edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Just to respond to a few of the member Simon Bridges' points first of all I would stress that all decisions that have been taken in response to the coronavirus have been taken with the public health of New Zealanders and the public safety of New Zealanders as our primary concern. All decisions taken have been informed by the science. The advice that we have received from doctors and clinical experts has informed every step that we have taken and you will see that we have moved very quickly after Australia to close our borders upon reviewing the evidence and receiving the advice from the experts. To date I stress in this House—and members will know this—that we have not had a single case of the coronavirus in New Zealand and we have indeed only had one case that could even have been suspected to have met the test of the virus and that proved to be negative.We make no apology though for taking a precautionary approach and making sure that for example we had full Cabinet consideration of the categorising of the disease. We have the health pathways in place. The doctors were ready to refer. The powers that we now have in place can be invoked at any time but historically in situations like this they have not been required because New Zealanders understand the importance of taking care of their friends and family and those that are around them.In closing I would say that we will continue to review the situation. The member at one point says we should move faster and more stringently; at the other he acknowledges that there are economic effects of this virus around the world. We are reviewing the situation because we do not want this situation to be in place any longer than is necessary for the public health and safety of New Zealanders. We are a trading nation and we are concerned to ensure that we are doing the right thing for the health of our people and we will also look to the economy.
Visitors — Republic of Iceland—Speaker of Althingi
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: No I can't call the member yet. I'm waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to comply with Standing Order 124. It's an issue I dealt with last year with him. [Leader of the Opposition tables amendment]Hon Member: What an amateur.Hon Simon Bridges: He's such a clever guy!SPEAKER: No sit down. The member will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: I want to indicate to the member that the Standing Orders are not petty. They're very definite. They're very clear. He had one chance last year and he made a mess of it and he's done it again and calling me petty for insisting that he comply with the Standing Orders is as far as I'm concerned outrageous. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not said that you are petty and I'd ask if you're going to make that sort of quite serious statement in this House you back it up because it is not true. The second point I'd make is there may well be Standing Orders on these matters but for the 12 years I have been in this Parliament when things are tabled when motions like that are put there is customarily a period of time in which to put that before—I had just finished my speech and if I wanted to take a little time and actually let Mr Peters start speaking and hand it over to the Clerk I think that's incredibly reasonable.SPEAKER: Right. OK well the member might believe that but he might believe a whole pile of other things. Any competent member knows—any competent member knows—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Starting off the year biased.SPEAKER: Nick Smith will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Any member with a knowledge of the Standing Orders—and anyone who has observed this House—knows that it is the practice to give to the whips a copy of an amendment which is given to the Clerk during the speech because it has to be put by the Speaker at the end of the speech. The question is now that Mr Bridges' amendment be agreed to.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.VISITORSRepublic of Iceland—Steingrímur Sigfússon Speaker of the AlthingiSPEAKER: Members I'm sure that you will wish to welcome esteemed Steingrímur Sigfússon Speaker of the Althingi of the Republic of Iceland and his delegation who are present in the gallery and the Speaker is to my left.Steingrímur Sigfússon accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.[Applause]
Tuesday 11 February 2020 - Volume 744
Obituary — Rt Hon Michael Kenneth (Mike) Moore ONZ AO
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following agreement this morning at the Business Committee I seek leave for the Prime Minister's statement to be provided and presented and for the debate on it to commence on Wednesday 12 February and following the speeches of the leaders of each party for oral questions to be held despite Standing Orders 66 354 and 355. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. Karakia. OBITUARIES Rt Hon Michael Kenneth (Mike) Moore ONZ AOSPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 2 February 2020 of former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Michael Kenneth (Mike) Moore ONZ AO who was an MP from 1972 to 1975 and 1978 to 1999.
