edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Look the excitement was palpable from the other side from that speaker Priyanca Radhakrishnan who has resumed her seat—slightly facetious of course because she knows that this is a Phil Twyford bill and she knows that there has been a failure of delivery unfortunately. It doesn't matter if it's been KiwiBuild in housing in general and now around transport and infrastructure there is a nervousness—I can feel it. It's palpable from this side. There's a nervousness. However I'm here to be nice to the Minister. He knows that National is supporting this bill and is acknowledging the work that he has done but part of the reason we're supporting this bill is of course it's a National Party idea. We just didn't have quite the opportunity. Through a series of confusions I think in 2017 we didn't have the opportunity to implement it. Hon Phil Twyford: The electorate are so unfair aren't they? SIMON O'CONNOR: But this is a positive—yeah that's true. Elections are unfair but you know there's always the chance every three years to try and right a wrong if the Minister would like to help me with that. However we do think the overall intents of this bill are very very positive. Setting up these special vehicles of funding trying to provide more flexibilities to councils—that's a good thing. The only element I would note—and it's an encouragement around some current funding—is for Government to give certainty to the councils around what funding is available for them. There's been a lot of discussion around the infrastructure and the shovel-ready products. There's no point in putting forward an infrastructure funding and financing bill if the Government doesn't use it quickly and appropriately. I know in recent weeks the likes of Auckland Council and others have been crying out for some certainty to understand how much of the billions of dollars that central government intends to spend they will have—Hon Phil Twyford: They're getting $500 million in Auckland. SIMON O'CONNOR: $500 million? Hon Phil Twyford: In Auckland yep. SIMON O'CONNOR: Five hundred million dollars—only $500 million. OK before the Speaker tells me off that I'm deviating actually it's a start—it's a start. But the encouragement is to provide that certainty and certainly when it comes to Auckland to provide a little bit more. With that encouragement I do commend this bill to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. The member Tim van de Molen who just resumed his seat spoke of a visionary infrastructure plan that is being touted by the Opposition. It's a pity that that plan is completely uncosted largely revolves around building houses to ease congestion—which has never worked before—and won't even be started for the next 10 to 15 years. That to me is more of a pipedream than a vision and that's largely why we are where we are today which is a housing crisis that we've experienced for many years—for way too long—and there are of course different interrelated causes for that. One of the most fundamental reasons that we are experiencing a housing crisis is as the Minister mentioned that we are short of about 70000 houses across the country. One of the fundamental reasons for that is that supply of housing just hasn't kept up with demand. One of the factors that compounds this though is that our current infrastructure funding and financing scheme presents a range of constraints that actually make it difficult for the market local government and central government to come together to plan and to meet this demand. Now this is where this bill comes in. It creates a new tool to fund and finance infrastructure without being hindered by a council's financing constraints—some are at their borrowing limit and some can't increase rates because ratepayers are against investing in infrastructure there—and it also mitigates that issue of high upfront infrastructure costs. So this is actually a bill that I'm incredibly excited about because this is an issue that we've been wanting to fix for such a long time and it fundamentally speaks to the fact that we on this side of the House believe that everyone deserves a warm dry home that they can call their own and has the right to live with dignity. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill — In Committee
Twyford PhilBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. If the Minister might indulge I wasn't part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that scrutinised this legislation but he just made the comment then about obviously what the funding and financing model permits and he mentioned transport. So I'd just like to clarify it with my understanding looking through the bill. So this bill permits an entity and let's call it a public entity to basically finance or borrow against future revenues—in this case the special rate levy—in order to fund transport works. Is that correct? Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Yes that's correct. BRETT HUDSON (National): Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh just go. BRETT HUDSON: I thank the Minister very much for that confirmation. I'd be very interested to hear why that should differ for a local road versus say a State highway. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Well to the member's question the financing mechanism that we have set up is—let's give you an example of a project where there needs to be the provision of local roads that would normally be the responsibility of the local council in order to enable a new subdivision or a new development. It's not uncommon as a developer tries to stack up the revenue and the financing arrangements to make a development work that they struggle to get it up to a level where it's going to be affordable for the developer and affordable for the people who are going to buy the properties. The real problem that we have in so many of New Zealand's high-growth areas now is that the council simply can't borrow any money because they're right up against their mandated debt limits. What this would enable a developer and a council to do using this mechanism is to create a special purpose vehicle that could borrow the money and pay for the local roads and have them built by borrowing against the future revenue stream of the levy which is like a targeted rate. So that is borrowing against that revenue stream. Councils do that. Really it's just another version of what councils currently do and it's just another version of what the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) currently does. NZTA already borrows and has the ability to borrow against future revenues. This legislation and the approach that it embodies reflects my view that in government both local and central we've got to use our balance sheets more aggressively to support urban growth and I think we are not only with transport but in housing and urban development. Parts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill without amendment. Report adopted.
