edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I'd like to address the comments from both the Hon Michael Woodhouse—about his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 481—as well as the member Matt Doocey. The Government SOP has been tabled for a while. As far as I am advised however SOP 481 was tabled I think just last night. In terms of why is it that we're introducing this Government SOP it is because there are people who are living in motorhomes and caravans and the Hon Michael Woodhouse alluded to this in his comments. We do not want to get to a place where we are going into people's homes and saying Thou shalt not smoke in your own home." If I can actually reflect back to the changes in Aotearoa New Zealand in terms of social norms that happened when we introduced the smoke-free ruling that areas like bars workplaces and restaurants would be smoke-free that is essentially what we say will happen here as well. It is not about the issuing of the infringement notices and it is not about the police actually stopping people if there are children in the cars where they are smoking. It is about all of us in Aotearoa New Zealand behaving in a different way. What we saw with smoke-free areas in terms of workplaces when it was introduced was that it didn't happen overnight but all of us actually then changed the way we acted. This is also what we believe will happen with this particular bill. We can look at other jurisdictions—say for instance the UK and lots of states in Canada as well as Australia and if you have a look at the UK when they introduced smoke-free cars in the UK over a period of 18 months there were only two infringement notices where folks were taken to court. When you look at our own history here in Aotearoa New Zealand over a period of 15 years there has been only a handful of cases where infringement notices have resulted in people being taken to court because they hadn't actually adhered to workplaces being smoke-free. What we're saying and what we know from public surveys is that over 90 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand believe that smoking in vehicles when our children are in those vehicles is not the right to do. We believe that this will happen here as well but we do not want to infringe on people's rights when it is their own homes. So that is why we're introducing SOP 452—to make a differentiation for folks that are living in vehicles that have been manufactured to be occasional or permanent dwelling places."
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. The primary purpose of this bill is to protect our children our tamariki from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Too many of especially our tamariki and Pacific young children are exposed to second-hand smoke in the vehicles that they usually travel in when adults are smoking.Part 1 of this bill actually will amend the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 to prohibit smoking in stationary and moving motor vehicles for children under the age of 18. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 481 that the Hon Michael Woodhouse has just tabled in the committee to amend section 20D(2)(b) set out in clause 9 is basically saying that a person may smoke in a motor vehicle if that person is the only occupant of the motor vehicle and if that person is under the age of 18.I have actually tabled SOP 452 because when we listened to the submissions that came through it was very clear that a lot of our submitters actually said that we should look at this and you know we should actually address it. Our Government has listened to the submitters. What the SOP that I've tabled will do is it will address new section 20D(2)(b) which currently exempts all vehicles that are stationary on a road and used as a dwelling from the prohibition on smoking while children are present.The rationale for this exemption is that people have a right to smoke in their own homes whether they are temporary like motorhomes or caravans or permanent. Our Government has listened to those concerns which is why we are tabling this SOP to narrow the gamut of the bill. The SOP will exempt vehicles such as caravans motorhomes that are designed to be used as dwellings when they are stationary or on a road and being used as a dwelling.The prohibition on smoking in all vehicles such as cars and utes will be retained but caravans or motorhomes that are used on a road would still need to comply with the smoking prohibition if and when children are in those vehicles. I believe that this SOP strikes the right balance. It retains the bill's focus on protecting our tamariki our children from second-hand smoke while at the same time not infringing on the rights of people to smoke in their own homes. These caravans and motorhomes are used as homes by our people.In terms of Part 2 of the bill it amends the Summary Proceedings Act 1957—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We're on Part 1—we're on Part 1.Hon JENNY SALESA: Sorry. That would be my contribution for now and I look forward to contributions from the committee.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 453 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): That response really does behove a further examination of the Minister's completely dismissive response to Andrew Bayly's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). It was the classic the dog ate my lunch" excuse and then it got worse. It got worse because he basically blamed the taxpayer for paying too much tax and is saying that's a reason not to pay it back. Well frankly if we take that analogy to a further degree and we talk about other types of tax—for example income tax or student loans—and a taxpayer finds out that their employer because they had put the employee on the wrong rate of tax had overpaid tax the Minister is basically saying that's the employer's fault therefore the IRD does not have to do anything about it. Well I know IRD don't take that approach actually. They do say—because you can file a return and