otago Polytechnic both of those institutions presented me with detailed proposals for how they think an alternative vocational education system could work whilst improving the connections that currently exist between iwi industry employers and other stakeholders in their region when it comes to delivering vocational education and training. I've been encouraging all of the stakeholders around the country who have a view on this to put forward their proposals and their views on the proposals that the Government has released so that we can continue to refine and develop a new system for vocational education and training in New Zealand—something that almost everybody who has been contributing to this debate has argued is necessary.Marja Lubeck: What other regions will he be visiting over the next few weeks?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Over the next few weeks I'll be in New Plymouth to visit the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki I'll be in Palmerston North to visit the Universal College of Learning and where possible I'll be visiting others around the country as part of the consultation exercise. In total there are 107 consultation engagement events throughout New Zealand over the next few weeks to ensure that everybody affected by or with an interest in the planned reforms of vocational education and training can have a say. Many of those of course I won't be at but we will be ensuring that the people who are there are able to engage receive feedback and answer any questions.
Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee it was really good to hear 18 submissions on this bill in terms of the changes it makes and it enables New Zealanders really to have a better access in participating in their local democratic structures. So the main point really is that this is an omnibus bill that really brings a lot of that legislation up to date. It's good to take the time out of the busy legislative programme to make sure that all of our pieces of legislation are fit for purpose.This particular omnibus bill amends seven different Acts and some of those key changes that we see are really important to make sure that we're doing things in the proper way. One of the interesting changes is the different way in terms of notifying public notices. So we've seen a big change away from print media and not very many people would read the public notices in the Dominion Post or the New Zealand Herald on a daily basis so it's good to be able to see a new requirement for local authorities to publish notices on their websites as well as in traditional community newspapers. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. I have to congratulate and acknowledge Jamie Strange for his dogged determination to stay on task with his speech. I will make a very short contribution to the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. It's quite ironic that we're talking about this as the local government stakeholder function gets underway.It is as Denise Lee said earlier a bit of repairs and maintenance to seven statutes that we've got before us today. Ironic as it may seem I do want to turn my mind to the Dog Control Act and the work that the Governance and Administration Committee did around the legal definition of disability assist dogs" and it may come up again in the committee of the whole House stage but definitions also around special-purpose dogs—so dogs that have been trained for special purposes such as search and rescue dogs or dogs that have been trained to detect cancer for instance in the medical profession. So I think there is an opportunity there to further expand the definitions that we've got inside the Act. I do note and I acknowledge former mayor and colleague the Hon Ron Mark. We know that central government policy as it trickles down into local government does create some ambiguity and often some inconsistencies. So this is a very good bit of repairs and maintenance to make sure that we do make this fit for purpose in today's day. Look that's my contribution. I commend this bill to the House."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's great to be speaking as the member of Parliament for the mighty Pakuranga and it's great to be taking a short call on the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. I just want to start by acknowledging the good local government representatives who represent the Pakuranga electorate the members of the Howick Local Board and our Howick councillors Sharon Stewart and Paul Young who do an excellent job advocating on behalf of people in the Pakuranga electorate and making sure their voices are heard.I do want to just make a few comments. This is a bill which amends a number of bills—it's the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee for the work that they have done and also to acknowledge those who made submissions to the select committee as well—I think five people came and presented and gave evidence—for the time that they took to be able to input into making sure this legislation was fit and proper.Now there have been a number of comments on the different pieces of legislation that this bill amends and I would like to just make a couple of comments in relation to the amendments to the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act 1987. This piece of legislation in my view is a very important constitutional piece of legislation. It gives the public the rights to be able to know and to be able to hold to account those officials who do represent at local government level and it also ensures that the affairs of local governments are held in a public open and transparent process. The amendments which are being proposed here ensure that meetings are publicly notified in a more efficient way.I think at the moment when you open up your local paper and you generally go to the last page you generally see these half-page adverts with a whole lot of information and that's where the detail is placed. Often they're in the daily newspapers and not everyone gets the daily newspapers. So this allows for more of that information to be required to be put online and more of it to be required to be put into the local papers which people do get if those ones are available and they are frequent enough to be able to be made available. I think that will allow more people to be able to actually get the information that they need and then to be able to be made aware whether it's a notification for a meeting or a notification for consent or whatever that notification might be.So as I said this bill is making small amendments but important amendments. I hope that it can be part of a continuous cycle of improvement to our local government regulatory systems so that we can continue to ensure that local government becomes more productive. I commend this bill to the House.
