edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
8. Question No. 8—Whānau OraSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Whānau OraQuestion No. 8—Whānau Ora8. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: E te Māngai mānawatia a Matariki. How will Budget 2022 ensure that Whānau Ora can continue to provide support to whānau as Aotearoa recovers from the impacts of COVID-19?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Whānau Ora will receive $166.5 million over four years through Budget 2022 to help whānau maintain and build their resilience as Aotearoa moves forward from COVID-19. This funding secures the future of Whānau Ora and it represents a 50 percent baseline funding increase per year for the commissioning agencies. This Government is committed to Whānau Ora and we recognise that in communities they know what's best for community and we're here to support that.Shanan Halbert: Why was this funding boost important in the context of the COVID-19 recovery?Hon PEENI HENARE: As I noted this funding is to boost baseline and to help whānau maintain and build their resilience on a longer-term basis as Aotearoa moves forward from COVID-19 rather than being tied to a specific period as we responded to COVID-19. This ensures that Whānau Ora commissioning agencies and their providers can continue to help the tens of thousands of whānau they provide support to every year including those who receive support during the pandemic and who are now regularly engaged in Whānau Ora services. I acknowledge all of the providers for the work that they've done. The commissioning agencies received specific additional funding throughout the COVID-19 response including the Delta and Omicron outbreaks which allowed them to take on significantly more whānau during the pandemic. In fact during the Omicron outbreak our commissioning agencies distributed more than 70000 support packages to whānau in need—an uplift of approximately 40 percent.Shanan Halbert: What does the baseline increase in funding mean for whānau?Hon PEENI HENARE: This funding enables continuity of support and provides certainty for whānau who engage with Whānau Ora. Baselining also secures security of workforce which is important to acknowledge. Since 2018 the number of navigators has increased by over 100 and this positively impacts thousands of whānau across Aotearoa. This includes several new navigators who joined Whānau Ora during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the South Island alone the number of navigators has increased from 61 to over 116 since the pandemic started. This funding will secure that employment and also the future of the families who engage with Whānau Ora.
3. Question No. 3—HealthTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 3—Health3. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Health: Mānawatia a Matariki. What recent announcements has he made about the expansion of Te Ara Oranga?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): On Friday I announced the roll-out of the free methamphetamine harm reduction programme Te Ara Oranga to the Eastern Bay of Plenty with services now available in Murupara. In addition to services rolling out in Murupara $3.5 million of funding from Budget 2022 will enable Te Ara Oranga to expand and cover a geographical area from Whakatāne to Rotorua and include Ōpōtiki and Kawerau. Te Ara Oranga was successfully piloted in Northland and has been acknowledged as a game-changer in the fight against methamphetamine and drug-related crime. Demand for addiction treatment services has grown steadily over the past decade and we need to do more to support people in communities struggling with drugs to get the wraparound support that they need.Tangi Utikere: What does the Te Ara Oranga programme consist of?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Te Ara Oranga is a unique partnership between police mental health and addiction services community groups and iwi service providers. It gives methamphetamine users the opportunity to get culturally appropriate therapeutic help with an approach specially tailored for the local community. It's an example of a community-wide and -led programme that works and changes lives and we want more New Zealanders to benefit from it.Tangi Utikere: What are some of the benefits of Te Ara Oranga?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: More than 3000 Northland people and their whānau have now been helped since the programme was first started. For every dollar spent on the programme there has been a return of between $3 and $7 and a 34 percent reduction in drug-related crime. The Eastern Bay of Plenty region has been identified as a community experiencing a high level of drug-related harm. It has higher than average methamphetamine use and possession-related offences waste-water testing results and the proportion of people seeking help to get on top of drug addictions. This Government is committed to a health-based response for those who experience drug addiction and making the benefits of Te Ara Oranga available in the Eastern Bay of Plenty is part of that.