get the income tax back at the end of the year and IRD don't blame the employer and they certainly don't blame the taxpayer. It is a proper and lawful—in fact legal—requirement as Mr Bayly says for the taxpayer to have a right not to pay any more tax than he or she is required to by law. To turn around and say "That's the KiwiSaver provider's problem. Bad luck. IRD has nothing to do with that" is the most dismissive victim-blaming "dog ate my lunch" excuse that I have ever heard for not giving people their money back.In a previous call the Minister talked about captain's calls and resources as if the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had made a captain's call not to pay the money back because that would take too much resource. What he has also said is that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has made a captain's call to invest just as much resource in collecting the nickel and dime money that might have been underpaid by a taxpayer. What we hear from Inland Revenue—their strapline for years was "It's our job to be fair". Well I say this: that is not fair. It is lazy it is selfish and it is wrong. Mr Bayly's SOP is the right thing to do and I implore the Minister and the Government—he might say "Well the overwhelming amount of the money that's over-collected by IRD or overpaid by the taxpayer is paid back where the taxpayer can be identified and located." That's fine. Then do it in this case. Be consistent. Be the thing that is on IRD's strapline: fair."
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): There's two things I'll say with regard to this. First and foremost the story about the woman who tried to get her right portfolio investment entity (PIE) rate off her provider just backs up my argument. I would say to you Mr Bayly that that provider was absolutely remiss in the service that it provided to its client.Hon Michael Woodhouse: That's not the point.Hon STUART NASH: No it is the point and that is my point. The providers of the—[Interruption] Listen to me for one second. The provider is taking money and making money out of the clients and for it not to provide a level of information that gives the clients a level of transparency I think is very remiss. I would have recommended anyone who can't get that information from their provider with one phone call to change. I certainly would.The second thing I would say is that this comes in the 2020-21 year not the 2021-22 year. So it's the 2020-21 year. The third thing I would say is that this is the issue that we were facing about you know this chap who got a promotion. So the default PIE rate was 28. If you're on the top marginal tax rate you pay 28. But we had no idea whether someone had contacted IR and said My rate is 28." or if that was the default rate that had been set. So we had no idea how to check this. If it was a lower rate then we did have the ability to check that because obviously someone had been in touch with the Inland Revenue and put that rate in place because everyone started on the default rate—everyone started on that default rate. So obviously that gentleman had contacted IR and said "This is what my rate should be." He got a promotion; went to 28. IR said "Well is that a default rate or is that where he should be?"The fourth thing I would say—and this is actually the most important point and I know the member does know this. I know we have two former Ministers of Revenue sitting in the House at the moment and both of them will actually know this as well. The fundamental principle behind our tax system is that it is actually the obligation of the taxpayer to provide the right information to Inland Revenue. That is the fundamental principle—the fundamental principle—behind our tax system and that is that the taxpayer provides the right information to Inland Revenue.Now this is the last thing I'm going to say on this because I think I've answered all the questions put forward and I would hate to have to relitigate yet again points that have already been made twice by two members by three members. So let's move on from this because I think I've answered all your questions and I'm not prepared to relitigate again."
Tolley AnnePart 3 Amendments to other enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 3 which is debate on clauses 58 to 148 and Schedule 2.
Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I just want to take a brief call because I'm like the IRD and its old motto: We're here to help". In clause 45 new section 62A I think we may have a minor mistake which we should have picked up on at the Finance and Expenditure Committee but which we haven't. Let me try and point it out to the Minister of Revenue and there may be a chance that if necessary we can fix it at this committee stage.For section 62A the heading is "Commissioner may notify employers when loan balance close to zero". First of all I question why there's a need for that. I would have thought it was necessary for the commissioner to not continue to accept contributions once the loan is in credit. Then further on "(2) When [the] borrower's consolidated loan balance … close to zero the Commissioner may—(a) notify one or more borrowers … and (b) require the employer [and the] employers to reduce standard deductions" etc. so they don't. Then at 62A(3) "The Commissioner must give a copy … to the borrower."—and we've removed the bit: if a valid address to the borrower is found.My concern is what happens if you don't know where the borrower is and I presume that's why we've removed the words "if a valid address to the borrower is found."And then further at 62A(3A) it does not apply if "he or she has incorrect contact details for the borrower [and] cannot reasonably locate the borrower." So I'm just confused as to what the obligations then are to the commissioner in regards to the borrower of the student loan and to the employer. So just a bit of clarification around that from the Minister would be helpful as to whether we've made a mistake with the "mays" and the "musts"—that's basically my question."
