edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker Clare Curran said it has been a while since we last debated this important bill which seeks to enable companies to collaborate their activities where it will enhance and promote competition and efficiency. Hopefully today we can manage to see the end of this bill because it has been a long time coming.The Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill amends the Commerce Act of 1986 to allow pro-competitive collaboration between firms while also deterring anti-competitive cartel conduct and I think that is an important aspect. I would like to acknowledge the hard work that the current and former Ministers of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Hon Craig Foss Paul Goldsmith and Jacqui Dean have all done towards the passage of this important bill. This bill was first introduced to the House on 13 October in 2011 and was referred to the Commerce Committee after its first reading on 24 July 2012. The committee under my predecessor as the chair of the Commerce Committee Jonathan Young MP received written submissions from 32 submitters and heard 16 oral submissions on the bill. The committee reported the bill back to the House on 13 May 2013. The second reading was completed on 26 November in 2014 and today we are continuing its official passage through the House. Supporting strong capital markets in New Zealand and around the world provides a vital source of finance to help our businesses grow create jobs and support Kiwi families. They are central to improving the financial well-being of all New Zealanders and to the welfare of the nation as a whole. National firmly believes in supporting New Zealand businesses to be the best that they can be in both domestic and international markets. This bill as an important part of the Government's Business Growth Agenda ensures that we continue to help business compete in a fair and productive New Zealand economy. Anti-competitive behaviour and increasing costs of production affect the attractiveness of companies doing business in domestic and international markets while consumers have to pay higher prices—consumers hate paying higher prices particularly on things like fruit and vegetables. I think having higher taxes would mean we would actually pay more for vegetables and fruit. But I digress.Cartels harm our consumer industries and it is important that our law is fit for purpose to support good business practices and financial markets in our country. The existing law currently has criminal sanctions and other punitive measures in place that are unsuitable for modern commercial relationships where companies and industries want to work to build wider ideals of the services they provide. We as a Parliament should rightfully assist them by cutting redundant red tape in the interests of good business and commercial practice. This bill actually does that and as other members have said I am interested in getting this passed today so I commend the bill to the House.
Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am going to be brief. This is the third reading of a bill that has been around for about 5 years since its first reading. It has been through four commerce Ministers. Labour supports it and I want to acknowledge the Minister who just spoke to us Jacqui Dean who has actually finally pushed this through and not only that but has also listened to industry—which identified issues with vessel-sharing agreements—and has come up with a solution that is largely supported in this House. It has had a few changes since the Commerce Committee. Labour is disappointed that the Government went soft on criminal penalties and missed the opportunity for a new definition of anti-competitive conduct in section 36 of the Commerce Act. We have a number of valedictories tonight. We want this bill to get through. It has been on the Order Paper for long enough. We believe that there is support across the House to get it through. It should go through in the 51st Parliament. We support it. We should pass this bill in this Parliament so I commend it to the House.
Scott AlastairEMPLOYMENT (PAY EQUITY AND EQUAL PAY) BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 8 August.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I rise in support of the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill for a number of reasons but the primary reason is that I have an interest in this bill. There was an implication from the Opposition that crusty old white guys like me do not particularly have much of an interest in this but I do because I have two daughters—two capable daughters—and I expect them to be treated as equally fairly and reasonably as my sons. For that reason I have a strong interest in this bill and I commend it to the House.
Bridges SimonTHURSDAY 10 AUGUST 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 15 August the Government will look to complete the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill and progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. On Wednesday morning the House will sit under extended hours for the first readings of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill and the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill and the third reading of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. The House will rise on Thursday 17 August at the conclusion of the adjournment debate and the dissolution of the 51st Parliament will occur on Tuesday 22 August. The Governor-General will summon the 52nd Parliament to meet following the election.