Wednesday 13 November 2019 - Volume 742
End of Life Choice Bill — Third Reading
VoteA personal vote was called for on the question That the End of Life Choice Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 69Adams (P)Genter (P)MallardSeymourAllanGhahraman (P)MarcroftShaw (P)Andersen (P)HenareMark (P)SimpsonArdern (P)HipkinsMartinSmith SBall (P)HudsonMcAnulty (P)Stanford (P)Bennett PHughesMitchell C (P)Swarbrick (P)BishopHuo (P)Mitchell MTabuteauCoffeyJacksonNashvan de MolenCollinsJones (P)O'Connor GWallCraigKayeParkerWarren-Clark (P)CurranKingPattersonWebb (P)Davidson (P)KurigerPeters (P)Willis (P)DavisLees-GallowayPrimeWoods (P)Doocey (P)LittleRadhakrishnan (P)YangDysonLogieRobertsonEagleLubeckRossFaafoi (P)LuxtonSageTeller:FalloonMahuta (P)SepuloniTinettiNoes 51Bakshi (P)Guy (P)O'Connor STolleyBaylyHayes (P)ParmarTwyford (P)Bennett DHipangoPenkUpston (P)BidoisKanongata'a-SuisuikiPughWagner (P)Bridges (P)Lee DReti (P)Walker (P)BrownLee MRurawheWhaitiriBrownleeLoheniRussellWilliams (P)CarterMacindoeSalesaWood (P)Clark (P)McClay (P)ScottWoodhouseDean (P)McKelvieSioYoung (P)Dowie (P)MullerSmith NYuleGarciaNgaroStrangeTeller:GoldsmithO'Connor D (P)TirikateneBarryBill read a third time.SPEAKER: Order! Can members continue the congratulations in the lobby.
11. Question No. 11—ImmigrationSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 11—Immigration11. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: Is he concerned that visa processing delays are having a negative impact on the tourism industry in New Zealand? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): There's no evidence to suggest that the current visitor visa processing times have any impact on tourism numbers or on the tourism industry. For the benefit of the member and the House Immigration New Zealand is currently processing 92.4 percent of low-risk visitor visa applications within 15 days and 85 percent of high-risk applications within 30 days. Stuart Smith: Has he requested Immigration New Zealand undertake an assessment of the negative-impact economic costs that visa processing delays are having on the tourism industry; if not why not? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No because as I said in the primary answer—the member obviously wasn't listening—there is no evidence that visa processing times are having an impact on the tourism industry. Stuart Smith: Interesting. Why are tourism operators losing significant revenue as a result of visa processing delays despite an $11.7 million injection into Immigration New Zealand—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I'm going to ask the member to rephrase the question without the unauthenticated bit at the beginning. Stuart Smith: Has the injection of $11.7 million to Immigration New Zealand to do with this very issue—why hasn't it reduced tourism operators' loss of revenue? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Look I refute the assertion in the member's question. There's no evidence that tourism operators are losing revenue. Stuart Smith: Why are applicants for visitor visas from South-east Asia waiting up to 30 days in the system before being allocated to an immigration officer for assessment? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Visitor visa processing times are actually in line with the Australian processing times and that is because at this time of year it is visitor peak season. So what I recommend to people is that if they're planning to come to New Zealand they prepare and they get their application in early. Stuart Smith: Are Immigration New Zealand prioritising visa applications based on country of origin of the applicant rather than the timing of the application? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. Immigration New Zealand prioritises applications based on risk and as I said in my primary answer low-risk applications—92.4 of those are processed within 15 days and 85 percent of the high-risk applications are processed within 30 days.
10. Question No. 10—Building and ConstructionPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 10—Building and Construction 10. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent evidence has she seen of a growing workforce in building and construction? Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): The Government is investing in apprenticeships and I was honoured last week to congratulate Mr Tiorangi Smith of SLC Builders for being apprentice No. 13000 for New Zealand's largest apprenticeship provider the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation (BCITO). Mr Smith like thousands of other apprentices actively training with BCITO has made a great choice to train as a tradie in the face of the huge pipeline of work that we have. We inherited a large deficit in this area and Tiorangi is one of thousands of Kiwis who will contribute to building the homes the hospitals and the schools that we need. Supporting apprenticeships is just one way the Government is ensuring we have the skilled workforce we need in Aotearoa New Zealand. Paul Eagle: How is the Government supporting training in building and construction? Hon JENNY SALESA: We need tradies of all types from all different backgrounds to help deliver the $43.5 billion of projected construction activity expected over the next five years. That's why I'm delighted to state a few numbers. The number of our Māori apprentices in active training with BCITO has increased 11.6 percent since this Government came into office the number of women apprentices has gone up 42 percent and the number of Pacific apprentices is up by an impressive 46 percent with BCITO in the last two years. I congratulate BCITO on their progress. Clearly the Government's support for the trades is helping to see more women more Pacific and more Māori pick up the tools in record numbers. Paul Eagle: What other ways is the Government helping grow the building and construction workforce? Hon JENNY SALESA: We know that within the next five years we're going to need an additional 80000 workers in building and construction. That's why the Government has looked at tackling the issue head-on through the Construction Sector Accord. We have a construction skills action plan we're committed to a centre of excellence for vocational education in construction and the Prime Minister has also created the Prime Minister's Vocational Excellence Award which acknowledges our best and brightest going into the trades with an award of $2000 through our high schools right across Aotearoa New Zealand.
