edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to take a short call on the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill—probably the thing that I don't like most is the name. This is a local bill sponsored by the Hon Nick Smith on behalf of the Tasman District Council. I've not had the pleasure of sitting on the Governance and Administration Committee during the process of select committee and therefore I feel quite privileged that I have the opportunity after about 17 years of hard work across this community to have a speech and to speak in this final debate.I'm given to understand that the scheme has been in planning for nearly 20 years and our Government as the member Marama Davidson has noted is going to wind down now from this public funding from these kind of events. But we made a promise that we would honour commitments to schemes that were sufficiently advanced and we have agreed to keep that promise. I want to commend everyone who has worked very carefully on this bill and to note that we've put $42 million towards this dam of a total cost of $99 million. The community will own this and they will pay back for a long time but it will improve the needs of the community including the berry farmers and we all love a boysenberry.I think that I will leave it there. I do commend this bill to the House.
Yang Jian; Rurawhe AdrianDr JIAN YANG (National): I'd like to speak very briefly on this bill. It is very hard to understand the logic of Marama Davidson the previous speaker but I will focus on just three points. Number one is that local people have wanted such a dam for decades. The first study was commissioned in the early 1970s but it was not until the big dry in the year 2000-01 that the big dry highlighted the problem with water shortage because the drought was the most serious one that local people had experienced in 60 years and basically it affected everyone in the region. So the first point is that people have wanted it for many years. The second point is that there is a huge benefit economically. We can understand that horticulture is particularly important to New Zealand with a national value of over $8.8 billion and the Nelson-Tasman region is particularly important to our horticulture. So the dam will help to make the horticulture in the region more sustainable. It will create more jobs and environmentally this dam will help the flow of the Waimea River which means it will have a better river ecology because of the continuous flow of the river. The final point is that it has not been easy to come to this stage so we need to thank many people including local leaders organisations scientists and also of course Dr Nick Smith for his contribution. So it is a good bill. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's an absolute delight to rise in support of the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. I understand it's the 50th bill supported by the Hon Nick Smith in this Parliament. It's quite an achievement Dr Smith. Well done.Just reflecting too on the member who's just resumed his seat Mark Patterson waxing lyrical about irrigation and how great it was for New Zealand and yet it is his party and his Government that has killed off the irrigation fund that this project will be the last beneficiary of. Instead New Zealand will have to rely on the largesse of the Hon Shane Jones with his $3 billion slush fund if there are to be any more irrigation projects supported—Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Greens say No irrigation."BRETT HUDSON: —and which the Greens as Dr Smith notes don't support at all. But none the less we absolutely support this very practical and pragmatic step for the people and region around the Tasman District.Ultimately this bill is about supporting the livelihoods of the people who live in the area. It's estimated that over 25 years this dam will help to secure an additional $925 million of economic product or gross domestic product (GDP) to that area of the country. In contrast if the dam were not to proceed the risk to the same area is a negative loss of $1 billion in GDP. Now when we talk of gross domestic product too often it's seen as some abstract economic concept. It's not. It fundamentally equals jobs and livelihoods of people. This dam which secures water supply for businesses and residents is a means to providing and securing jobs for many hundreds and thousands of people who over the course of this dam's lifespan will benefit from the jobs that can be sustained from it. That's about opportunity for New Zealanders; the opportunity for jobs and futures and the opportunity for them and their families to live the lives they want. By taking this step in the House today Parliament supports those people to get ahead.I've reflected as I've listened to contributions how can I help right now for this to proceed? The most effective way that I can help right now for this to proceed is to commend this bill to the House."