Tolley AnnePart 2 Amendments to Student Loan Scheme Act 2011CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 2—that's clauses 39 to 57 and Schedule 1.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): One issue I wanted to just talk about was the student loan arrangements particularly under clause 45B amending section 72. They relate to custodial institutions as well. But this is the issue around student loan deductions from scheduler election-day and casual agricultural income and also the exemption threshold for student loan repayments. This bill has quite a lot to do with student loan issues actually in terms of making sure that they are appropriately dealt with and are actually slightly more flexible—Hon Stuart Nash: That's Part 2 mate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah. It's actually in Part 2.ANDREW BAYLY: Section 72?Rt Hon David Carter: Yeah Part 2.ANDREW BAYLY: Oh sorry. We'll move on.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think there's a shout in the whip's fund yes.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 453 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Carter DavidWEDNESDAY 11 MARCH 2020(continued on Thursday 12 March 2020)TAXATION (KIWISAVER STUDENT LOANS AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to KiwiSaver Act 2006Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I assume this is the part that is relevant to the excellent submission we received from—Hon Chris Hipkins: I'm sure he's read it.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well I sat on the select committee in fact so I'm doing more work than the Minister's doing but that's not a challenge—but that's not a challenge.Now returning to Part 1 of the Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill the issue I want to discuss is the excellent submission we had at the Finance and Expenditure Committee from Tim Fairhall who appeared before the select committee. He is a remarkable young New Zealander a Down syndrome person who has worked full time five days a week and has taken a full part in New Zealand society. But he acknowledges that he will unlikely live to 65 years of age. He has a brother living I think in Italy from memory his best friend lives in Canada and he wants to use his KiwiSaver for the opportunity to go and travel in his latter years. Certainly that is a plan that he intends to undertake before he is 65 years of age. So I know that the Minister has accepted an amendment to KiwiSaver to allow people with illnesses such as this—or with conditions I should say such as this—to have early withdrawal of KiwiSaver funds for a person that doesn't expect to live to 65. My question to the Minister is quite a serious one: how will he now monitor applications? How will applications be received? Who will be the decision maker? Because whilst we've moved and the Parliament I think is fully in agreement with cases such as Tim Fairhall we do not want to see this become a loophole by which people can choose to withdraw from KiwiSaver arguing factually incorrectly that they may not live till 65 years of age. So my question is quite a serious one. I want to know what work is being done now around the approval process. I want to know who actually makes the decision. How does a person who is in the situation similar to Mr Fairhall—how does he or she make an application? What supporting documentation would they be expected to present to the decision maker who the Minister is going to tell us about shortly so that this becomes something legitimately used for people such as Mr Fairhall and not a loophole for people to try and extract themselves early from KiwiSaver for some nefarious-type reasons that they might have. I won't take further time in this committee stage but I look forward to the Minister rising to answer those quite genuine questions I've raised.
Thursday 12 March 2020 - Volume 744
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 June 2020; and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a siting of the House; and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.