van de Molen Tim; Twyford PhilParts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I saw the Minister for Urban Development looking to rise with some enthusiasm earlier so I just wonder whether he might have liked to continue with that vein. But that's all right; I'm happy to take the first call on this. It's good to see this bill and actually I think we've got to a pretty good space on this. It's reasonably uncontroversial in bringing in I think an appropriate mechanism to enable the investment in additional infrastructure around our country. You certainly know there are a number of areas where this could play out. I just wanted to I guess query with the Minister around the eligible infrastructure aspects definition there and whether he has confidence that's tight enough that covers what he wants in particular eligible infrastructure. Something that for our side has been important—and we're seeing a lot of value derived from this—is around water storage projects. I would ask whether he sees that as fitting in within the meaning of eligible infrastructure. Of course we have four types there that can be covered as water services as transport as community as environmental resilience. Water storage definitely fits those criteria but it isn't specified under the water services infrastructure being related to what is supply sewage treatment and disposal although there's certainly an argument to say it is related to water supply of course. So I just wanted to clarify with the Minister—if he could please clarify whether water storage projects could be accessed under this particular bill. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): I thank the member for his question. I want to acknowledge the support that we've had for this bill from all sides of the House and I note that it builds on work that was started under the former Government with the Housing Infrastructure Fund to provide new finance for infrastructure. We've taken this to a new level building on the work that Crown Infrastructure Partners has done. The bill before us today really is the fruit of all of that work. In response to the member's question about eligible infrastructure we deliberately have cast the net widely. The mechanism that we're setting up here is specifically designed to lift the burden on local authorities. So it's designed to provide a new and additional funding and financing mechanism for infrastructure that has been in the past the preserve of local authorities and for the obvious reason to take pressure off the overstretched balance sheets. So water services infrastructure set out in clause 8 is intended to include all of the three waters—including waste-water treatment—transport infrastructure community facilities and environmental resilience. In relation to water storage which the member asked about which is a real need right around the country the answer is that yes it could be included here if it relates to the supply of water for residential for horticulture or for whatever.
Allan KiritapuINFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING AND FINANCING BILLIn CommitteeKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this debate to be taken as one part. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker it's a pleasure to rise to take a short call on this bill. It essentially seeks to modernise and make more efficient and effective an older bill on the dairy industry and Fonterra's ability to regulate and function. As the Green Party we were pleased with this bill and we were pleased in particular with the changes that came after the Primary Production Committee's hearing of submissions. The Government has taken extensive consultation on this bill with the dairy industry with Māori stakeholders with experts and with other affected communities.We are pleased to say as a party that does stand for environmental issues that this bill indicates a willingness to take that industry along with us as we come into modernising our economy and our industries to be more sustainable and to make transformative changes hopefully as we go forward—as we need us all to do in our fight against climate change. So it is good to see that our law is modernising and that regulation is coming along with our biggest industry at this point and our biggest stakeholder in that industry Fonterra. So with the changes made and with the intention of this bill being put in place today we do support this bill.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the previous speaker Ron Mark and agree wholeheartedly with his sentiments. In fact I have a view that many in New Zealand only love the agricultural sector when they need them and now they need them more than ever. I know there's recognition across the House today but let's hope it's more—and I know certainly from the member that just took his seat it's certainly heartfelt. I hope the other speakers actually reflect on what's being said here. Don't just talk about it live it because this is the sector the whole agricultural sector that does pay our bills does allow us to have the standard of living that we all enjoy in New Zealand and indeed gives us a higher place amongst other countries in the world because of the respect that our agricultural sector—or the high regard it's held in around the world.However this dairy restructuring bill this is an important bill and I want to focus particularly on the terms of supply and particularly the price differential provision that's been put in in this bill. I think my colleague Barbara Kuriger pointed out quite rightly that Fonterra's always had the ability to differentiate in their terms of supply for poor environmental practices. This was a stick approach and it was a very big stick and a stick that Fonterra were reluctant to use for many reasons. However I hope this provision is used with the intent that it was put in there so that Fonterra can use this as a carrot approach: to reward good behaviour rather than