1. Question No. 1—EducationANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of EducationORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Education1. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Mānawatia a Matariki Mr Speaker. What advice has he received about the results of the Government's School Investment Package?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The School Investment Package which we announced in December of 2019 gave all schools up to $400000—around $693 per student—to bring forward and complete much-needed property projects. State schools have made thousands of site infrastructure and classroom improvements as well as upgrades to sports facilities and playgrounds over the last 2½ years. There are thousands of projects that are now finished and they're making a positive difference to young people's lives. These are improvements that schools wouldn't have been able to do because of other cost pressures and they provide significant benefit to the students the teachers and the wider community. The funding has contributed to make sure that classrooms are fit for purpose that there are vibrant spaces for our kids to learn and play and that schools have got decent sports facilities. The Government is delivering on its commitment to make schools places that all young people want to be.Angela Roberts: Can he give practical examples of what this programme has meant for individual schools?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Heaps but I'll only pick a few; I certainly can do that. Silverstream School in Upper Hutt used some of its funding to replace an old building and upgrade their learning spaces and they've refitted the school hall. Highlands Intermediate in New Plymouth used the funding to help complete a classroom project remodelling one classroom and replacing two of them. East Otago High School renovated its library and refurbished one of its teaching blocks to include new teaching and breakout spaces new heating and lighting—SPEAKER: One more.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One more? Oh I'd give you two: Bailey Road—SPEAKER: One. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and Macleans College in Auckland both put their allocations towards new sports turfs.Angela Roberts: What is the range of projects the School Investment Package has supported?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 4500 projects that were made possible by the $400 million Government investment the biggest investment in school maintenance in 25 years: 780 classroom upgrades; 737 site improvements like car parks and landscaping; 515 infrastructure improvements like drinking fountains heating and plumbing and drainage; 1117 upgrades to sports facilities and playgrounds; 687 improvements to non-teaching spaces; 376 to access to shade; and 260 other learning area upgrades including to gyms and outdoor learning areas.
Smith Stuart; Mallard TrevorSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. As there is a bit of time I won't steal your thunder Mr Faafoi but look it gives me great pleasure to speak on the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill. The fact is that Labour loves red tape and that's what this bill is all about. The Hon Jacqui Dean went around the country talking to people about red tape. She was overwhelmed by people talking to her about red tape and what we don't want. What's the sand in the gears of the economy? It is red tape and that's what this bill is all about. We've got this on top of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. As my colleague Andrew Bayly said earlier in the day 6 percent to 10 percent of loans didn't go ahead because of the effects of that particular Act. We're going to see a similar impact from this sort of thing as well. It's well-intentioned but good intentions are really not enough. There has to be a much better effort from the Government to actually not bring in unnecessary laws such as this one. We oppose it. We are actually a party that stands for smooth and necessary regulations not unnecessary ones.SPEAKER: Order! This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. Debate interrupted.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. On behalf of the ACT Party of New Zealand New Zealand's fastest-growing party we'd like to thank Minister Faafoi for all his service and wish him the best with the next stage of his life and enjoying his family.We will keep this short. We're not here to ostracise the bill itself. Some of it is laudable but it sort of misses the target. There's a lack of clarity around this bill which I think needed to be required and this uncertainty comes at a time when institutions are already trying to adapt to other financial services legislation and it did bring into question the ACT Party's supporting this bill because of its fitness for purpose. Bad behaviour is the intended target of this bill but it's not to be fixed by regulations. If one financial institution is behaving badly consumers will move away from that and they'll go to an institution that provides a better service and this competition would be a far better way to address bad behaviour than imposing a sort of vague requirement to have a fair conduct policy. So the problems identified by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment I think have been overblown. The problems around incentives in this country are not the same issues you have in the United States model and the issue of functioning in the free market should be that greater competition and other methods that are proposed in this bill should have been allowed to take over and regulate that.The one final issue that we had in the bill which we think still hasn't been got right is that the regulatory perimeter should not have been based on licences issued by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Accordingly setting the regulatory perimeter of the bill is based on a licence. It does not relate to the activities the bill intends to relieve so it's not actually logical and it has caught in its net non-bank deposit lenders and a vast majority of financial institutions that have not had anything to do with deposit-taking or if they have had to do with deposit-taking they've put at the centre of their business models the treatment of customers fairly. I reiterate my passion and belief that business societies and credit unions should have been exempted from this and that we must address this issue to help society especially in the metro areas and in the regional areas of New Zealand. So ACT opposes this bill but it could have been something that we may have supported.