Wednesday 9 August 2017 (continued on Thursday 10 August 2017) - Volume 724
Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
Delahunty CatherineCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Kia ora Mr Chair ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. I would just like to take a brief call in support of the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 354. I live in the Hauraki and have many friends in Ngāti Pūkenga ki Manaia and I often think when I stand on these bills that fools rush in where angels fear to tread as a Pākehā.I can make no judgment about many of these issues except to say that time is an important aspect of settlements and Ngāti Pūkenga have waited a long time as have many others. We are here in this House to try to do justice and part of doing justice is to expedite the settlement so that the people can have at least some redress; it is never full it is never final from the Green Party point of view. But we want to support the SOP and recognise that there are other issues that need to be worked through and played out in the rohe of Tauranga Moana.We are really here just to support what the people want and that is not a simple thing. It is not simple for them because of the history of this country and what has been done through colonisation but we recognise that the Minister is always looking for creative solutions and this is a way in which these people who have come so far today—both literally and in terms of time—want to see this go ahead so we support them. Kia ora.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson and the following amendments in his name to clauses 13A and 106 be agreed to:in clause 13A(1)(a)(i) delete Framework"; andin clause 106(1) replace "register" with "record of title".Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 3 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill with amendment and the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill with amendment.Report adopted."
Mark RonRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is a privilege and an honour to be able to stand here in the Chamber and to be able to endorse and support the passing of the Committee stage of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims—[Interruption] Sorry?Hon Members: It's Ngāti Pūkenga.RON MARK: Oh Ngāti Pūkenga—you have moved on from there.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes we are on the second bill.RON MARK: Well I just wanted to do that anyway mainly because all my whanaunga are up there in the gallery. I would just blend into that then the endorsement of comments that have already been made because those same comments for this bill are reflected in the bill that clearly has just progressed before I walked in the door.The issues that arise from those negotiations—having been the lead negotiator in a Treaty settlement—are very difficult and can be quite vexed. I would hope that for all the settlements that are progressing through the Committee today and particularly those that relate to myself those issues that stressed and troubled respective negotiations—not just those overlapping with other iwi but internally within the hapū that took so long to be negotiated through—are finally resolved and settled between them. From here once the bill goes through its third reading and is passed and is enacted I hope that all involved through those very difficult negotiations are then able to look at it with new eyes as an opportunity now to work together and work collaboratively for the betterment of all and to maximise the strength that the settlement brings to them all.I want to acknowledge the work that goes on behind and I see Rick Barker sitting over there as a Crown negotiator a former MP whom I worked very very closely with. My experiences on the Rangitāne settlement I have no doubt will be the same experiences as for those who are negotiating on this settlement as well. I just want to put on the record that I acknowledge that work acknowledge the difficulty under which it was done acknowledge the commitment of all those who were involved including the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Office of Treaty Settlements staff. I am looking forward to seeing these bills progress through the third reading and on to enactment.
Davis KelvinKELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): In English I would like to endorse what my colleague Peeni Henare has said in acknowledging the Supplementary Order Paper that Minister Finlayson has spoken about and acknowledging the complexities of overlapping claims and interests. As Peeni did say up north where he and I both come from as well as Adrian Rurawhe and Pita Paraone—Peeni Henare: And everyone else.KELVIN DAVIS: —and everyone else indeed—we are going to have similar issues when Ngāpuhi settle and in terms of the precedent I agree entirely with the sentiments of the Minister. So with that we will not drag this part of the Committee stage out any further other than just to say that we acknowledge what the Minister has said.
Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ā tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Whare hoi anō tāku i tēnei wā e tuku mihi atu ana au ki Te Minita mō tana whakamārama mai i te nekehanga o tēnei pepa tāpiri ki te pire kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare i te ata nei. Hoi anō ko tā mātou i tēnei taha o Te Whare e mihi atu ana au otirā mātou ki te tū o Te Minita kia anga whakamua ai i ngā take a Ngāti Pūkenga ki roto i ngā take Tiriti ki runga i Te Moana o Tauranga. Kua kite atu mātou ki roto i ngā wiki kua pahure ake nei i ngā marama i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei i te āhuatanga o ngā raruraru ka pā ki ngā iwi ki ngā hapū o taua wāhi rā nō reira ka mihi atu ahau ki ngā panonitanga ki ngā kōrero kua tīnihia e Te Minita. Kua tāpiri anō hoki e Te Minita ki te pire kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare me te kī atu ki Te Minita tā te mea kua kī mai ia ēhara tēnei i te wā tuatahi arā he precedence nē ka whakaaro ake ahau mō te āhuatanga mō ngā tatūnga kerēme ki mua i te aroaro kaua ko Tauranga Moana anake engari ka whakaaro ake mātou ko Kelvin Davis ko Adrian Rurawhe me ngā take e pā ana ki a Ngāpuhi nē tā te mea ka whātoro atu ngā ringaringa o Ngāpuhi ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau? Hoi ano koinei tāku e mea atu ana āe he wā tuatahi tēnei mō tēnei tūāhuatanga ā ka mihi atu ahau kua whaiwhakaaro Te Minita kia āhua pēnei te haere o te pire e pā ana ki a Ngāti Pūkenga. Hoi anō ko tā mātau hei kōrero mō te tautoko i tēnei tūāhuatanga ki runga i te rīpoata o Te Hansard i te rā nei kāti e Te Heamana tēnā koe![My appreciation to you Mr Chairman and accordingly I acknowledge the Minister for his explanation about the movement of this Supplementary Order Paper to the bill that is before the Committee this morning. Accordingly we on this side of the Chamber acknowledge him and indeed the stance taken by the Minister to progress matters pertaining to Ngāti Pūkenga with Treaty matters that are upon Tauranga. We have seen in weeks just gone by and in the months and years just passed the circumstance of the problems that have affected the tribes and subtribes of that place. Therefore I commend the changes to the comments made by the Minster. The Minister has also added to the bill that is before the Committee and I say to the Minister at the same time because he said to us this not the first time; in other words it is not a precedent OK? I think about the circumstance relating to claim settlements in the future not just one solely for Tauranga but we and Kelvin Davis and Adrian Rurawhe think about matters relating to Ngāpuhi OK because Ngāpuhi's hands reach out and right into Auckland. And so this indeed is why I have been saying yes this is a first time for this kind of thing and I do commend the Minister's thoughtfulness that this bill relating to Ngāti Pūkenga should go somewhat like this. And accordingly we should be talking about supporting this kind of thing in the Hansard report on this day and so enough and thank you.]
Finlayson ChristopherParts 1 to 3 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I need to say something about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 354 because it does not deal with just technical matters so I will take honourable members through it. In my second reading speech I noted that the committee reported the bill back to this House on 5 July and said that the committee recommended that it be passed without amendment. But then we have this SOP. This is a substantive amendment and it is proposed in order to achieve a partial settlement of Ngāti Pūkenga's claims in relation to Tauranga Moana. Ngāti Pūkenga's settlement along with other Tauranga iwi and what is known as TMIC the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective redress deed was a package to comprehensively settle Treaty claims in the Tauranga region. The SOP is proposed because there are still unresolved overlapping claims issues with neighbouring iwi over the moana and that has made it impossible for Ngāti Pūkenga to progress with all their claims settled relating to Tauranga Moana. So what this SOP does is it excludes claims relating only to Tauranga Moana. It is an exception to Treaty policy but it is one I am comfortable with because the settlement has been delayed by actions of other parties particularly in the Waitangi Tribunal and I am very eager to support Ngāti Pūkenga's aspiration to settle. People always ask me Will this create a precedent?" but I am confident that it is unlikely that a precedent will be set because this is a very complex and I would go so far as to use that much overused word "unique" situation. Other iwi with harbour claims such as Tāmaki Collective iwi have agreed to settle their harbour claims as part of their comprehensive settlement but the redress will be negotiated at a later date. My intention is to settle claims to Tauranga Moana including those of other Tauranga Moana and Hauraki iwi in a stand-alone Tauranga Moana framework bill once the various disputes between the parties are resolved. Also there are a couple of minor points. The SOP also proposes the following: first to amend the 5-year sunset clause for the transfer of the joint Te Tihi o Hauturu redress to the alternative approach to transfer this property on the settlement date of the last iwi to settle. This change is proposed in order to align this transfer with the approach agreed with Hauraki iwi to the joint vesting of cultural redress. Secondly the SOP makes a technical amendment to one legal description and there are other consequential changes including consequential changes following the enactment of the Land Transfer Act 2017."