Bidois Dan; Williams PotoDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today in support of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge first and foremost the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for bringing this to the House today. I would also like to acknowledge the previous Minister of Local Government the Hon Anne Tolley for the work that she put into this bill which started under the previous National Government.I rise in support of this bill because of the importance of local government. As a local MP in Northcote I just want to say that local government has extreme importance to people's lives. As an MP the amount of time that people come to me with local government - related issues is large and I spend a lot of my time as a local MP dealing with local government issues. The essence of this bill which is about improving the effectiveness and the efficiency of local government processes and systems and structures I think cannot be underestimated on this front.As the previous speaker mentioned this was arisen through the 2016 Productivity Commission report on regulatory systems and Government administration. The Acts that this bill affects—these seven Acts—have been traversed quite extensively so I won't go into each but I will point out one Act which is amended under this bill which is the Local Electoral Act 2001. This bill essentially seeks to empower local governments around improving the engagement and participation in local government elections. We know in Auckland that that is an issue where only about 40 percent actually vote in local government elections. So we understand the importance of improving the engagement and giving councils the tools and the authority and the mandate to do that for our civic society.Again these bills have been traversed quite substantively and the reason that we're supporting it is because we want local government to work well. We want to improve participation in local government elections. We want to remove unnecessary compliance costs for business and for residents. We want to clarify existing provisions in the bill and also update any small areas as well. So this is an omnibus bill and I very much support this bill in the House. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Paul Eagle you have five minutes.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a call. Like others before me I intend for it to be brief. We do support this bill and it's good to hear the previous speaker Ron Mark refer to the Productivity Commission and their July 2014 report. This bill does emanate from that particular report and was of course started by the previous National Government.Sometimes you don't get chances to tidy up and the chances don't come around too often especially when you have a very full Order Paper and that described the last Government. When we first debated this the Order Paper wasn't so full under this Government. So here we are still many months on finally getting round to a tidy-up. That Productivity Commission report of course addressed that exact topic where they found that the parliamentary calendar doesn't always leave time for repairs and maintenance if we can put it that way.As we know the bill amends seven statutes and I found one bit fascinating from commentary from the Governance and Administration Committee and that was how they covered—and great work from the select committee—a lot of modernising and the need for publications to be digitally available but they went so far as to also mention how to spruce up newspaper publications as well. Where they refer to clause 15(2) in amending the definition of public notice" and in clause 29 amending the definition of "publicly notified" there was support for that but the committee wanted to note that they would wish for further gains to be achieved in updating the form requirements of public notices in newspapers—yes the old-fashioned newspaper form. So while we've heard some contributions tonight on online and digital access the committee had the foresight to also look to spruce up how newspaper notifications are presented and they went so far as to say "Can we get a plain explanation of the subject matter in those newspaper notices and can we have reference to a source where you can find more detailed information." So my congratulations to the committee—you certainly got into some detail on many different topics.We commend this bill. It's a bill that started under our tenure and the Productivity Commission might be proud that we're getting around to repairs and maintenance. Thank you."
Mark RonHon RON MARK (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I do rise to take a short call on this bill and to commend the Governance and Administration Committee: the chair Brett Hudson and Ginny Andersen Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi the Hon Jacqui Dean—who spoke in the first reading and who had been a Minister overseeing the initial writing of this bill at the time and I want to acknowledge her for that work that she did in the previous term of Government—Paul Eagle the Hon Peeni Henare Jamie Strange and Dr Yang who just concluded. It is a technical bill and going through the select committee report—not having sat on the committee—I think the committee has done the legislation justice. I want to acknowledge Minister Mahuta because she has taken on board those issues raised by the select committee during their deliberations and clearly factored those changes into the legislation. Bills like this can be a little bit technical. Some of us who have served in local government can get a little excited sometimes to finally see some things tidied up. This is like a repair and maintenance session on the bill. It is a little interesting that it's taken so long for some of these technical adjustments to be put right but put right they will be over the next few weeks as the House moves this legislation through all stages.I think some of the things that were covered off—in fact I think I spoke about it in the first reading—were matters that were raised by the Productivity Commission back in 2014 that were impediments to the more efficient operation of local government. Being a mayor in local government I was acutely aware at times that the legislation was out of date was clunky was not using the tools available and did not as the Hon Peeni Henare said take into account the fact that time's moved on. People now use their devices in their hands. They use their laptops—they go to the internet to access public information from the councils. I think requiring the councils to make some reports more publicly available and to actually publish them—and I see the information around dog control—are good things.Often when councils don't proactively publish information it does raise suspicions and concerns and conspiracy theorists start talking about councils hiding information. Most often it's not that at all. Most often it's just that the council hasn't thought to publish that sort of information or make it readily available and I refer specifically to those aspects covered under the public notices. The part I would've actually enjoyed sitting in on at the select committee and listening to had I been allowed to was the discussion around the changes to the Local Electoral Act and how the council goes about encouraging enticing more participation. Those matters were dealt with quite ably by the select committee and I congratulate them for that. I can't say a lot more. The bill is pretty simple actually. It's astonishing it's taken this long to get to the House. But I compliment all members of the select committee for the way in which they have studiously handled this legislation. Thank you.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak briefly on the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. As I said in the first reading of the bill New Zealand has a very complex and large regulatory sector made up of 200 or so regulatory regimes and more than 10000 people work in the regulatory roles. So the regulatory regime is a very important piece of Government infrastructure. The regime or systems need to be updated from time to time simply because over time you will find inconsistencies gaps outdated paths or errors. So such bills the regulatory systems amendment bills are efficient vehicles for us to address such problems. In that sense these bills are a tool for us to repair and maintain existing legislation. Such bills also can reduce costs. For example in this particular bill we redefined the definition or replaced the definition of disability assist dog" in the Dog Control Act 1996. The original Act has a definition which includes a list of organisations authorised to certify a dog as a disability assist dog. But every time you had to add one particular organisation or remove one organisation from the list we had to actually legislate. So this bill will simply remove that list and also could actually have a list by adding or removing an organisation from the list through regulations instead of through legislation. So this will actually reduce the costs. Also the Governance and Administration Committee made a further change to the bill by asking local government to make publicly available all the reports related to dog control matters—matters like the number of registered dogs or the number of complaints about those dogs or prosecutions taken. So this is a bill which we believe is important although it's not a major policy bill.The Productivity Commission has found that it's difficult to find a time on the parliamentary calendar to deal with repairs or maintenance of certain legislation. For that reason our regulatory agencies often find it hard to deal with legislation because legislation can be out of date or not fit for purpose. So this bill is a step in the right direction. For that reason I commend the bill to the House."
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: I move That the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 22 July 2019.Motion agreed to.