4. Question No. 4—FinanceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): A number of recent reports show how the New Zealand economy is in good shape amid global headwinds. The ANZ bank recently released its full-year results for 2019 with the acting CEO Antonia Watson saying The New Zealand economy while growing at a slower pace is fundamentally in good shape which is promising for businesses moving into 2020." She added "Demand for commodity exports is healthy construction activity is firm … lower interest rates and an easing NZD are supporting activity. Growth is expected to start lifting as easier monetary conditions make an impact." It is good to see further agreement that the New Zealand economy is indeed in good shape. Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on how infrastructure investment is contributing to the economic activity? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ANZ also recently released its ANZ anecdotes report. It said that infrastructure investment was supporting the mood in many areas of the country and the construction sector remains very busy in most areas. Specifically on infrastructure the report said "There is a large amount of road improvement under way and more is planned. This is being supported by the Provincial Growth Fund. Staff shortages are a limiting factor but there are some reports of a big uptick in tenders for infrastructure work recently particularly in new commercial premises with the pipeline looking very solid into 2020." Willow-Jean Prime: What other recent reports has he seen on the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Reserve Bank has very recently released its November Monetary Policy Statement (MPS). The MPS reflects that New Zealand continues to have solid economic growth amid a slowing global economy. The report highlights strong exports improving terms of trade and strong wage growth alongside some capacity constraints. The bank expects growth to increase next year above New Zealand's long-term trend growth rate. These are solid results amid the global headwinds that we face. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder if I can ask the Minister of Finance as to how conversations and discussions are going with his colleagues—and ministerial colleagues at that—on future fiscal stimulus investments? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have had many interesting conversations with my ministerial colleagues particularly in the build-up to Budget 2019 where we significantly increased operating and capital spending. I look forward to further conversations to identify opportunities for the Government to continue to contribute to strong productive sustainable growth."
1. Question No. 1—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Education1. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen in response to the Government's reform of Tomorrow's Schools? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The reforms have been broadly welcomed. IHC have said the announcement goes a long way to ensure that disabled children get a fair go at school." NZEI Te Riu Roa have said "What we've seen today provides hope and focuses on greater support for school leaders and teachers to meet the needs of our students while still empowering local [school] Boards of Trustees." and Te Rito Maioha Early Childhood New Zealand has said "This will be a major transformative change for the education sector and will require everyone to be brave and to embrace the future." Jan Tinetti: What response has he seen to the new disputes and mediation panel? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was particularly heartened by feedback from the Children's Commissioner received via Twitter yesterday that said "Today's announcement by Minister Hipkins that parents and students will have access to a free independent & prompt disputes panel to appeal BoT decisions is a win for our children. We have long been advocating for this. Currently students who face exclusion can only go to the costly High Court to appeal or [to] the Ombudsman. Access to education for all is one of our top priorities and this is a great step forward." Jan Tinetti: What response has he seen to the changing responsibilities for school property? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was particularly encouraged by the Secondary Principals Council who said "Another positive is the move to the Ministry of Education having more of a support role in schools. In particular moving property to the new Education Support agency will let boards focus on governance rather than red-tape." Jan Tinetti: What response has he seen to a local approach to enrolment schemes? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen one or two principals who have said that this is a step too far. However I have also seen the Auckland Secondary Schools Principals' Association who have said that if anything the changes don't go far enough in discouraging out-of-zone enrolments. So I think we've probably got the balance about right. Hon Grant Robertson: Thank you Mr Speaker. Has the Minister seen any knee-jerk negativity in reactions? SPEAKER: Order! Sit down."