Tisch LindsayNGĀTI PŪKENGA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): As previously advised this will be taken as one question.
Finlayson ChristopherParts 1 to 3 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I will just say something briefly about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 353. As I mentioned in my second reading speech the committee reported the bill back to the House on 20 March and recommended it be passed without amendment. This SOP deals with minor technical amendments. It is going to make changes to eight clauses and two schedules. Most of the amendments are updates to legal descriptions of certain cultural redress properties that have been surveyed. The amendments ensure that what is being recorded on computer freehold registers is accurate and the amendments also refer to updated provisions of another Act.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clauses 63 66 69 72 and schedules 3 and 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 3 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Kuriger Barbara; Tisch LindsayRANGITĀNE TŪ MAI RĀ (WAIRARAPA TAMAKI NUI-Ā-RUA) CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL In CommitteeBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for both bills in the Committee of the whole House stage to be debated as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Korako NukWEDNESDAY 9 AUGUST 2017(continued on Thursday 10 August 2017)KARAKIANUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I ask that we be able to start with a karakia before we begin.Mr SPEAKER: Would that be appropriate once we have called Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2? The karakia is associated with the legislation?NUK KORAKO: With the opening of the House.Mr SPEAKER: The start of the day. Leave is sought for that course of action; is there any objection? There is none.NUK KORAKO: Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā ā tēnā rā koutou; nā ko Waitaka o tō mātou mātua tūpuna e huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ko tēnei karakia tīmataka e huihuia tākata. Kia īnoi tātou. Kei mua Koe i ā mātou mahi katoa Ihowa hei tohutohu i ā mātou mahi katoa. Ko Koe anō hoki e whakakaha i a mātou mahi katoa he mea tīmata he mea mahi he mea whakautu i roto i a Koe kia whiwhi ai hoki mātou i te ora tonu i te mea atawhaitia nei e Koe. Ko Ihu Karaiti nei hoki tō tātou Ariki āmine."[Thank you Mr Speaker and salutations to you collectively; now Waitaka is our ancestral forefather and so I acknowledge you all throughout this House. This commencement prayer is one for a gathering of people. Let us pray. "Lord You are before us in all that we do and will teach us. You will also give us strength in all our work as a thing that commences operates and responds through You so that we will continue to receive wellness as well because of Your care. Jesus Christ is indeed our Lord. Amen."]"
Thursday 3 August 2017 - Volume 724
Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.Ayes 104New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 106 Noes 12.
10. Waste Management—Flight Plastics Recycling FacilityCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Associate Minister for the EnvironmentWaste Management—Flight Plastics Recycling FacilityMr SPEAKER: Question No. 10 Chris Bishop.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker.Hon Members: Aw aw aw aw aw.CHRIS BISHOP: Very strange reaction.10. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: How is the Government supporting the recycling of PET plastics in New Zealand?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Scott Simpson.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Associate Minister for the Environment): Aw thank you Mr Speaker. Yesterday my colleague the Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith and I officially opened the new Flight Plastics processing plant in Lower Hutt with the member Chris Bishop. Thanks to a $4 million grant from the Government's Waste Minimisation Fund the new facility has the capacity to turn more than 6000 tonnes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic into high-grade food-safe packaging each year. That means that more than 200 million bottles like this one will each year be turned into flake and chip like this which in turn produces food-quality packaging like this which in turn can be recycled into more flake like this.Chris Bishop: How do recent international developments make this more important?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: China recently announced a ban on importing waste and recyclables from foreign countries. This move from China will reduce end markets for recyclable materials and makes it even more important that we are able to recycle onshore here in New Zealand. This project at Flight Plastics is significant because for the first time New Zealand now has the capacity to recycle PET plastic here onshore. I encourage all councils to direct their PET plastic collected at kerbside recycling to this new Flight Plastics processing facility and I also encourage New Zealand consumers to purchase products that use New Zealand recycled PET.