to punish poor behaviour. I think certainly from experience in other sectors we can see that actually people do react to that very positively. If we could see dairy farmers and suppliers being rewarded for good behaviour you can bet everybody's going to be jumping on that very quickly.We have to remember as I said in the second reading on this bill that in fact we're not judged by our best; we're judged by our worst and the worst suppliers are the ones that make the headlines and quite rightly so. That has been at the expense of the vast majority of dairy farmers that do a fantastic job environmentally have invested millions of dollars improving their environmental practices water quality all those things that we all aspire to. But there are outliers and the best way to deal with that is to reward the good ones. The other ones will follow along. They won't like to see their neighbour getting a little bit more for their milksolids than them and they will follow along accordingly. So I applaud that provision in the bill and with that I commend this bill to the House.
Kuriger Barbara; O'Connor DamienBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): So can I just have another supplementary on that? Does the Minister in the chair the Hon Damien O'Connor foresee that it could be a possibility at some point in the future where the Minister nominates someone and Fonterra actually does not appoint that person?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Indeed that's a possibility but I would assume that Fonterra should share the objectives of what we're trying to achieve here. If they were to block that and the perception was that they wanted to dominate what should be a fair and objective process then I'd suggest that would push back on them. In the end we're trying to find the right balance between what is a very dominant player and an industry champion Fonterra—a national icon I guess—but we have to keep some tension on them to ensure that they operate well. There'd be many across our economy who say that Fonterra hasn't operated as well as it should have. We're not reforming the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act in this situation or the legislation governing the dairy industry but we are changing it and making changes in the hope that we'll get better and more consistent outcomes for Fonterra for our economy and for indeed the farmers' suppliers.
O'Connor DamienWEDNESDAY 22 JULY 2020(continued on Friday 24 July 2020)DAIRY INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING AMENDMENT BILL (NO 3)In CommitteeDebate resumed.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one through the committee stages.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Tuesday 2 June 2020 - Volume 746
Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55 ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55 ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
12. Question No. 12—HousingNICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 12—Housing12. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Will she do anything for KiwiBuild buyers caught up in the delayed Monark development including the couple who wrote to her on Friday stating We want the Government whose involvement induced us into entering this contract to own up and enable KiwiBuild purchasers to exit their agreements with no further financial bloodshed"?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes.Nicola Willis: What will she do for those buyers and will she ensure they can get their full deposits back or does she think it's fair they face a $5000 penalty?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member's been here long enough. You can't ask three supplementary questions.SPEAKER: Can't ask what?Rt Hon Winston Peters: You can't ask three supplementary questions all at once.SPEAKER: Well I'm going to get the member to start again and I'll focus.Nicola Willis: What will the Minister do for those buyers and will she ensure they can get their full deposits back?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Addressing the first part of that question I understand the developer will be communicating with KiwiBuild Monark purchasers to inform them that they are offering to return the full deposit payable on all KiwiBuild contracts cancelled and no costs will be recovered. This offer will be open for 10 working days from today. The developer and the Government remain committed to this development and we are confident there will continue to be demand for these homes. I am also currently working with officials on the steps required to align the occupancy requirements on the Monark two- and three-bedroom homes with the one-year requirement on studio and one-bedroom homes.Nicola Willis: Why did the Government market homes in the Monark development before a construction contract had been confirmed and will she apologise to KiwiBuild buyers caught up in the resulting delays?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I explained to that member last week this is a type of contract that is no longer entered into by KiwiBuild. It has not been a type of contract that is entered into since December of last year. Selling off the plans is a normal part of property development but we recognise that doing so prior to there being a contracting agreement does not sit well with Kiwi buyers. I think what that member does need to understand however is that selling off the plans is going to be an incredibly important part as we get through the post-COVID recovery in construction and I look forward to hearing some constructive plans from that member on what she's going to do.Nicola Willis: Will she apologise to distressed KiwiBuild buyers caught up in the Monark development?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I've not only offered my sympathy and apologies but we changed the policy in December and I've fixed the situation for these people that want to get out of it."