Webb Duncan; Tolley AnneSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether given the hard work the House has done tonight we might rise a few moments early seeing as we're just about to commence a new bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that makes absolute sense.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Don't we seek leave?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh I'd better seek leave yes. Well is there any objection? No. The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thanks very much Madam Speaker. As we draw to a close tonight it's my pleasure to stand and take the final call on the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I had the privilege of speaking to this bill when it came into the House. At that time I took the time to acknowledge the JPs that do the work in our communities and I repeat that because they do fill a very special place in New Zealand community.We have heard tonight many contributions about how sensible this bill is. Certainly we've heard how sensible the sponsor of the bill is and I duplicate those credentials for him. It's very simple: we just want to stop clogging up the District Court. Our JPs are well versed in being able to deal with these matters take the pressure off the District Court. It speeds things up because while you've got a dog that's basically in custody the cost is building on the owner—it's got to be fed and housed; it's got to be cleaned and have its healthcare dealt to. This is just a really simple way of dealing to that and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.Bill read a second time.
Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thanks Madam Speaker. Well Ian McKelvie top bloke tonight in the House. Top bill. Just a couple of things from me: I didn't sit on the select committee but the first thing that's extraordinary is that there were 456 charges under the Act in the 2015-16 year and of them 427 were for category 1 offences. Those were for things like failing to register a dog or failing to keep a dog under control—there were other ones as well obviously—and they had to be heard in the court. Anyway this seems like a pretty sensible kind of bill and we support it and I commend it to the House.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thinking I'll make a short contribution on the Dog Control (Category 1) Offences Amendment Bill second reading. I would like to acknowledge again our kaumātua—Hon Dr Megan Woods: Kaumātua?MATT KING: Kaumātua—Ian McKelvie—well I prefer to think of him as a kaumātua—for another member's bill bringing this dog control amendment bill to the House. He is a very practical man with many many good uses. He brought the stock-rustling bill before us as well; another very practical—Denise Lee: Very resourceful.MATT KING: —resourceful sort of a bill.So this is a relatively simple bill and it is to bring category 1 offences so that a JP or a community magistrate can deal with them. It's a very common-sense sort of a bill and it will speed up the process and will allow things to be processed through the courts a lot simpler. I know that some of the reasons why you couldn't have JPs and community magistrates dealing with everything is there are issues around some serious offences when a dog needs to be put down or other certain types of categories of offences which are of a more serious nature and require a judge to deal with them. This frees up the judges to deal with the more serious matters. So this is a great example of a member's bill going through the House.I see in 2015-16 there were 456 charges under this Act and 427 of them were category 1 offences. So this bill will deal with that and it will impact on the delays in a positive way for court proceedings on pound facilities and animal welfare. It will reduce time for these cases to be resolved and allow judges to deal with the more complex cases.So yes yet another great bill from another great man. I commend this bill to the House.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to speak to this bill and offer three points on character: the character of dogs the character of JPs and the character of Ian McKelvie.The character of dogs: they are our friends for the most part but for some people they can be quite frightening. Uncontrolled dogs can be a nuisance and they do need to have some measures taken against them but they need to be reasonable and fair.And that is why the character of JPs is so important. The JPs that I have had the fortune to be in contact with through my job as an electorate MP are people of great sense and good character. I think they are well placed to be able to deal with wandering dogs.Just on the third point then in terms of people of great character I would just like to commend my friend and former foe in the Rangitīkei electorate Ian McKelvie who is a man of great character and good worth—I think it shows that in this very sensible bill and I congratulate him on having it brought to the House. I commend this bill to the House.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Yes but I'll only be taking one minute of that I think. It's my pleasure to speak to this bill and congratulate Ian McKelvie on bringing this bill to this point.It's really simple there are a number of low-level dog control infringements in the community; they often involve neighbours people in a neighbourhood and often the council or somebody gets involved and they're really difficult to resolve. The dog sometimes can end up in a pound there are costs of looking after that dog and everybody gets stressed. The simplest thing that can be resolved is that somebody with some authority takes it to a court-type process.All this bill simply says is that there is another way of doing this through JPs or a lower level court process. I think it makes imminent sense. My time in local government would show me that actually there does need to be lower level access to sort these things out. I commend this bill to the House.