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise also to support the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill to the House. There are a number of people who should be acknowledged: Mayor of Tasman District Council Richard Kempthorne and his councillors and the proponents of this dam project who have worked—and that wasn't a joke but it has been an at times lengthy and troublesome project for community leaders and proponents of the bill. I want to acknowledge also the Hon Nick Smith who has steadfastly supported this bill and the Waimea Community Dam over the course of the last 18 or so years.Our part in Parliament is the easy part of this process and I want to acknowledge most of Parliament for seeing the value and the sense in providing this supporting piece of legislation in providing for access over Crown land and in providing easements so that the local community and the council can get on and get the job done.What was very apparent to us as Governance and Administration Committee members when we travelled to Nelson to hear submissions on the dam was that for some people there was an awful lot to gain and for other people there was an awful lot to lose. As parliamentarians as select committee members our job was to listen with an open and clear mind to the evidence and to the values and concerns expressed to us which we did. We spent a considerable amount of time listening to those voices.Those who felt they had a lot to lose—their arguments were based around environmental concerns financial concerns about the cost of this bill whether or not security of water was in fact needed or maybe there were other ways to achieve security of water supply. Then there were those voices who had an awful lot to lose and it was those voices such as those in the forestry industry those in the horticulture industry—in fact economic development of all kinds and of every nature throughout the Waimea district—and those voices we also heard.It is the measure of a community and a measure of its local authority and the proponents of a large project such as this that they have had the perseverance to keep working at this project and not give up because a large capital project in a relatively small community is never going to be easy—not in any way is it ever going to be easy. So I want to end my intervention and my support by just again acknowledging and thanking all of those people from the community leaders to the supporters to all of those who gave their views in support or not in support—acknowledging them all. Very soon I hope we will be celebrating the passage of this bill and then the dam really truly can commence. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.
SpeechHouse resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Smith Nick; Rurawhe AdrianTASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WAIMEA WATER AUGMENTATION SCHEME) BILLIn CommitteeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek the leave of the committee for the seven clauses to be taken as one question with one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.
Points of Order — KiwiSaver (Compassionate Consideration) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce
Young Jonathan; Mallard TrevorNEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCIL (WAITARA LANDS) BILLInstruction to CommitteeJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I seek leave for the committee of the whole House on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill to be able to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 184 despite Standing Order 302(3).SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.
Willis Nicola; Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.POINTS OF ORDERKiwiSaver (Compassionate Consideration) Amendment Bill—Leave to IntroduceNICOLA WILLIS (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the KiwiSaver (Compassionate Consideration) Amendment Bill in my name and for this bill to be set down as members' order of the day No. 1.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Tuesday 11 December 2018 (continued on Wednesday 12 December 2018) - Volume 735
Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 in the name of Stuart Smith to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 154 in the name of the Hon Dr Megan Woods to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's an honour to speak on this second reading. It's a very short bill so I'll be very short as well. Basically we've heard that this bill is not changing any of the core of the Accident Compensation Act; it's just changing some of the inconsistencies tidying it up. I do want to also mention the 25 submissions we received 13 being out of scope but the majority of those as we have heard from previous speakers having very heartfelt deep concern about the ACC Act and the scheme. As we've heard we have a commitment to do some further work on this Act and I'm looking forward to being part of that. Thank you. Bill read a second time.The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Wednesday)
Curran ClareACCIDENT COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 6 December.Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Mr Speaker thank you. As I was saying this bill is making a series of changes to boundaries. I think that's probably a good way of referencing it which the Associate Minister for ACC Hon Peeni Henare said in his speech at the beginning of this reading rather than at the core of the scheme. It does two things. It's looking at addressing that gap in ACC coverage for families of employees who were posted overseas in the course of their employment which is a vital change. It might seem like a small change but it's a vital change because it's about not discouraging people from representing New Zealand's interests abroad and about the impact that it has on their families by not being eligible for ACC.The second thing that I want to touch on is that interface between the weekly compensation and superannuation and the choice that is forced upon people who are injured close to retirement age. What this bill is doing is responding to a declaration by the Human Rights Review Tribunal that was forcing surviving spouses or partners to choose between New Zealand super and ACC's survivors' payments. They said that was discriminatory on the basis of