9. Question No. 9—FisheriesKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of FisheriesQuestion No. 9—Fisheries9. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Fisheries: What reports has he seen about market disruption to the seafood industry as a consequence of COVID-19?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): In early February off the back of reports that the rock lobster industry which exports 99 percent of the live lobster export to China would be hardest hit the Government moved quickly. I agreed that fishery officials could allow a limited release of rock lobster back into the wild. The decision affected those fishers who had live crayfish in holding pots at sea and some held in tanks on land subject to biosecurity measures. I also recently agreed to allow some of this year's uncaught rock lobster harvest to be carried forward to the next fishing year which runs from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. These are two examples of tangible action that we are leading by example in our response to this global issue.Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he had from the regions such as Wairarapa in reaction to the Government's action to mitigate the disruption on the fishing industry as a consequence of COVID-19?Hon STUART NASH: Primary producers and exporters with diverse markets seem to be in strong shape to deal with the disruptions caused by COVID-19. I was in Nelson this week with other Ministers and firsthand reports from fisheries and winemaking sectors give good insights about what they are seeing on the ground. For example Sealord says that as a deep-sea fishing company specialising in frozen products it's had minimal disruptions to date. New Zealand King Salmon says that product originally destined for China has gone to markets in North America and Europe instead and this is the benefit of a diverse marketing strategy. They also are noticing a pick-up in orders from China which they say appears to be back open for business". Winemakers no doubt in Wairarapa as well as Nelson are looking at a bumper crop and their biggest headache is the perennial issue of seasonal workers for the harvest.Kieran McAnulty: What other reports has he seen about the impact of COVID-19 disruption on the wider fishing industry?Hon STUART NASH: The impact of COVID-19 disruptions on the rock lobster industry will be clear in the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries (SOPI) forecast due out shortly which estimates a 2.2 percent fall in seafood export revenue. Despite the collapse of the rock lobster market in China there is room for the wider seafood industry to be optimistic. Aquaculture earnings continue to grow and are expected to increase by more than 10 percent in the current financial year. The SOPI will also note that prices remain strong for hoki there is high demand for squid and salmon and mussel exports are growing. Anecdotal reports from our largest fishing port in Nelson also show that seafood exporters with diverse markets have had minimal disruptions from COVID-19."
8. Question No. 8—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 8—Transport8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: When will Cabinet consider any recommendations from the Ministry of Transport arising from the twin-track process for Auckland light rail and what is his best-case estimate of when construction could start?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: On behalf of the Minister of Transport I intend to take proposals to Cabinet within the next two to three months. As I've stated on Tuesday I've not yet received advice on a specific date for construction to start.Chris Bishop: Why has Cabinet not considered the recommendations from the Ministry of Transport on Auckland light rail when he has said previously they would do so in February 2020?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister because I haven't taken those proposals to Cabinet yet.Chris Bishop: Why has he not taken those proposals to Cabinet yet?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I've not been in a position to do so yet.Chris Bishop: Can he guarantee that Cabinet will consider the recommendations from the Ministry of Transport before the election?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm reasonably confident yes.Chris Bishop: Has the Associate Minister of Transport the Hon Shane Jones expressed to him his reservations about the Auckland light rail project; and if so what did he say?SPEAKER: Order! The member can rephrase that.Hon Judith Collins: Any reservations.SPEAKER: Very good advice from the Hon Judith Collins. She understands these matters.Chris Bishop: I thought I actually said any"—oh sorry Mr Speaker. Has the Associate Minister of Transport the Hon Shane Jones expressed to him any reservations about the Auckland light rail project; and if so what did he say?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Discussions amongst the Government's coalition and confidence and supply partners is part of the process of preparing advice to Cabinet. I have not yet finalised the advice to Cabinet. Those discussions will be reflected in the advice that I do eventually give to Cabinet.Chris Bishop: Is he aware of any recent correspondence from members of Parliament representing New Zealand First relating to their views on the Auckland light rail project and does he know what that correspondence says?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not in a position to be able to give answers on that level of specificity on behalf of the member other than to say that of course the Minister is engaged with discussions with the coalition and confidence and supply partners in the Government. Those discussions are ongoing.Chris Bishop: Will light rail be complete to Mount Roskill by 2021?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister I've already made it clear that that won't be the case."