Hughes Gareth; Tolley AnneGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this legislation. I acknowledge the member Ian McKelvie. It's a great moment for an MP to have their member's bill not only pulled but then actually passed and now go through select committee.This legislation is all about reducing the workload for our courts where the workload has increased over recent years. It's about increasing the animal welfare of dogs. I was made aware of a stat today that we have one of the highest per capita rates of dog ownership in the world. Now they are man's and woman's best friend and we love our dogs in New Zealand.I'd like to acknowledge the intent of the legislation. I think it has been improved in the Primary Production Committee because what they have done is while those category 1 offences can be dealt with by justices of the peace excluded a few offences. When it comes to the issue of dog destruction I think it's right that that can go through a normal judicial appointment and not just a justice of the peace. The Primary Production Committee has also taken out those category 1 cases that still have a legal test.I think the measure is going to be the impact of the legislation. I'm aware of a statistic that 90 percent of dog control cases in the 2015-16 year—of 466 cases—were category 1. But I note in the select committee report they mention I believe they estimate only a third of current cases will be heard after those exclusions are taken out. So it will be interesting to see the impact.We are voting for this legislation because of the animal welfare impact. We're not going to see dogs in pounds as long as currently is the case because justices of the peace will have to expedite the process.I'd also like to just take the opportunity to say that while we're dealing with dog registration we have a massive problem in New Zealand when it comes to backyard breeders. What I would personally like to see is actually a registration scheme for those breeders and compulsory de-sexing because what we see is a number of animals actually raised in pretty horrific conditions and the SPCA and other entities are unable to take action because shelter and water—even the barest-quality water even if the water is covered in slime is allowed under the existing rules. And then sadly these animals are literally just kicked out of the home and sometimes kicked to the street.So this is an issue we're going to have to address in the future but I'm glad to be taking this step in a positive direction tonight. Congratulations to you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Lawrence Yule—five-minute call.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Well I'd like to acknowledge the member that's just resumed his seat Todd Muller for that contribution. It sounded like an audition for the National Party leadership to me and likewise all of the accolades that have been thrown his way. But richly deserved—richly deserved—I must say in terms of the passage of bills that we've had this evening.Just turning to the bill at hand I want to acknowledge the member for the Rangitīkei—the mighty electorate of the Rangitīkei—Ian McKelvie. He seems to have a lot of good fortune because he's had quite a few members' bills drawn from the ballot and they've all been relatively successful as I recall including this bill which we are just debating right now.As has been discussed this is about dog control—in particular category 1 offences. Currently those offences which are only punishable by fines or community-type based sentences are heard by District Court judges. It seems quite an unnecessary use of court time and resources particularly calling on judges to be required to adjudicate over these sorts of cases and so rightly so Mr McKelvie has brought this bill to the House. Rather than clogging up the court system and putting a lot of these offences—loading them up—on judges he's helpfully suggested that justices of the peace who exercise a judicial function—and likewise community magistrates which was originally proposed in the initial bill—be called upon to actually adjudicate such cases.The Primary Production Committee thanks to the advice that we received found out it was unnecessary to actually specify that community magistrates have the jurisdiction at hand because they inherently have that jurisdiction anyway. So it was redundant of us to restate that within this bill.So there were some minor tweaks that were made in order to I guess achieve the objects of the bill which as I've said is about court efficiencies. It's about also animal welfare—ensuring that dogs that are impounded are not detained unnecessary or for prolonged periods of time. It ensures swift decision making and swift access to justice and it's a very sensible piece of legislation. It's good that when we can come into this House—no matter if the subject matter is quite small—there are some useful things that we can do. This is one such bill that we are doing.Once again I'm sure that members of the judiciary particularly within the District Court jurisdiction will welcome the passage of this bill—likewise the very wonderful justices of the peace that we have right up and down the country. We must acknowledge those good Kiwis. It's unpaid—it's a voluntary role that they take on—but I know many justices of the peace up and down the country take that position very seriously and I want to acknowledge all the good work that they do and I'm sure they'll be looking forward to having this expanded jurisdiction whereby now they can adjudicate on category 1 offences under the Dog Control Act.This bill is going to be welcome across a number of quarters. Likewise it is supported from this side of the House and with that I commend it to the House.