age. What they did when responding to the changes that are proposed in this bill is that the Human Rights Review Tribunal expressed its approval and I do just want to reference this. They said that a person injured in a non-fatal accident is compensated for loss of earnings. Those earnings will necessarily come to a natural end on the retirement of the individual from the workforce and logically compensation must end at the same point. In this regard they said this change was an appropriate proxy for the fixing of that point. It was also backed up by the Ministry of Justice which in a report on consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act said that this policy may have a discriminatory effect on the basis of age for a small group of people but that they consider it justified and they went on to explain why that is.I think we all agree in the House that this is a sensible bill. It is making changes around the boundaries. It is not going to the core ACC changes—those things will come down the track. This is a significant bill. It's at the boundaries.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It is an absolute privilege to speak for a very short time in support of this bill. There's a lot of work gone into this and on the whole I agree with pretty much everything that's been said. I want to acknowledge the work of the Minister Andrew Little and his officials to get us to this point. I also want to acknowledge the previous speaker Ian McKelvie from Rangitīkei. His member's bill that has been absorbed into the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that he mentioned in his speech is a good bill. It was unfortunate that it got stalled at the Justice Committee process but I acknowledge him for working alongside myself and the Minister for using this opportunity through an SOP to address the issue and fix the problem that we faced at select committee. I very much look forward to discussing that SOP at the committee of the whole House. I see no point in holding up proceedings when we all agree. I'm looking forward to seeing this bill pass through to the next stage. Thank you.Bill read a second time.
Crimes Amendment Bill — Second Reading
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): It is a pleasure to speak briefly very briefly on this Crimes Amendment Bill. I'd like to acknowledge Amy Adams the previous Minister for her body of work and I can see that the Hon Andrew Little has taken on three aspects of it so that's great. These three are pretty minor but also very archaic pieces of legislation.I'd like to acknowledge the Justice Committee which I was formerly on for a brief period of time—a very hard-working select committee and I think I dodged a bullet when I got shifted off that. They work so hard under Raymond Huo so a credit to them.Look in terms of the blasphemous libel I think any law that hasn't had a conviction or prosecution for nearly a hundred years warrants a look at and it also obviously conflicts with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act so it's a no-brainer in terms of getting rid of that law.The year and a day rule—I think back to my experience in the police where we had a case where a man was seriously assaulted—quite badly assaulted—but he survived. He received injuries that could have killed him but he survived. Basically the injuries he suffered were debilitating and he never recovered. So he was hospital-bound basically until he died and it took him a year and a bit to die. He was a healthy fit man prior to that and the injuries that he got led to his body breaking down and he eventually died. The year and a day rule meant that he couldn't be charged and I just felt that it seemed unjust. So credit to Andrew Little and his team for pushing this through.In terms of the CTV building and Pike River and Cave Creek yes those cases now if this law gets passed—people will be held responsible in those situations and I think everyone in New Zealand will agree with that.Finally the spousal immunity—I was a detective in a detective training school and we covered this particular law and it always struck me as odd that just because you were married to someone you couldn't be prosecuted for offences. It just didn't seem right. You could be anything other than in a marriage and you could be prosecuted but for some reason spouses got immunity and it just seemed like an oddball law.I see that during the select committee process we disagreed slightly—National and Labour disagreed on—Ian McKelvie: Slightly!MATT KING: —slightly yes I guess—the retrospectivity side of things and who gets to face the music and I see that one of the main themes of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is that you can't be charged with an offence that wasn't an offence prior to—that's a fundamental law so I can see that we're sticking to that. Finally section 10A of the Crimes Act explains that criminal enactments cannot have a retrospective effect so if you take those criteria into account there's a good argument. I guess the other argument is that some people don't end up facing justice. So it's quite a dilemma to be facing and weighing it up. I'm sure the select committee and the House will come to a good decision at the end of the day. We'll be fighting out of our corner and they'll be fighting out of theirs. In saying that I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I rise as a member of the Justice Committee. Many have spoken about how busy the committee is—the clerk told me that that committee met two-thirds of the time of all the other select committees put together; I'm just reinforcing the comments from both sides of the House