5. Question No. 5—FinanceDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released its latest quarterly predictions for the June quarter. While the NZIER acknowledged the difficulty in forecasting under the current uncertain circumstances its forecasts do see a decline in activity concentrated in the June 2020 quarter largely reflecting the conditions of alert level 4 that occurred during that quarter. However NZIER did forecast unemployment to peak at 8.1 percent—below Treasury forecasts and far better than a number of other countries. It also said Given the relatively short amount of time spent in lockdown reflecting our success in eliminating COVID-19 the New Zealand economy looks increasingly likely to be at the optimistic end of the scenarios that had initially been considered … With New Zealand moving down the alert levels more businesses are reopening and offering a [wide] range of goods and services." As we move through level 2 we can expect to see further gains from our early success in getting COVID-19 under control.Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on recent activity in the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are already seeing a significant lift in economic activity from moving from alert levels 3 and 2. A report out on Friday citing analysis by AirDNA showed a 565 percent increase in short-term rental bookings in New Zealand which is higher than almost any other country in the world. Friday's weekly economic update from Treasury also shows improvements in economic activity. Heavy traffic movement is now only 5 percent below its normal levels while electricity demand is now above pre-COVID levels and electronic card spending during level 2 has been nearly equal to pre-COVID levels. This lift in activity is thanks to all New Zealanders supporting the Government's strategy of going hard and going early. Cabinet is fortunate to be in a position to now be considering a move to alert level 1 on 8 June.Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on the economic impact of moving through the alert level framework?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Reserve Bank forecast that GDP would go from being 19 percent below normal under level 3 to 8.8 percent below normal under level 2—an improvement of 10 percentage points. In comparison a move to level 1 adds 5 percentage points so half the value of a move from level 3 to level 2. While a move to level 1 would further free up activity this research from the Reserve Bank shows just how significant the move from level 3 to level 2 was in terms of opening up the economy. The good news is that the vast bulk of the economy is now able to be back up and running at level 2 and a further step down to level 1 is primarily focused on increasing gathering size and reducing social distance requirements which will add additional economic capacity."
Resource Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Look I'm not even going to dwell on the retrograde do-nothing politics of the National Party when it comes to things as important as freshwater policy. But what I am going to do is I just want to touch on one thing and leave some of my colleagues to identify some of the other important improvements in this bill. What I want to talk about is really the shift in the way hearings will be conducted particularly around fresh water. We know that the resource management process has got bogged down in appeals and in extensive hearings and really it has been a costly process that arguably has been over lawyered and in some ways over engineered. So in the Environment Committee we looked at that process particularly freshwater panels and we said: how can we make it accessible how can we make it understandable and how can we make it easier to get great outcomes so that we can actually make our rivers swimmable? What we thought was really that we wanted to be careful about the use of cross-examination—was one point. Cross-examination can in fact not be the best way to get to the heart of a matter. In fact when you've got laypeople coming to the tribunal when you've got expert witnesses what we want is a much more investigative and inquisitorial process. If we look at new clause 47(2) of Schedule 1 in clause 72 of the bill we'll see that the freshwater hearings panel can (a) permit a party to question a witness:" or/and "(b) prohibit cross examination:" or "(c) permit cross examination … but only if the panel is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice:" and "(d) regulate the conduct of … cross examination." So those processes are very much saying we do not want some legalistic full-blown courtroom drama on our hands; we want to get to what's best for our rivers.Another innovation and one that I think is really important is the ability of the panel to appoint a friend of a submitter. We have a lot of concerned people who have genuine and real concerns but don't know the law don't know the procedures and they want to come and really be heard and help make our waters better and cleaner and fresher. Now the panel will be able to say this grouping has a legitimate voice and we want to make sure it is effectively heard by appointing a friend of the submitter. They're just a couple of things which the select committee in a collaborative way looked at and said this is a better way to reach the end goal of having cleaner swimmable fresh water in New Zealand—not a minor objective but one that this Government has stood on and is committed to achieving in the near future. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): That's right I thought that Mr Guy deserved to hear from the cheeky little whip" a little bit about the bill that he avoided for five minutes. It was Albert Einstein who told us that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and not expecting the same result. We know that tackling climate change is one of the great imperatives of our time. We know that for no single sustained period in New Zealand's industrial history have we succeeded in reducing emissions. We know that the current emissions trading regime that's been in place for nearly 12 years in different guises hasn't been especially successful at doing that either. We know that price is actually a pretty good mechanism for guiding people's economic behaviour.I do acknowledge the member on the other side of the House David Seymour for enunciating on that point this afternoon. The supposed party of free enterprise who usually has a lot to say about that has completely avoided that point over the course of this debate. Because what this bill does is finish the work that was started 12 years ago or at least take it to the next stage and put in place a functional emissions trading scheme in which price can be used to guide economic behaviour and reduce emissions. It puts in place the administrative structure that will actually bring some meaning to that. And it will give New Zealand an emissions trading scheme that linked up with the zero carbon legislation that was passed almost unanimously by this House last year will give New Zealand a world-leading scheme and actually put us on to the path to doing what all members of this House know we need to do which is to reduce our emissions.I commend this second reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill—[Interruption] I know to the great disappointment of members on the other side of the House who would have enjoyed eight minutes more on this bill. But I think quality counts more than the quantity that they have offered this evening. I commend the bill to the House Mr Speaker."
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to stand in support of this bill because this bill is incredibly important in giving us the tools that we need to meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement and also to achieve our targets under the zero carbon Act. I'd like to thank all the officials who worked so hard on the bill and everyone who made a submission. I commend this bill to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. To the member who just resumed his seat David Bennett we do trust farmers and that's why we've entered into a historic agreement with them to reduce their emissions alongside the Government.I'd just like to take a very brief call. This is a weighty and complex bill—410 pages of goodness—and I especially want to thank our officials for their support including their outstanding briefings. I heard the call from the Opposition saying that we should pause and slow down. Well the environment can't wait. We've waited too long and therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. Mr Simpson first of all I want to thank you and your team for the hard work that you did on the Environment Committee and what the committee showed is that when we work together we can make real progress. I was surprised to hear you stand up and say that the National Party will oppose this bill because you know and I know that this bill is good policy and it's the way forward for New Zealand. Now I know the National Party's a conservative party; I know it's not a party of progress but we will not do what the National Party did for nine years and sit on our hands. There is always a reason to do nothing. We are not going to do that and led by James Shaw Minister for Climate Change we are going to stand up and fulfil our international obligations. So this is a party of progress and reform and this is the time for progress and reform more than ever.I was interested to hear Mr Simpson talk about industrial allocations. Now all we are asking—what this bill does is a very very simple thing. It's a complex piece of machinery but the principle is simple. It says Carbon emitters should bear the cost of their emissions." and this is a pricing regime to achieve that. But as Mr Simpson points out there are some industries which if we asked them to bear the full cost then it's likely that the industries would move overseas and be less carbon efficient. Now that can't go on for ever. We can't keep giving New Zealand industries a free ride but we want to transition them.A really good example of the collaborative work that went on was the considerable refining of the industrial allocation framework. The fact is that as it stood it was a relatively blunt tool but after it went through the committee process we heard from many many submitters and the work of our officials was truly outstanding under extraordinary circumstances but we looked at that and said "We need to have more flexibility." It may well be that international conditions are so extraordinary that we need to pause for some industries but extraordinary is the threshold not tricky not competitive but truly extraordinary because this is an extraordinary challenge we face. But equally these thresholds have been unchanged since 2009. We know that there are industries out there that have been getting a free ride and more and so we need to be able to increase and improve that reduction as well to pare it back at a faster rate if indeed that is appropriate.So that's why we have set up the Climate Change Commission to get the best possible advice to set up a very robust machinery and we've done all of this in a very collaborative and hard-working way and it's great to see that behind the scenes outside of this Chamber we can really cooperate and improve things to make it a much better piece of law for New Zealand. So with that I want to commend this bill to the House and say that I'm proud to be part of a Government that is brave enough to move on climate change today."