Tolley Anne; Muller ToddDOG CONTROL (CATEGORY 1 OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 23 October.DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we were debating this last we had come to the National Party call—and are you seeking the call?TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I am Madam Speaker. I was just listening intently. Well what a night for National this is. Right I rise to speak to the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill second reading. This is important—yet again it's a common-sense bill brought forward by my friend and colleague Ian McKelvie. We all—well not all of us; a few of us have experiences of constituents coming in saying Look you know we have some real challenges with our neighbours' dogs and the noise they make and the difficulty of getting often the local government to prosecute it." and then when it gets to the point of such a social nuisance that it has passed the threshold for a prosecution to occur it can then get caught up in our judicial process. Again regardless of the political persuasions that are reflected in this diverse House I think we can all reach a pretty consistent view that our judicial system should be better focused on areas of perhaps greater import.This is an issue that we have seen that Ian McKelvie has reflected on and said well actually to make things easier to be able to get better outcomes for communities let's actually ask our justices of the peace and magistrates to be able to listen to these issues and complaints. It's a common-sense suggestion one that will enable people who feel aggrieved by their next-door neighbours' dogs yapping to actually see a pathway forward that can see their issues dealt with and hopefully resolved.It's a simple bill. It's not particularly complex but I think what it does talk to is an unerring ability of the National Party on this side in its members' bills to anchor their contributions in terms of solutions and things that actually make a difference for people in the community. Is this huge? No but for those who get frustrated in terms of the difficulty of engaging with local government and the judicial process around dog control this is a sensible change which will make their issues dealt with quickly—and for those people it's another example of a National Party that listens a National Party that hears them that understands them. We have in Ian McKelvie someone who is deeply attuned to his community and this is an example of a small change that will make a big difference for a number of people. I commend it to the House."
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): My short contribution to the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill: first of all I'd like to kick it off by acknowledging the mighty Todd Muller the MP for the Bay of Plenty for his work around this bill. Now the facts of the matter are that this is a member's bill: he put it in the ballot it hit the ballot 18 months ago and as soon as it hit the ballot it got drawn out. Some people go their whole career and don't get a member's bill drawn out so that tells you the amount of sway the amount of connections that this man has—that he can get a ballot drawn out. So he's destined for great things. Did I say he was a legend? Well he is.I can tell you this: I can see that the Government MPs are on the edge of their seats. Iain Lees-Galloway—I've never seen him so on the edge of his seat about this. This is why I came to Parliament. Not really—the last bill was. But anyway this amends the Companies Act 1993 to provide legal certainty around dividend rules. It's a simple bill giving companies the rights to distribute profits according to their constitutions. Now I won't go into the details because they've been well traversed by the previous speakers but it's rather like the farm debt mediation bill I spoke on yesterday: it just makes it easier for people to do business.The passage of this bill will build on the work that the previous National Government did in the area allowing businesses to grow and prosper. I know Zespri—they submitted and they welcomed the clarity that this bill brought to the challenges that they faced with their grower-owned organisation. I know that Craig Presland CEO of Cooperative Business New Zealand supported this bill as did the agribusiness sector. I look forward to seeing many more bills brought to this House by our colleague and friend Todd Muller MP for the Bay of Plenty. I know he will make a great Minister of Agriculture in the National Government next year. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. I wondered if I could trouble the House with a few thoughts on this excellent bill which of course we support. It's yet another bill with cross-party support. Only the other day I was speaking on a bill in the final parts of its third reading and commending it to the House—the zero carbon bill—and here we are again joining hands across the House. What another happy occasion it is. I must say it was very heartening to hear Mr McKelvie just talk to us about cooperation—from each according to their ability to each according to their needs—and about how socialism runs deep through our society right through the veins of Fonterra and Zespri and the like. It's great to hear and it's good to see that even at his advanced years ideals are still there—are still there. Oh thank you Mr McKelvie. But look this bill—I know some of my friends across both sides of the House have looked at it and thought that it's not an interesting bill but it actually is because it goes to the heart of company law. Company law in the good old days was nothing more than a contract between shareholders. The shareholders could come up with pretty much any deal they wanted and it was in about the 1890s that some rules started forming around it to make sure that people weren't caught out. One of those fundamental rules was fair treatment of shareholders—in particular minority shareholders—but also there was the rule that emerged that whilst you could have different classes of shares with different voting rights and different dividend rights and so on and so forth within any particular class you had to deal with those shareholders equally. So you couldn't peel off a few of them who weren't your mates and then look after your mates and issue a dividend for example to some but not to others of a class. That rule has found its way right through to our current Companies Act and that's the one that's caused some concern. But there's another rule that goes the other way which is that in a constitution you can write pretty much whatever rules you like. There are some rules which are set in stone in terms of things like duties of directors and you can't contract out of those but pretty much the rest of them—a whole lot of the other ones—you can. The dividends rule is one which is subject very much to the constitution. So yeah there's a lack of clarity there. David Goddard QC now Justice Goddard thinks it might be unclear but he would fall on the side of It's pretty obvious we can do that." So here we have a member's bill which for the benefit of those great cooperatives we're really there to clarify.So look it's really about making sure that shareholders aren't caught unawares and as Mr Hughes said that companies aren't spending unnecessary time and resources doing complicated workarounds. But at root this is simply about fairness and equality across shareholders clarity of company rights and on that basis I'm very pleased with both major parties of the House and others to commend it to the House."