7. Question No. 7—ACCJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for ACCQuestion No. 7—ACC7. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Will he consider reviewing Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 so that it can include exposure to dangerous substances such as PCP and dioxins?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): I have already instructed officials to work on a system that allows for regular reviews of Schedule 2. Schedule 2 was last updated in 2008 and a review is long overdue. Schedule 2 however is not the only pathway to cover for workplace illnesses. Workers can apply for cover using the gradual process tests set out in section 30 of the Act. I encourage workers who believe their illnesses have been caused by workplace exposures to discuss this with medical professionals and consider making a claim.Jan Logie: Does he agree that the exposure of sawmill workers to dangerous substances in their workplace has resulted in ongoing health issues illness and early death?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I agree that the chemicals in pentachlorophenol (PCP) are dangerous. That is why the industry stopped using them in 1988. A number of claims have been accepted by ACC for PCP exposure suggesting that in those cases health issues were related to its use.Jan Logie: Will the Minister continue the good work initiated by the previous Labour Government in supporting sawmill workers exposed to PCP dioxins and furans by ensuring the Act meets the needs of this group of timber workers?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I said in my primary answer I have already instructed officials to work on a system that allows for regular reviews of Schedule 2. I would note that the timber workers who have received support from ACC got that support under the existing scheme and of course the health system continues to support all New Zealanders.Jan Logie: Does the Minister consider it inconsistent that the Government recognises the damage PCP dioxins and furans cause to working people by specific targeted health services but not by including them transparently in the accident compensation system?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well respectfully I disagree with the premise of the member's question. Workplace exposure to PCP dioxins and furans is covered by the ACC system. I am advised that since 1992 ACC has received 127 claims for PCP exposure. Of those claims 64 were approved and 63 were declined.
5. Question No. 5—HousingHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 5—Housing5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Is she confident that she is fronting up in her housing portfolio?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. Hon Judith Collins: When she said in September last year with regard to the housing dashboard I'm happy to front up every month and I will." what did she mean by fronting up every month?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I meant is exactly what we've done: that we would put that dashboard up for everybody to see and happy to discuss it with anyone who asks questions which I do every month.Hon Judith Collins: Why has she only issued one press release on the housing dashboard since she promised last year that she would front up every month?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The dashboard is placed on the website every month as we said it would be. I never proposed to issue a press statement about putting up a dashboard. We regard that as business as usual. I save press releases for when we make milestones such as building more State houses than any Government since the 1970s.Hon Judith Collins: Does she think her department putting the dashboard on its website without any press release or fanfare is the same as a Minister fronting up? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. Hon Judith Collins: Then why would she be the Minister instead of her chief executive?SPEAKER: No that's an ironic question. The member can ask—Hon Judith Collins: How will we then know when she's fronting up as opposed to her department fronting up?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member every month can go and have a look on a website. She can see how we're performing across a range of indicators in housing. This is what we said we would do and we have done it every month since we said we would do it. There is complete transparency over housing numbers.Hon Chris Hipkins: Must be desperate for questions today.SPEAKER: Order!"
4. Question No. 4—HealthANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 4—Health4. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What does the recent World Health Organization pandemic declaration mean for New Zealand?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): New Zealand has been effectively dealing with COVID-19 as a pandemic for some time. We've been working from our comprehensive and longstanding pandemic plan since January and have taken early and decisive action to protect New Zealanders. As the Director-General of the World Health Organization said this morning Describing the situation as a pandemic … doesn't change what countries should do." What it does do however is send the strongest possible message to people the world over to take the threat from COVID-19 incredibly seriously and act accordingly. I ask all New Zealanders to play their part in this response.Angie Warren-Clark: How are measures at New Zealand's border helping to protect the public and will they be strengthened in response to the declaration of a pandemic?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In response to COVID-19 New Zealand already has some of the strongest travel restrictions in the world. Just yesterday Cabinet agreed to extend the requirement for people arriving in New Zealand to go into self-isolation to cover all of Italy. This is on top of the same requirement for arrivals from South Korea and the wider travel ban covering Iran and China. We have consistently taken early and decisive action at the border to keep COVID-19 at bay and that has helped keep the number of confirmed cases low by international standards.Angie Warren-Clark: How can the public help in our response to the COVID-19 pandemic?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: My message to the public is that we all have a part to play. Help keep everyone safe. Stay home if you feel unwell wash your hands with soap and water regularly for at least 20 seconds and don't forget to dry them. Don't share your germs: cough or sneeze into your elbow or by covering your mouth and nose with tissues. These simple steps that we can all take alongside good public health measures such as contact tracing are the best way to fight COVID-19.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports that the United States of America has closed its borders to the whole of Europe for 30 days; and if so has he sought advice on what response New Zealand should take in order to maintain what he describes as the toughest border protections in the world?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have seen that news come through in the last five minutes and I would note that daily we are getting updates on the situation in Europe in the United States and across the world as this situation develops. The important thing here is that we are nimble. We have acted early and decisively. That has bought us the extra time to plan to make sure that we are learning from the science internationally about what works in containing the disease because we know we will continue to get sporadic cases arriving here and we are daily reviewing that advice and getting new advice and taking action."