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — COVID-19 Alert Level 2—Rules Breach
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDCOVID-19 Outbreak—Alert Levels Social Gatherings Rules BreachSPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the breach of alert level 2 rules on social gatherings at yesterday's protest in Aotea Square in Auckland. For there to be an urgent debate there must be administrative or ministerial responsibility for the case of recent occurrence. The concept of ministerial responsibility for a matter qualifying for an urgent debate is narrower than it is in respect of questions for oral answer which encompass any matter relating to public affairs with which the Minister has an official connection. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case which is sought to be debated—Speaker's rulings 191/3. There is no governmental responsibility for the protest in Aotea Square yesterday. Therefore the application is declined.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 2 JUNE 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.PRAYERSSPEAKER: Members last week was Samoan Language Week but due to a combination of circumstances we did not have the opportunity to have the prayer in Samoan. To make up for that I have asked Agnes Loheni to say the prayer in Samoan today.AGNES LOHENI (National): Tatou ifo ma tatalo. Le Atua Silisili ese e matou te sulaina lau Afio mo fa'amanuiaga ma tofi ua e fa'au'uina ai i matou. E lafoa'i ni o matou lagona ma manatua ta'ito'atasi i le amana'iaina o le Masiofo o Peretania. Matou te tatalo ina ia tonu ma fa'amaoni fuafuaga ma fa'ai'uga uma i totonu o lenei Maota Fono. Ia talosia ta'ita'i o lenei Mālō ina ia maua le tōfā mamao le fa'apalepale ma le agamalū auā le manuia ma le filemū o Niu Sila. O le matou tatalo lea e ala atu i le suafa pele o Iesu Keriso Amene.
Wednesday 27 May 2020 (continued on Thursday 28 May 2020) - Volume 746
New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill be considered by the Privileges Committee.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill referred to the Privileges Committee.
Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1 (continued)
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 507 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that—Matt Doocey: Party vote.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I've actually started the question so I'm going to finish it. The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.Matt Doocey: Party vote.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You're very—you're lucky. Party vote called for.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
12. Question No. 12—Building and ConstructionPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 12—Building and Construction12. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has she made about supporting our building and construction businesses?Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Malo le soifua. Manuia le aso Mr Speaker. This Government is ensuring that construction subcontractors will have the support and security they deserve with new changes to the retentions payment regime under the Construction Contracts Act 2002. We know that when construction firms dip into money that isn't theirs and if they then collapse and go into liquidation it's our hard-working builders plumbers electricians and other tradies who are hit the hardest. These changes will ensure that we're delivering security for our subbies. It's great to be in this House for a second day in a row to talk about concrete changes this Government is making to ensure that our building and construction sector is put back to work.Paul Eagle: What are the proposed changes?Hon JENNY SALESA: The changes that I'm proposing are these: the Government is making three big changes to the Construction Contracts Act 2002 to deliver security for our subbies. First we're introducing new offence and penalties for firms and for company directors who don't comply with their responsibilities. So for companies it'll be a fine of up to $200000; for company directions a fine of up to $50000. Second we're strengthening how retention money is held so that no one can dip into it and use it as working capital. And third we're making firms issue a transparency report about how much retention funds are being held and where those funds are being held. These changes give the existing law the teeth that it deserves.Paul Eagle: How will this affect construction firms who are already worried about an uncertain economic outlook?Hon JENNY SALESA: I want to reassure the vast majority of law-abiding construction firms that they will barely notice a difference. This isn't going to make life harder or more expensive for our head contractors and contractors who are already putting retention funds aside or who already pay their subbies in full. This is about going after those cowboys—those who knowingly dip into subcontractors' money for their own cash flow when they know that they shouldn't. We'll hold those firms accountable and we'll go after the company directors as well. It's always unfortunate when construction firms go under but our subbies shouldn't be the ones paying the price.