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's my pleasure to speak to the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill and I do so in the knowledge that this is a member's bill put up by Todd Muller the member for Bay of Plenty. This really started his ascension to glory because from that point until in the end he took on the climate change thing he got us through and it was an instrumental and a very successful across-Parliament agreement last week. He's now our spokesperson for agriculture. You know he is moving very rapidly up the ranks. So I am delighted to support this bill. I am delighted to support this bill because what Zespri—and this is really where it came from—is doing is that it is one of the most successful cooperatives in New Zealand. I want to remind members of this House that its business model really started from a whole lot of small growers getting together and forming a cooperative using market-led signals having all control of the breeding rights and then developing a highly successful international business. There are those shareholders at the beginning who took a lot of big risks and didn't know quite what was going to happen and who may now have retired or may be out of the industry but they are none the less shareholders and there are those shareholders who are actively producing today and who are taking big risks and doing things and producing the fruit. All this bill does really is give some flexibility to cooperatives by making a change to the Companies Act and I think we would do a disservice not to do this. Even though it sounds small and innocuous it is significant to a small number of cooperatives in New Zealand. Now with what Zespri is doing and what it will continue to do they do need to be nimble. They will need to manage capital structures—how they organise themselves—in perhaps different ways than they have in the past and all this bill really does is allow the dividend flows to be managed to the maximum advantage to Zespri its growers and its shareholders. As the spokesperson for horticulture and having visited Zespri a number of times I know the value of having a cooperative structure. There are other structures in New Zealand that are cooperatives in many other cases that have been highly successful—particularly in the primary production sector—and I think this is a great bill. From small beginnings I'm pleased to see that it's come with support from right across the House and I commend it to the House.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I'm delighted to rise and take a call on this. I'd also like to start by commending Todd Muller on having a member's bill drawn and reaching now the final stage in the House. That has taken some time to get to this point and appreciate we've had a reasonably protracted debate on the previous piece of legislation that was before the House this evening. So we will see now a significant change in terms of the process happening on a typical members' day. I think we'll see a number of other great members' bills put forward by National MPs progressing nicely through the House over the coming months as well. But this particular bill is focusing quite simply on clarification in the Companies Act in relation to the dry-shares situation. We've heard already the relevance of that to Zespri's situation and potentially less so to the Fonterra situation that had preceded that some years ago. But really looking to just amend section 53 making it clear that a company if they outline it in their constitution can make these changes.Now this is something that's perhaps a bit unique to the agribusiness scene in New Zealand where there are a lot of cooperatives that operate in that space. This just enables a bit more flexibility but also clarifies how it would work for other companies if they were choosing to look at a similar or potentially some variant on the share structure situation.So look it's relatively straightforward. It's a great bill put forth by Todd Muller from a real-life situation that he has experienced and understands and shows the depth and quality of MPs on this side of the House with their knowledge on a whole range of aspects particularly in agribusiness in New Zealand.So I look forward to seeing this pass presently in the House and commend it. Thank you.