on what a fine committee we have and well chaired.This bill really is a journey through history to how we arrive at this place. These three provisions the main provisions that we're repealing here have great historical context. Blasphemy: one only has to visit the great democratic institutions the art institutions the music institutions of Europe just to understand the role that religion and the Church played in society leading up to really the time that many of our European ancestors came to this land. So as we are now regarded as one of the more secular countries in the world we now are removing what is something that would have been highly relevant at the time it was introduced simply because of the hold that the Church and religion had on our society. And I can't help but reflect that as we mature as a society those new New Zealanders who come fresh from their homelands as all our ancestors did—whether it was Hawaiki or Ireland in my case—will bring their beliefs and their religions with them. And what a good example to show that in the new world perhaps the relevance of those old ways can be forgotten and that we embrace being part of the Pacific. We quite happily talk about someone from Argentina being a South American. Do we happily call a New Zealander a Pacific Islander? I certainly think that the day will come when we will.Likewise I look at the year and a day provision. What that was historically was that if you were to receive a wound—in fact the World War I centenary has just finished and we can look at the number of people who died from very minor wounds because of infections and various other things. We've fixed that and people who would've been expected to die of relatively minor wounds in the past now will survive major trauma and may actually go on for up to five years. As a good example of that police have been revising the wall at the college for those who were slain on duty killed by a criminal act. A new name will go on there because when they did it historically they found that people had died about five years later from wounds that they sustained on duty.And of course the third part about it is the removal of accessory after the fact where someone who did assist their spouse to escape a crime as an accessory could claim immunity. That is no longer the case and again what better reflection of New Zealand society than the number of people who actually do not enjoy what we would consider marriage or the sanctity of marriage having relationships that last a lifetime without actually being formally part of marriage.So it's a great walk through history looking at these provisions and I'm very happy to recommend this bill to the House.
Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): It is a privilege to stand and give a brief contribution on this part of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill in the committee of the whole House. I want to acknowledge Metiria Turei because it was Metiria Turei from the Green Party the former co-leader who actually brought this petition to the Māori Affairs Committee that I was on at the time in the last sitting period. At that time because I had not personally experienced issues over tūpāpaku my loved ones and the issues around that with the mortuaries and the coroners it didn't really resonate with me until we delved more into the issues facing whānau. As I sat and listened to the contribution from our chair Rino Tirikatene around the issues that some of the families who have approached him have had around access to their tūpāpaku their loved one it dawned on me the importance of what I thought was only a small thing which has blossomed into one of the most significant issues for whānau: accessing their loved ones in the morgues and the mortuaries.I want to thank the Hon Andrew Little for shepherding this through; taking this right through this part of the legislative process. I do look forward to its Royal assent after the third reading. I think it does clearly outline and pays respect to cultural beliefs and the way that Māori—I can only speak for Māori—care and look after our loved ones. We treat them almost like they were still alive and with us all the way into their grave and I've experienced it a few times in my whānau. I think that this is going to help other whānau who don't have access to the right people as Rino Tirikatene spelt out in his speech or people that aren't—how would you put it?—confident in going forth and asking or those that get really upset and do cause some trouble around trying to get access because that's emotional. Emotions run high; I get that.So I do want to thank Metiria Turei for bringing this to our notice and for the petition that she put forward to the Māori Affairs Committee. As I have said when I started my contribution when I stood up my korero will be quite short because both my colleagues Nuk Korako and the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee Rino Tirikatene have covered the key areas of this particular bill so I won't go on any further. I just want to say thank you to the members of the Māori Affairs Committees of the 51st and 52nd Parliaments for working on this bill and getting it to this stage and for everybody supporting this bill across the House because it is so very very important. Sometimes pieces of legislation like this—yes it's only a few pages but the impact is far and wide for a number of our families. So it is without any further ado I just want to say thank you again and I do commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chairman. I just wanted to take a brief call first of all to thank members for their continued support and both Mr