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Mr Speaker thank you. I just wanted to take a short call on this bill because I do actually have a bit of sympathy for what the Government members have been saying around the issue of Māori land. We need to be realistic around a lot of Māori land. It is in places where it is very hard to deal with and it is very small blocks of land that aren't economical in their own right that are leased to other neighbours or farmers and that have very multiple ownerships as well. That puts that land in a very difficult predicament to make it have an economic value in some cases to provide a return and I think that is something we need to be mindful of in this House. I know the ill that the Government is trying to deal with and there is a problem there that we need to be aware of. We need to have a concerted effort that deals with that issue so that we can actually provide some substance I think to those landowners that have generally felt an injustice in the past and are now looking at making the best utilisation of the assets that they hold. The National Party sees a dilemma though in the current bill in that it is potentially going to cross-subsidise between other ratepayers and that is a valid issue that should have been worked through by the Government before this bill came to the House. So in essence there is an issue there that we need to consider but it also is something that really needed a much better solution that avoided that cross-subsidisation result. I would recommend that the Government relook at the legislation to find a solution which enables that to happen. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. This piece of legislation is about unlocking economic potential on Māori land and what we have here is arrears that have grown and grown over many many many years. A lot of it has already been classified as unrecoverable. So is it not better to wipe the slate clean so that these people that own this land can turn around and build on it make it productive and then pay rates from there onwards as opposed to potentially never ever paying the rates on this land? It would remain unproductive and unusable. So in my mind this is a fantastic piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Naturally this is a first reading for this bill and a number of the concerns have been already identified. I've no doubt in my mind that the Māori Affairs Committee will receive submissions and diligently work through those submissions. On this side of the House we are not that pompous to think that this bill doesn't deserve further scrutiny and there can be refinements. That's the virtue of having a select committee process. But the underlying kaupapa of the bill is to enable those Māori land owners who either want to dedicate their land to a long-term permanent heritage purpose not to be rated out of existence or those who may actually want to evolve the use of their land to do it in such a way that they're not insolvent before they start. Now these are actually matters that will advance the interests of the broader rate-paying community.Now we did have a few contributions from the former mayor there in the Hawke's Bay. Of course his recitation of history is deliberately selective. We have just settled the Ahuriri claim which gives a very sad history originating with the affairs of Donald McLean who in 1867 was also the originator of the Māori seats. And if you read the history of the Ahuriri claim you can come to no other conclusion than that local government in his area—of which he's obviously an administrative descendant of that generation of land squatters who actually took the land off those hapūs. So there's just no coherence. However he's entitled to his view. I think that there shouldn't be much scope for the discussion of these things of over-bloated language and apocryphal scaremongering. The Māori land is a key part of growing the provinces. The regions and the territorial authorities have proven incapable without a clear instruction from central government. And where the legislation may need some further refinement just trust in the democratic select committee process. That's why the Minister has nominated the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. I suggest to the members on the other side of the House: use that process and stop the scaremongering stop the divisiveness over this issue; it's very unbecoming. Thank you very much.
Allan Kiritapu; Dyson RuthKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call Matt Doocey could I just say that despite the previous speaker Mr Chris Penk indicating that he understood the debate was narrow there was very little of his contribution that actually referred to the instruction that we are now debating: it doesn't cover the content of the legislation it doesn't cover the prospect of a pandemic in New Zealand and the subsequent Health Committee workload and it doesn't cover the American travel ban; it just covers the instruction.