9. Police Resourcing—Access to Institute of Environmental Science and Research Forensic ExpertsRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of PolicePolice Resourcing—Access to Institute of Environmental Science and Research Forensic Experts9. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes within the context they were given.Ron Mark: Given her statements on police resourcing why are some police districts currently struggling with financial constraints that prevent their ability to procure services from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) which are the forensic experts used by the Police and the Crown?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Those resources of course are managed by the commissioner around the different districts. I would suggest that that member would be far better to put that in writing to the Minister where she could get a response from the commissioner.Ron Mark: Given that it is the Government that allocates the resources to the commissioner does she think it is acceptable for a victim who has been shot in the face and has lost an eye to have to witness the offender walking free from a charge of the careless misuse of a firearm causing injury because the prosecution was unable to assemble the necessary forensic evidence due to the lack of funding?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am sure that we all feel tremendous sympathy for the victim of any such violent crime. However police prosecutions are statutorily in the hands of the commissioner and are the responsibility of the commissioner not the Minister. But the good news is that Budget 2017 funded half a billion dollars to the Police to support staff and support staffing resources which will include of course prosecutions.Ron Mark: Does she think it is acceptable for the Crown prosecutor to state that Due to financial constraints the Police are unable to instruct the ESR to undertake a scene examination and provide forensic evidence to the prosecution."; if not what is she going to do about it?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Police Prosecution Service is always managing its budget according to priorities. The issues with ESR go back decades. I do not think that the member can put those at the feet of any one particular Minister but that is always a balancing argument.Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a letter to the officer in charge of the Palmerston North Police dated 31 March 2017 from the Crown solicitor.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."
4. District Health Boards—Canterbury and South Canterbury Chairs and FundingMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of HealthDistrict Health Boards—Canterbury and South Canterbury Chairs and Funding4. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: What announcement has he made in relation to filling the Chair positions at Canterbury and South Canterbury District Health Boards?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Today I announced the appointment of John Wood as chair of the Canterbury District Health Board (DHB) with Sir Mark Solomon continuing in his role as deputy chair. Together they will make a very good leadership team. Dr Wood has significant governance experience a proven track record of drawing multiple agencies together to deliver key work programmes as well as a strong personal commitment to Canterbury. I have also appointed Ron Luxton as the chair of the South Canterbury District Health Board with Paul Annear appointed as deputy chair. All of these appointees bring a great range of skills to their boards including a wealth of governance experiences and they are worthy additions to the governance of the health system in the wider Canterbury region.Matt Doocey: What other actions has the Government taken to improve health outcomes in Canterbury?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Government recognises that the DHB has required extra support since the earthquakes and we have provided an additional $106 million above the DHB's bulk funding allocation including a $20 million mental health package. Overall the DHB has received an extra $399 million over the last 9 years including an extra $73 million this year taking its budget to $1.5 billion. Work also continues in Canterbury to deliver the largest ever hospital redevelopment project in New Zealand's history with close to $1 billion being spent including the $215 million new hospital facilities at Burwood a new $72 million outpatients facility and the new $463 million acute services building.Dr Megan Woods: Will he be making further announcements concerning the Canterbury DHB specifically about new facilities for regional mental health services that are still stranded in a hospital that was too awful for Government-appointed reviewers to visit?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well that last bit I think is very anecdotal and there is no evidence to support that. But I also welcome the member's first contribution in this House on Canterbury despite being a local MP. I can assure her if she follows our press releases that she will be advised in due course. Mr SPEAKER: Question—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I have allowed the member to have a question. She has not ceased interjecting since the start of question time. If she interjects again today I will be asking her to leave.