Korako and Mr Tirikatene for their contributions to this bill. As they have eloquently acknowledged this is part of the journey that this House and this country is on to make sure that the legislation that we have that deals with the interface between our public services and all citizens of the country is sensitive to the varying cultural needs that people have. This recognises the right of families when they are dealing with the tragic circumstances of losing a loved member that where there are cultural requirements for close proximity to the body—to the tūpāpaku—funeral directors and others involved in that process must respect those cultural requirements. It is encouraging to see also that the various professional bodies involved in those processes will support the legislation by preparing practice notes and the like and by giving good guidance and advice to it. So in my brief call I just wanted to acknowledge that this is a bill that I think is small in size but its significance is very far-reaching in a practical sense in a spiritual sense and in what this nation represents towards all its people. So I thank the House for the ongoing support for this legislation.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I do want to acknowledge the contribution from the previous speaker Tutehounuku Korako who chaired the Māori Affairs Committee in the 51st Parliament which conducted the inquiry which has led to this bill. As we're in the committee stage this bill is a very short bill. It specifies to the coroner that there are certain matters which must be taken into account in terms of the decision to allow family members to be with their deceased loved one who is under coronial care. Section 26 outlines those matters and we're inserting this new clause.What has become very clear is that we have this amendment bill to the Coroners Act and we also have a code of practice which specifies that tikanga Māori and respect for the spiritual beliefs customs and those sorts of matters must be taken into account. We're putting this now into law through this bill and I just want to remark that I certainly hope that this will lead to a change in practice.This is an example. I've just been recently dealing with a constituent who lost a loved one in tragic circumstances—a young man. It was a shock to the whānau. The issues that the whānau had to deal with being with the district health board (DHB) and the mortuary and then also with trying to communicate with the coroner who was in Auckland—it was just a hellish exercise for that family. Had it not been for the fact that a support person for this whānau was previously a member of the DHB and another close associate of the whānau knew the coroner in Auckland it would have—this family was utterly distraught. They just felt entirely shut out and I think the lesson from their experience was that the district health boards are not conducive—they're not very welcoming places in situations where there is a tūpāpaku. With the way that the DHB treated them it was just a terrible experience for the family to go through and they came to me because they were concerned. What about whānau that don't have connections who don't know the DHB members and chairs and who don't know people high up in the coroner's office or the coroner? They're powerless—they're powerless.So I guess it was a lesson that they wanted to impart to me that things aren't right at a practical level within the district health boards when the jurisdiction of the coroner is called upon. Things aren't right and their example I think is just a case in point. Those are the things that we want to try and eliminate through this bill and those are the matters that I think the coroner must take into account. It will be more timely to those sorts of concerns and I think the district health boards have a part to play in that as well.So I certainly hope that by this bill we can see some practical changes at the coalface which are impacting on whānau and that is definitely what we intend to do by this bill. I commend it and I certainly hope that we can get those practices happening right from the legislation all the way through to the operational side where families come in to interface with these organisations. Nō reira kia ora tātou katoa.
McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianCORONERS (ACCESS TO BODY OF DEAD PERSON) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee
Pugh MaureenPart 2 Amendments to schedules of principal ActMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd just like to refer in my contribution on Part 2 which is the amendments to the schedules of the Act—in relation to royalties. Now we know that the royalties that are collected on mining in New Zealand are quite significant. You know we're talking multi-millions of dollars in terms of income for this Government and therefore multi-millions of dollars for redistribution into the country into investment and social services.Under schedule 1 in clause 20(1) it refers to: Despite anything in clause 3 [this] new section 105A … any royalties to be calculated under a permit or a subsequent permit that is granted in exchange for an existing permit must continue to be calculated in accordance with—". It goes on to mention the various other paragraphs 20(1)(a) and (b).I was just wondering if we could get some clarification on those calculations to be included in the schedule just for clarification for anyone that is reading the bill so that it is clear what those royalties are. And even perhaps the permit holder's obligations under this schedule to pay those royalties back to the Crown. So just a short contribution here thank you."