9. Question No. 9—RevenueJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 9—Revenue9. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Revenue: What advice has he received about the uptake of the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Talofa lava Mr Speaker. The Government has taken decisive and considered action to support small businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic. Today Inland Revenue advised me that a billion dollars in interest-free loans for small businesses has been applied for.Kieran McAnulty: Outstanding.Hon STUART NASH: Thank you. Almost 60000 businesses have applied and 96 percent have been approved. That's an average amount of around $17300 per business and 90 percent of applications are from firms with 10 or fewer staff. A wide cross-section of businesses have applied. The most common are those from the construction industry accommodation providers professional firms and retail. And 88 percent of those seeking loans also received support from the wage subsidy grant. Applications are due by 12 June but I'm seeking advice on extending the deadline given the substantial demand for the loans.Jo Luxton: How are provincial businesses represented in those who have applied for the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme?Hon STUART NASH: The IRD has received around 3062 applications from Tauranga businesses 2000 applications from Palmerston North 1800 from Whangārei 1500 from Nelson and 1400 from Napier and more than 25000 businesses from our largest city Auckland have drawn down approximately $425 million. I thank the member Jo Luxton for her advocacy for the businesses of Rangitata and for the insight she shares as a small-business owner. The loan scheme has helped 230 businesses in her region to the tune of $4.4 million. I also thank the member Tamati Coffey for his advocacy as a small-business owner. More than 1300 businesses have also accessed this support in his area. My friend Damien O'Connor will also be pleased to hear that Government lending has extended to 300 businesses in Greymouth and I thank the tourism Minister who is supporting tourism-related businesses—more than 1800 businesses in his electorate have borrowed $31 million.Jo Luxton: What response has he seen from the private sector about the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme?Hon STUART NASH: Professional advisers like bookkeepers accountants and tax agents have backed and endorsed the loan scheme for their clients. For example the Accountants and Tax Agents Institute of New Zealand which has 400 professional members has thanked Ministers for their excellent work in recognising the need of small businesses and for providing an effective package for helping their clients with cash flow at this time. The Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme is a targeted and balanced approach to recovery for viable but vulnerable small businesses.
2. Question No. 2—HealthJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 2—Health2. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of Health: Is the development of a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19 and the use of that vaccine a crucial tool that will contribute or is likely to contribute to preventing the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes and that's why I was pleased on Tuesday to join the Minister of Research Science and Innovation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to announce the Government's COVID-19 vaccine strategy and the investment of $37 million to support the development of a vaccine. Jami-Lee Ross: Does section 11(1)(a) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 give him as Minister of Health the authority to make orders that require persons to take any specified actions or comply with any specified measures that contribute or are likely to contribute to preventing the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government—and indeed previous Governments—have never compelled any individual to get vaccinated against their wishes. That is not about to change. We will not force people to get immunised against their will. That said we know vaccination works and when there is a COVID-19 vaccine we will do all we can to ensure New Zealanders get immunised. I would note that there are eight measures listed in the Act that people could be required to undertake to reduce the risk of COVID-19 including staying in a specified place staying physically distant from people and reporting for medical examination or testing. Vaccination is not one of the measures listed.Jami-Lee Ross: Has he seen any reports of other coercive public policy measures being proposed relating to vaccinations which would see a parent losing their benefit or Working for Families entitlement if they did not vaccinate their children commonly referred to as a "no jab no pay" policy?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have seen that advocated. I don't agree with Mr Luxon on that point. I would note also that there is provision to refuse medical treatment under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act."
Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Schedule agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill without amendment. Report adopted.
Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55 Ross.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 agreed to.
Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1