Jones Shane; Dyson RuthHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Obviously the referral motion enjoys the support of the party I belong to but this debate has become tainted by alarmism. This debate has wandered right off the track. It is a very narrow well-understood device used by both sides of the House from time to time. But to suggest that we should acquiesce with this merchant of doom from the other side of the House at a time when all parliamentarians should be standing shoulder to shoulder and giving reassurance to New Zealanders rather than plucking inaccurate information out of Google as he's just done in terms of America and Europe without understanding the technicalities of that decision—not only has the member moved us away from a very common parliamentary practice which we will be voting for but he is now trying to scare trying to panic and trying to taint what is an important piece of legislation which has long since been talked about in this House: a public policy issue to which we are no strangers. So this notion that we're on the edge of a precipice—worsened and exaggerated by the other members of the House at the very time they should be giving a tone that is calm and reassuring not dividing New Zealanders in levels of panic and scaremongering moving along like Cassandras. So for those reasons under no circumstances whatsoever will we agree with the sentiments of the last speaker Mr Tim Macindoe and I encourage us to move very quickly to the end of this rather elongated and fruitless debate.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just remind members before I choose—with a very difficult choice—that this is a very narrow debate. Thank you for your understanding. On the basis of your miming Chris Penk gets the call.
Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you Madam Speaker. Nau mai haere mai tēnā koutou Mana Ahuriri especially to Piri and Barry. Welcome. It's been a long time coming. It's been a long long journey from Ahuriri to this House; too long—far too long.I can't help agreeing with the words of my colleague Lawrence Yule—and you won't hear that often. I'm well aware of the work you Piri and Barry and Joinella have done in getting this bill here. We've had a number of conversations over the issues the challenges and the time and I've always welcomed these engagements and interactions but I acknowledge the time it has taken to get here has been too long.Our Pākehā forebears had little imagination when it came to naming places in Napier. Hospital Hill—well there used to be a hospital on the hill. Bluff Hill—the hill ended in a bluff. It's now fitting and proper that this part of Napier where I live will now be called Mataruahou; Perfume Point—it's where the sewage outfall used to end up—now renamed Te Karaka; and others—important.But it's not the true nature of this settlement rather an apology and a Crown acknowledgment that the Crown was wrong and breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles—cultural redress that will recognise the traditional historical and spiritual associations of Ahuriri hāpu with places and sites owned by the Crown within the Ahuriri rohe. Financial and commercial redress of $19.5 million in recognition of historical claims and interest that has accumulated since the agreement in principle was signed in December 2013 will also be paid as well as the right to purchase a number of assets and properties including the purchase of the Crown shares in the Hawke's Bay Airport Ltd.All these are important—and I acknowledge this—very important in terms of moving forward. Minister Jones has outlined a distinguished list of Ngāti Kahungungu leaders who have fought this battle in earlier times and a number of members who have spoken have also outlined the history that has led us to this House today. But what I know are the practical implications of this settlement—that is the people of Mana Ahuriri can now move on in a way that I know will add significant value not only to the people of Mana Ahuriri or Ngāti Kahungungu or even Napier but to all the people of Hawke's Bay. I have seen some of the plans and they are truly aspirational.Like other speakers I acknowledge Chris Finlayson. I also will acknowledge the Minister Andrew Little but there are other players in this: Paul Swain; the Hon Sir Michael Cullen has also played a part in getting us here and we wish him all the best in the greatest battle he has had to take on.But one thing I would say to conclude is this is a good outcome. I hope like hell that the progression of this bill isn't held up unnecessarily. Today is a good day and tomorrow will be the start of the process for rebuilding Mana Ahuriri's wealth health and wellbeing. That as a long-term resident of Napier I absolutely welcome. Kia kaha.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Speaker. E rau rangatira mā e ngā iwi kia ora mai tātou.[To the gathered leaders to the iwi thank you all.]Others have traversed the history that brings this bill here today with great elegance and I echo their words. There have been many stages on the way to the House today as is consistent with a Treaty settlement bill. On 19 December maybe this story started in 2013—the formalities of this story—when the Crown and Ahuriri hapū signed the agreement in principle. Three years later the deed of settlement was signed. At that time the redress was financial and commercial redress which continues through to today I would add. Financial and commercial redress including $19.5 million and the right to buy shares in the Kāweka and Gwavas Crown Forests Licensed lands. Pakake Heipipi Pa Historic Reserve and Conservation House in Napier are to be vested in Ahuriri hapū as part of the cultural redress. The settlement is also to include a permanent statutory committee called Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga to protect and enhance the environmental economic social spiritual historical and cultural values of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga the Ahuriri estuary.At that time in 2016 this was the 81st deed of settlement to be signed by the Crown—significant progress and I too want to acknowledge my colleague Chris Finlayson and the important work in settling many historical grievances not just in the Hawke's Bay but across New Zealand. The current bill has the standard structure of a Treaty settlement bill: the Crown acknowledgment and apology cultural redress the financial and commercial redress.So this bill is now on its last journey if you like starting with us here today and then when we conclude we pass the care of this bill to my colleague Rino and my friends in the Māori Affairs Committee and we give them this important piece of work to shepherd to take out to the hapū—out to the community—and hear and crystallise all the important views of community stakeholders and anyone who has an interest in this bill. We then charge them to bring it back to the House as a well-formed view of all the stakeholders who have interest and recommendations. Madam Speaker 2013 to 2016—it's taken many years to get here in a way. Let's not get in the road of the good work of the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to them and to the House.