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to take a short call and refer my contribution just now to clause 9 in Part 1 amending section 41A and in particular to subclause (2) in there. I find the numbering and the references in there quite confusing. Subclause (2) talks about repealing section 41A(1) and then in subclause (3) replacing section 41A(2) with:". So section 41A(2) is replaced with "(2) A permit participant must notify the Minister in accordance with subsection (3) if—" and subsection (3) I presume is the section prior which has replaced section 41A(2). So I found myself in a bit of a circular debate around tracking those numbers but just wondered if there could be some clarification around that.Also I would like to get some clarification on exactly what the "permit participant" is that's being referenced in this particular clause. I'm assuming that it is in reference to tier two permit holders but I'm just not clear if that is indeed the case. I do note that a tier one is covered elsewhere in this particular bill being those permits that are of higher risk likely to be higher returns—we would hope—but also a lot more complex in terms of the oversight that is required from the ministry but where tier two is lower returns expected more likely to be requiring less management a more pragmatic approach to the operation and likely to be very small and perhaps even hobby operations. So I'm just really requiring the Minister Damien O'Connor if he could just to clarify whether this clause does indeed strictly apply to tier two permit holders.I also take up the point around notification of the Minister and could we perhaps get some clarity on the time frame around this in this particular clause if it does indeed apply to tier two permit holders. In clause 9(3) it just simply refers to "(2) A permit participant must notify the Minister" but as I said I found it difficult to track the numbering in there to refer me back to the appropriate part of that clause. Thank you Mr Chair."
Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 156 of Mr Stuart Smith and as he's pointed out the Government doesn't support that. That's not to say that what was done in Kaikōura was not a good innovation. However the fact is that it's not necessarily a wise thing to ossify that into legislation. This is essentially an operational matter and we know that one of the good principles of legislative design is to ask: is legislation the only remedy? The fact of the matter is that that's not the case and it's a much better idea to take an approach that says let's continually innovate with ways in which we can best deliver the service of the Earthquake Commission (EQC) to homeowners. Whilst this has been used in Kaikōura there are still other innovations that EQC is undertaking. The Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service is another example of trying something new that seems to be working.So look as Mr Smith pointed out this bill is simply making some straightforward changes that were easy to do and very obvious and that's what we're doing here. An amendment like this brings in a new complexity. I mean for example it automatically and by default appoints an insurer as an agent of EQC whether or not there's another agreement in place. Now we can't make an insurer agree so that would be a real concern to go down that road. So look yes there were some good improvements in the Kaikōura model but not appropriate to put in this piece of legislation.The protocol in Kaikōura was itself renegotiated recently. That can happen again and again. It must be remembered that there are a number of different insurers with different capacities and that what might be appropriate with IAG might not be appropriate with a much smaller insurer so we need to have an insurer by insurer approach. Again we need to make sure that what we're putting in place doesn't have unintended consequences and that if it needs to be adjusted or unwound we can do that and once it's in legislation that wouldn't be the case.So yes the Government will consider what has happened in Kaikōura in the review being undertaken by Dame Silvia Cartwright and that is where that should really take place. So yes it's been useful in the Kaikōura earthquake but no it's not an appropriate place to put that into this legislation to essentially fix it in place and stop any improvements of it. Let's have a wider look at how EQC works and make sure that if we're making these changes there aren't any unintended consequences and that's the next piece of work: to make sure we have the best possible insurance and EQC response for the next event. Thank you Madam Chair.