Doocey Matt; Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEMATT DOOCEY (Third Whip—National): I seek leave of the House to rise early.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there anyone who is going to object to that? There appears to be none. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 8 August 2017.The House adjourned at 5.49 p.m.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I will be very brief actually. I have to say coming into this debate I had not been a member of the Law and Order Committee and was not too au fait with the major details of the bill. But I have to say that the minute I heard the member Stuart Nash get up and say that this was going to help the good guys catch the bad guys—and I am pretty those were his words—he had me hooked. So with that I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill 2017 — Third Reading (continuing)
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker I have heard people talk against national standards in this House and they cannot even count to 12. I rise in support of this bill—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member should take his shoes off.Hon DAVID PARKER: I want to respond just briefly to a couple of comments that were made by National Government members. They lauded the fact that New Zealand has low levels of corruption and was ranked highly by the Transparency International measures of freedom from corruption. They did not say that each time in the last 2 years that report in respect of New Zealand has dropped us a ranking which I think is a terrible thing and is a consequence of things not being completely good in New Zealand in respect of these matters. I will not say anything more other than Saudi sheep scandal" to actually link some of that to the Government. In respect of other areas where this Government has been woefully short in responding to the needs of our country and the world to deal with these issues the Panama Papers have been referred to by members on both sides. It was terrible that the National Government pretended that there was nothing wrong there and that we had transparency when we did not. The beneficial owners of those trusts were not transparently disclosed and therefore people used New Zealand to invest overseas in order to invest—I would think—some illegal money some drug money some laundered money perhaps money from slavery and corrupt money stolen from Governments. That was happening through New Zealand.How can I say that with confidence? Because when the report from John Shewan came and there was a change to the law requiring disclosure of beneficial owners so that that could be reported to tax authorities overseas how many of those trusts reregistered? A very small proportion of them. The vast majority of those trusts did not register under the new regime.Tax avoidance by multinationals has not been clamped down on. We heard two announcements today that the Government was lauding. Those were the use of interest rates that are falsely high from a parent to a New Zealand subsidiary and the pretence that there was not New Zealand business for the likes of Apple or Google which have transferred their profits to overseas jurisdictions. The Government lauds that. We have been claiming that and asking for those loopholes to be closed for 5 years in this Parliament and the Government is only doing it now. It is pretending it needed authority from the OECD to do its sovereign duty to New Zealand and to New Zealand business competitors including the media which has been cleaned out by the likes of Google and Facebook while the media interests—sometimes not always—pay tax in New Zealand and those entities did not.In respect of this this is another important part to getting fairness back in society and to oppose those who launder money to finance terrorism or for other criminal activity. With those brief comments I support this on behalf of the Labour Party."
Parmar Parmjeet; Mallard TrevorDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill. It is good to see the support for this bill so I am taking a short call to support this bill. It is important for us to keep our country safe. Our current legislation has obligations with regard to anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism for certain businesses especially businesses that deal in cash for cash or money for money—for example banks casinos etc. So it is important to extend these obligations to other businesses that are at risk of being exploited by money-launderers. As soon as we hear the term money-laundering" it just gives us the idea of some kind of illegal activity happening somewhere. Yes when money-laundering happens that money is normally generated through some illegal activity. It is normally laundered to convert that to legitimate money or sometimes for tax avoidance but at other times it can be used for supporting some very serious criminal activities like terrorism or drug trafficking. Terrorism and drug trafficking we know are criminal activities that are eating away our communities and we have to ensure that we are protecting ourselves from such activities. These activities need money and money has to come from somewhere so we have to protect ourselves from money-laundering. We know that New Zealand is seen to be a very safe country but we cannot be complacent. So we have to make sure that we have systems in place where we can detect such activities we can prevent such activities and also we can prosecute people who are involved in such criminal activities.We also have this very good reputation of doing business with ease in New Zealand but that does not mean that any kinds of businesses or money can come to New Zealand. We have to protect our country and this is the legislation that will do that so I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Hon David Parker: Mr Assistant Speaker?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh the Hon David Parker. I apologise. I thought that we had finished."
Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. Many of the speeches this evening have gone a long way to explain both the content of the bill and of course the pathway the bill has followed to this point in time. I want to support many of the sentiments and also reiterate some of the points made by speakers from across the House about the importance of this particular bill in terms of our international reputation. We need to restore that because let us be very clear we took a fall. We took a hit. We took a slide and it is important to make sure that our reputation internationally gets placed back where it belongs and that is right up towards the top where New Zealand is considered a reputable country to do business to invest in and to work with. I think that is an important thing to do. We want to be at the top of those kinds of lists and not the OECD homelessness list and I think that is an important point to make. This particular bill obviously closes some loopholes. A member on the other side of the House referred to fish slipping out of a net. I think this is a good opportunity to certainly close those loopholes to close those holes and to also do it in a reasonable fashion to allow lawyers accountants the Racing Board and others who fall within the scope of this bill to come up to compliance. I did ask questions about whether or not we have given too much time and whether or not they will have the resources to become compliant but it was clear through the submissions and many of the speeches in the House over the course of this bill that the submitters were—it was an agreeable date to be able to become compliant with this particular bill. So the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill—I commend it to the House.
Voting — Correction—Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) (continued)
Tisch LindsayVOTINGCorrection—Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Just before I call the next speaker there is an amendment to the Labour Party vote on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) in the third reading. The final result is Ayes 104 Noes 12.Hon Members: Close. Closer.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes very close.
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill — Third Reading (continued)
Dyson RuthVOTINGCorrection—Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2)Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Apologies to the House but I seek leave to correct the voting numbers that I presented at the end of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) on behalf of Labour. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): And what are those numbers?Hon RUTH DYSON: Twenty-nine in favour.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Twenty-nine in favour. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The record will be amended accordingly. Thank you.
Voting — Correction—Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2)
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): This bill aims to improve the land transport system and we all know that road crashes have both economic and social costs. In New Zealand there are about 300 fatal crashes each year killing over 300 people and also we have thousands of injury crashes so it is in our strong interests to manage our transport and make it safer for people to travel on the road. This bill contains a number of changes. One critical change is of course to strengthen the legislation relating to alcohol interlocks and previous speakers have mentioned this frequently. Basically strengthening the legislation relating to alcohol interlocks will make our land transport system more efficient more effective and safer. Alcohol interlocks of course are highly effective but they have not been used very frequently. Some people have a habit—quite a bad habit—of drink-driving so they need a strong regulatory mechanism to manage their drinking behaviour. So this bill will result in the greater use of alcohol interlocks particularly by those high-risk drink-driving offenders and also repeat drink-driving offenders. For that reason this bill is a good bill. Of course alcohol interlocks are not cheap. They can be prohibitively expensive for low-income offenders. For that reason this Government will set up—will fund—a financial assistance scheme to support the new mandatory alcohol interlock sentence. So this is another change in the bill. Another change in the bill is of course the new regulatory framework for small passenger services. Previous speakers mentioned Uber. I know that Uber has been a bit controversial but at the end of the day the services provided by Uber have made it easier and cheaper for the public to travel. They also have the potential to reduce congestion and to enhance productivity. For that reason what we can do is to simply face reality and regulate such services to make our small passenger services sector more effective and this bill is aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of small passenger services and at regulating in a better way. So I would like to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). As we heard from the Hon Paul Goldsmith on behalf of the Minister of Transport at the start of this reading there are several components in this bill and all of these components show our commitment to improved public safety. It is good to see support for mandatory alcohol interlock sentences from all sides. Having mandatory alcohol interlock sentences is important to make the alcohol interlock programme viable and also to see some significant results in terms of road safety by preventing drunk people getting behind the wheel. If we do not make it mandatory then we will not be certain about the uptake and we will not be certain about the outcomes. This step has been taken based on evidence that has been collected here in New Zealand. We know that if even a small number of people take up alcohol interlock devices to stop themselves from driving when they are drunk we have seen a reduction of thousands of drink-driving attempts. So mandatory alcohol interlock sentences are good and it is good to see the support for making alcohol