Obituary — Sir Robert Fenwick
Shaw JamesOBITUARIESSir Robert FenwickHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the death of Sir Rob Fenwick. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.Hon JAMES SHAW: I move That this House note its deep sadness on the recent death of Sir Rob Fenwick; recognise Sir Rob's outstanding contribution to the protection of nature and shaping a more sustainable New Zealand through his vision for a predator-free Aotearoa; his work to protect kiwi and other threatened species to minimise waste and to connect people businesses and communities in the service of people and nature; and that this House express its sincere condolences to Sir Rob's wife Lady Jennie Fenwick his family friends and colleagues.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins Chris; Woodhouse MichaelTHURSDAY 12 MARCH 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered by the House next week will include the remaining stages of the Abortion Legislation Bill and the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill the third readings of the Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill and the first readings of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill the Organic Products Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill and the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. The first general debate of the year will take place on Wednesday 18 March.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for the update. Can I invite him in the wake of the apparent propensity of the Government to have shortened select committee processes and perhaps more extended hours sittings between now and the House rising for the election that he produce a longer time indication of when those extended hours could be in order that there could be good planning in the select committees?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I think that's a fair request. We've certainly been trying to give committees greater notice of when extended sittings will take place and I'll certainly take that on board.
Wednesday 11 March 2020 - Volume 744
Broadcasting (New Zealand on Air and Te Māngai Pāho Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Broadcasting (New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2020.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.Motion agreed to.
12. Question No. 12—EducationHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 12—Education12. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes in the context in which they were made.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement in response to fears regarding coronavirus that lost fees could wipe out the surplus of the entire university sector that comments were alarmist given the sector is projecting up to $300 million a year in losses?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Those comments are very premature. The overall impact on the university sector will largely depend on when the travel restrictions are removed and the proportion of students who had intended coming to New Zealand—the proportion of those who continue to come here.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement that comments were alarmist and that those comments were premature given that the universities of New Zealand have written to the Tertiary Education Committee projecting that scenario of $300 million of losses within the next seven or eight weeks?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes I do believe they are alarmist. I also believe they were premature. Of course the position of the universities is that there should be no travel restrictions at all.Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he ruling out a financial support package for education providers to deal with the impact of coronavirus?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No but at this point I believe that is premature.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his decisions around education providers and coronavirus given the real issues of delays around visas and returning students and will he do anything to prevent that?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is arguing that we should remove the travel restriction I think the majority of the country would disagree with her.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement regarding adequate support for education providers impacted by coronavirus given the real communications by agencies and schools and the issues raised with that and the real need for greater financial support for tertiary institutions?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not sure which one of those questions the member wants me to answer. I am confident that the schools early childhood centres and tertiary institutions are being given very good sound advice by public health officials about how to deal with any consequences of the coronavirus. I am also confident that there is existing financial means for the providers to cope with this situation in the short term. Of course the overall financial impact is going to depend on how long it goes on for.