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you for this call. I just wanted to comment on a couple of matters that have been raised in the House this morning. Firstly the privacy issue. It's right that the Privacy Commissioner did express some concerns around the gathering of personal information as is entirely appropriate. It's important to remember however that the function of the Earthquake Commission here is really to ensure importantly preparedness in respect of an earthquake and a lot of the information will be risk-based: about where loss is likely to occur and to ensure the commission can discharge its functions in terms of informing members of the public what steps to take to protect themselves against those issues. In respect of the time limit issue raised by Mr McKelvie the balance struck here is an important one because in fact by regulation the Minister can extend time limits where certain circumstances occur. Mr McKelvie pointed out hidden damage and under clause 2A(a)(i) the insured person who couldn't know that the damage existed even acting reasonably may have that time extended. The Minister can in fact extend that time not only outside the three months but even beyond the two years. So as is in fact sometimes happening in Christchurch and Kaikōura today damage may be hidden and only discovered when someone pulls up the floorboards or whatever; the Minister can still extend the time for those kinds of things. So this has been a very good process. These matters have been addressed.The other final thing I'd say is that this piece of legislation came out of work of the previous Government in fact. It is the low-hanging fruit. It is the things we can immediately address. There is a commission of inquiry which is currently being undertaken under the guidance of Dame Silvia Cartwright. There are other things in this Act which will be able to be addressed and that will no doubt be an entirely separate and more comprehensive piece of work. Thank you.Part 1 agreed to.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to take a brief call—and it probably will be brief—on that Part 1 clause 7(2) inserting clause 7(2A) into schedule 3 and it points to the fraught difficulty of this type of legislation and the challenges that the commission will inevitably face despite the cleverness of our legislative ability in this Chamber.So if you look at 7(2A) it talks about time limits and things like that on claims. I can point to evidence even in the Manawatū of a building that was damaged in the 1931 Napier earthquake patched up and re-damaged again in recent earthquakes. The issue that this part of the legislation brings out is the extreme difficulty that will occur in places where we've had major earthquakes such as Christchurch in the event of another event and then the dissemination of the information that's required to point to whether that damage was created earlier or later and which event it was part of. And whilst I think that this is as good as you could do with the legislation it none the less will inevitably lead to significant arguments.So 7(2A)(b) for example points to the time that notice is given and it gives the commission I think something like three months to accept or decline that information. And that will be very difficult because it will take some understanding of the time that the damage occurred and it is inevitable that there will be significant amounts of damage—it might not be significant damage—that have never been detected as a result of earthquakes of the magnitude of either Kaikōura or Christchurch.Of course the methods by which we build now are so different than they used to be. If you looked at Napier in 1931 the wooden buildings in Napier survived very well—probably in Christchurch they did as well—but there's none the less some significant structural changes to those buildings but not obvious damage. Whereas with our modern building standards and using brick and concrete and all that sort of stuff as we do the opportunity for damage to have occurred and be obvious—it's relatively simple because they crack whereas old wooden buildings don't crack but the foundations move. So you can have all sorts of different damage occurring in these events.So I think that whilst the select committee's done a good job of the regulations it's very difficult to see how you could ever restrict the potential for the contesting of these types of regulations. So that was the point I wanted to make and I don't think it's a serious one and I don't think it's a big issue but none the less it will rear its head again in the future. So thank you Madam Chair. That's my contribution.
Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Thank you very much for allowing me to complete my discussion last night—my debate on the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. As I said last night there needed to be some shaping up of the role of the Earthquake Commission. A lot of people in Christchurch needed something like this bill. We can't get it right all the time but I think that with National supporting this bill we can make sure that it is really fit for purpose. As I said last night Christchurch seems to have horrible disasters that end up affecting and making stronger the pieces of legislation. The Christchurch earthquake—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.
Williams PotoTUESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2018(continued on Wednesday 12 December 2018)EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments commencing on day after assent date (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Good morning members. When we rose for the evening we were considering Part 1 of the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. Jo Hayes has the call and has 40 seconds remaining if she so wishes—if we get a Minister in the chair.