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. He mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora.I rise in support of this legislation the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill. I'd like to echo the sentiment of the House and acknowledge the member Todd Muller for getting this through. It is a significant achievement to get a member's bill through Parliament particularly from Opposition so I acknowledge him.Basically this is trying to clarify a legal disagreement between section 36 and section 53 parts of the Companies Act. Look I don't think it's in anyone's interest to have companies spending their time and effort paying lawyers to try and get their heads around a legal—Dr Duncan Webb: Someone's interest.GARETH HUGHES: Some members might disagree with me and some lawyers—I'm sure most lawyers—might disagree with me. But I believe companies should get on with the business of their business not paying lawyers to work out what could be seen as quite a legitimate inconsistency in legislation.I'd like to thank the Primary Production Committee. There's a small improvement in the legislation. I note some of the comments around the lack of engagement. I guess an optimistic interpretation is that people were relatively comfortable with the legislation and sometimes silence is a show of support. So the Green Party supports the legislation acknowledges the member and congratulates him at this point in time.Willow-Jean Prime: Madam Speaker.Tim van de Molen: Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's Tim van de Molen.Willow-Jean Prime: Oh yip.Tim van de Molen: Thank you.Willow-Jean Prime: Sorry a bit slow to get up.DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was whoever's going to yield first. It's a five-minute call.
Tolley Anne; Luxton JoDEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jan Luxton.Hon Member: Jo.JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Jo Luxton. Sorry.JO LUXTON: That's all right. Thank you Madam Speaker.I'm pleased to rise in support of this piece of legislation the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill. I think the title's just about longer than the parts of this legislation. But I'd like to acknowledge and commend Todd Muller for bringing this piece of legislation to the House.It came through the select committee after my time on the Primary Production Committee so I wasn't too familiar with it when it came through that select committee process. From what I understand of that process it was a little bit touch-and-go for the select committee. There were some issues around I think members from the Government side just wanting to know exactly what the purpose of this was what it was going to achieve. Thankfully that's been worked through and the select committee has come to an agreement on this.It's actually really nice to speak in the House on pieces of legislation or bills where there is agreement across the House. It's a nice way to spend the evening rather than in a combative-type situation.To explain this I guess in easy layman's terms because it is quite a technical piece of legislation I think the basics of it is that it provides clarity. There's been some confusion potentially around companies' abilities to—and the rules that come around the shares or the dividends that they can have within the company. We've heard about the wet shares and the dry shares the wet shares being those that are for the people that provide the produce or whatever it might be and then the dry shares are those who no longer continue to provide to the company. This will enable clarity which will be quite helpful. When I talked about wet shares being those that currently provide produce to the cooperative thereby they can potentially receive a financial dividend my understanding is that those that have dry shares potentially do not. But it does allow that ability for the company or the cooperative to be able to make that decision.I think that this is a pretty good piece of legislation. I think anything that provides clarity particularly in our rural producing sectors our rural producing companies is a good thing because we do know that our primary producing sector provides—I think I've written—around $46.4 billion in exports. And so we on this side of the House are more than happy to support any legislation that gives our primary producers clarity and enables them to do what they need to do to continue doing the wonderful work that they do in providing exports to the world and taking our exports out to the world. Because we know that we do provide the best primary food to the world and that's something that we can be proud of.It is a good position for us tonight to be here to support this piece of legislation. So again I'd like to commend Todd Muller who brought this piece of legislation to the House and I'm more than happy to commend it to the House this evening. Thank you.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It's a great pleasure to take a short call on this outstanding piece of legislation introduced to the House by my colleague Mr Todd Muller from kiwifruit country. It's also a great pleasure to follow Rino Tirikatene in what was an outstanding contribution to this bill. I'm also following the clear candidate for leadership of New Zealand First by the speech he just made; it could have meant anything to anyone. But I do want to get back to the point. It is a piece of legislation that deals with some very small factors and when Mr Muller first told me about this piece of legislation I was quite excited because it seemed to me there might be an opportunity to rort a couple of my brothers by paying differential dividends and I thought well that's quite a good way. I see unfortunately the Primary Production Committee has tidied that bit of stuff up so you can't do that which is a little disappointing for me. But also today I had a group from Fielding the Fielding Multicultural Group in my office and they were asking me about the legislation going through the House. Well I clearly had no problem describing the previous piece of legislation to them. I certainly couldn't describe this piece of legislation to them I thought that would take far too long but having listened to Rino Tirikatene I could've borrowed him to do it for me because he did such a good job of it. I then got them on to the dog control bill which is the next piece of legislation in the House; very simple and very sensible. But this piece of legislation—it's an interesting thing. When I was a young person I really thought cooperatives were another form of socialism but I've decided they probably aren't. In fact they probably serve quite a useful purpose. In fact New Zealand agriculture was built on the back of cooperatives and to some extent they're all different and one or two of them will benefit from this piece of legislation. So before I put my foot any further in I will sit down and commend this bill to the House.