interlock sentences mandatory for repeat drink-drivers and also for serious drink-drivers.At the same time we have to see that things are practical too. That brings me to several exceptions that are there in the legislation. One of the exceptions is actually based on access to an approved alcohol interlock service centre. It is important that offenders have access to an approved alcohol interlock service centre and it was important to decide a criterion. The criterion that is picked in this legislation is distance. When the legislation was proposed it was 30 kilometres but now it has been changed to 70 kilometres because we want to make sure that we bring in as many offenders as possible into this programme. Along with that there are medical conditions. Yes if they are medically certified there will be exceptions but this legislation also allows for resentencing of offenders who receive an exception because of a special circumstance if that circumstance changes. So the aim of this part of this bill is to bring as many offenders as possible into the alcohol interlock programme. Very quickly I want to also touch on the small passenger service provider provisions that are in this bill. Yes we are upgrading the regulatory framework to provide a level playing field to various players in the small passenger service provider industry. As the Government it is important that we allow good competition. We know that businesses like to adopt unique ways to grow their client base to get a bigger market share and we have to allow that keeping in mind passengers and drivers' safety. Again this bill actually shows our commitment to public safety and also our commitment to help businesses grow. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I would like to just pre-empt my comments with a response to what the previous speaker Sue Moroney has said regarding an issue that came up in our select committee hearings. Mr Wayne Branks brought allegations against Uber and as a process in select committee called natural justice we give a person or a company who has had allegations brought against them—particularly in public hearings—the opportunity to respond.The previous speaker is aware of this response yet continues to bring this situation into this House and into the public arena. I would like to just read out one paragraph from Uber's submission.Sue Moroney: Read the whole thing. Do the job properly Jonathan.JONATHAN YOUNG: No just one paragraph is sufficient. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will stop interjecting.JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. In his submission Mr Branks seems to claim to have provided trips to riders using the Uber app under various different aliases. Uber confirms that Mr Branks does not have and has never had an active Uber profile in New Zealand under his name or any other alias connected to his driver's license or P-endorsement." He is in fact a taxi driver for another company. It goes on to say: "Mr Branks has registered his interest to drive using the Uber app under various aliases but none of these Uber profiles has ever been activated." I am just reading that out as part of the record thank you. That came to our select committee and the member was fully aware of that response to that natural justice issue.In my closing comments regarding this bill I would like to say that one particular area that I think is going to be very very important and helpful for the road safety of New Zealand—and the previous speaker raised that as well—is the mandatory alcohol interlocks regime which is going to be strengthened under this bill. The bill proposes making alcohol interlock sentences mandatory for recidivist drink-drivers and first-time offenders with high alcohol levels. The existing alcohol interlock sentence has not been used much by the courts since it became available in 2012—only 2 percent of eligible offenders have received a sentence. So this bill makes it mandatory and will not prevent the courts from giving additional sentences such as fines or imprisonment should the circumstances of a repeat driving offence merit it. The reason why this is so important is that alcohol interlocks have the record of reducing recidivist drink-driving by 60 percent and that is going to translate into fewer people being injured seriously and killed on our roads in New Zealand. Thank you; I commend this bill to the House."
O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I want to begin by first acknowledging the good work of the Electoral Commission over many years past and also the very able leadership of the current chairman Sir John Hugh Williams. I also want to particularly applaud the work of the commission in its attempts to increase enrolment and also to increase turnout. New Zealand First will support its thrust to do even more in that area. It is unfortunate that the current Government has not agreed to do more in the ways that the commission itself has advocated or in the ways that other parties have advocated. However the commission itself has done a very good job and I think it deserves the congratulations of the House on doing so under the able leadership as I have said of the current chairman.It is essential that the commission has the confidence of the public of New Zealand and of this Parliament to conduct its business and to conduct it fairly to be seen to be conducting it fairly and in particular to conduct it with complete political neutrality because there are many functions that the commission has that rely heavily on that principle. I think the commission has done a very good job in achieving that under its current leadership.Continuity is another important issue when we consider the reappointment of Sir Hugh because continuity is especially desirable in an election year when the commission is at its busiest and when the retention of institutional knowledge is so vital to make sure that it continues to operate as a commission effectively and fairly in the ways that I have described. So for all of those reasons New Zealand First is very happy indeed to support the reappointment of Sir Hugh for a further period of 18 months.Motion agreed to.
Appointments — Electoral Commission