Tuesday 11 December 2018 - Volume 735
Conservation (Infringement System) Bill — In Committee
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.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.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Grant Robertson to schedule 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Grant Robertson to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.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.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019–20 GST Offshore Supplier Registration and Remedial Matters) 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 Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019–20 GST Offshore Supplier Registration and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
10. Question No. 10—ACCANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for ACCQuestion No. 10—ACC10. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What announcements has he made this week about ACC levies?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): Yesterday the Prime Minister and I announced that the work account levy will be reduced and that the earners account and motor vehicle account levies will be held at their current levels. This will result in an overall reduction in the levies Kiwis pay to ACC of $100 million.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why did he recommend this decision to Cabinet?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well New Zealanders expect to get fair treatment and compensation from ACC in return for a fair levy. These levy rates ensure that ACC will always be there when people need it while making sure that no one is overcharged for that service.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why has the Government decided to stop charging variable levies based on vehicle risk rating?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well three reasons: first there is no evidence that variable registration fees are making the vehicle fleet any safer; second the variable levy system has been difficult and expensive to administer with no demonstrable benefit; and third charging people who can't afford to buy a newer car a higher ACC levy amounts to a regressive tax on the poorest families and that is something that this Government will not allow to continue.
7. Question No. 7—EducationRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has he made about upgrading classrooms?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): More good news. Today I announced that over $30 million will be spent upgrading three schools in the Tasman/Marlborough region: Collingwood Area School Golden Bay High School and Queen Charlotte College. The new funding will upgrade 37 classrooms and provide 10 replacement classrooms. This comes on top of yesterday's announcement that the Government is increasing the redevelopment budget for Mana College to over $15 million to give them 17 new flexible learning spaces and a new library.Rino Tirikatene: How many new builds expansions and redevelopments has the Government announced this year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: So far the Government has announced 62 school property announcements this year. We are committed to investing in warm dry and modern classrooms. This consists of five major rebuilds including Marlborough boys' and girls' colleges Onepoto Primary School and Paerata Primary School; 11 redevelopments such as Onehunga High School and Otumoetai College; two expansions of Waterview School and Sommerville Special School; and 38 announcements around roll-growth classrooms.
4. Question No. 4—FinanceDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What progress if any has been made on implementing the Government's economic policies?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Excellent progress on a number of fronts which see solid economic growth in the face of some international headwinds. Today I want to talk about our progress in laying the foundations for a transition to a more productive sustainable and inclusive economy and away from a dependence on housing speculation and a growing population to drive economic growth. This has included for this Government a range of regulatory and systemic changes including new legislation and policies to help businesses grow and policies to lift wages so that all New Zealanders benefit from a strong economy.Dr Deborah Russell: What regulatory changes is the Government making to help progress its economic policies?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To make good progress on our economic policies we did first have to make sure that the underlying regulatory settings would help deliver more productive sustainable and inclusive growth. For example today in the House we are modernising the 30-year-old Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act to ensure that our monetary policy framework provides the most efficient and effective model for New Zealand and contributes to sustainable economic growth. We've also introduced changes to the Overseas Investment Act to support fairness in the housing market and last week the Employment Relations Act changes were passed which ensure a better balance in our workplace relations. These are important foundation actions to support productive sustainable and inclusive economic growth.Dr Deborah Russell: What other work is ongoing to build the foundations for more productive sustainable and inclusive growth?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Tax Working Group's interim report was delivered earlier this year outlining the work they're doing to make our tax system fairer and more balanced and we will receive the final report early next year. We're progressing reform of the State sector and public finance Acts to ensure well-being is embedded and to make sure that Government is able to focus on the quality of our economic growth through a well-being approach and legislation is before the House to close loopholes to even up the playing field for New Zealand retailers and promote productive investment. I look forward to updating the House over the next few days on other areas of economic policy that are contributing to the serious momentum in the New Zealand economy.