Menéndez March Ricardo; Salesa JennyRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (remote): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I'm speaking on behalf of the Green Party in the third reading of the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill. Like many other speakers I want to acknowledge the long journey that this bill has had of almost three years and acknowledge former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Kris Faafoi who is I believe sitting in the House—I can see him I think via the Zoom screen. Just wishing the member well and good on him for taking some time to be with his whānau.During this debate I've heard the previous National Party speaker Todd McClay berating his Labour counterparts for just taking time to read off their notes. I just want to say that I am deeply impressed as well at the National Party members being able to fill 10 minutes of time talking about many things but not a lot to do with the bill. The bill itself is just creating a licensing regime for banks insurers and non-bank deposit takers in respect to their general conduct including aspects of how they design and offer sales incentives. It will also make licensed entities accountable for non-advised sales by intermediaries and prohibits sales incentives based on volume or value sales targets. Like other speakers said there were issues identified overseas on the operations of banks and we've been called out by many institutions by the lack of regulations that we have in this area so I do think it is timely that we move on to introduce some of these regulations. I don't think we need to be waiting for things to go catastrophically wrong to put in place regulations when overseas examples exist of banks going awry and the member Greg O'Connor touched on some of those examples. So the Green Party does support having a transparent and well-regulated and accountable financial services sector. I think this bill goes some way towards that. If the previous National Party speaker ends up being correct and there are some unintended consequences from this bill I trust the Government will promptly go back and fine-tune those issues that may arise. But having read the Finance and Expenditure Committee's report I think if anything there was plenty of collaboration going into producing amendments that would make this bill as constructive as possible so I hope that there will be none of those issues that the National Party member was speaking of. Ultimately I think banks as an institution do need regulation. They are massively powerful entities and again I think it is time that New Zealand has proper regulations on this issue. So we're happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next speaker I'd like to acknowledge and thank the Hon Kris Faafoi our friend and colleague. We will really miss you from this House.
Bayly Andrew; Clark David; McKelvie IanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I see the officials helping which is good because this is a change. What I'm concerned about is that the change inadvertently restricts the exclusivity covenant to just a lease and the big issue we've got is that that might not be the case; it might be a letter. So I'm just trying to understand the rationale why that specific part of new section 28A(2)(c)(i) inserted by clause 4 has changed from exclusivity covenant" which is much wider to just "the lease". I'll keep talking if that's OK while the Minister gets some advice on that.I suppose this includes things like right of first refusal as well because that is one of the things that the committee was particularly concerned about and issues such as requiring landlords to actually go out and make changes or advocate against planning rules if it was disadvantageous to a supermarket. So those are the types of provision that we were particularly concerned about. Now they may not be included in a lease. I'm going to hand over to the Minister because I think he's got the answer now.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you. It was as I explained but perhaps not as eloquently as I might have. New Section 28A(2)(c) inserted by clause 4 if the member has a look talks about "an exclusivity covenant or other provision in a lease and the provisions of any other contracts arrangements understandings or covenants if—" The paragraph (i) to that is actually about describing who the parties are: somebody has to be a party to the lease for this to take effect and then the next part describes the lack of competition arising from the arrangement. So it's trying to specify that they have to be a party to that lease to be regarded—because there's an "and" at the end of (i) before (ii)—as part of the anti-competitive behaviour that surrounds that if it comes through another form.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 and the tabled amendment to new section 28A be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Transitional and savings provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 5 and the Schedule "Transitional and savings provisions". The question is that Part 2 stand part.Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We come to the Schedule now. There's no debate on the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part.Schedule agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3 the title commencement and principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The committee has considered the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted."
Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Can I turn to the new Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and it doesn't actually have a number on it—Hon Dr David Clark: 174.ANDREW BAYLY: —oh it was 174 OK. So it's clause 4 new section 28A. This is in relation to exclusivity covenants—for anyone listening if they're finding this interesting. But an exclusivity covenant" is a provision or lease that has the purpose or has or will likely have the effect of impeding another person such as a retail grocery store or another store—whatever. So it's really one around area—stopping competition in a certain area—as opposed to the restrictive covenant which is separate around products.So the SOP that you put forward has changed and what it says is "an exclusivity covenant or other provision in a lease"—and that's important—"and the provisions of any other contracts arrangements understandings or covenants if"—and the current wording is—"the exclusivity covenant has 1 or more of the same parties as the contract arrangement understanding or covenant." I understand from your SOP you want to change "exclusivity covenant" to "lease". So I'd quite like to understand what that is about because as you will know from the deliberation of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee we were very very concerned that the arrangements that a supermarket might have might be a number of different arrangements with a tenant. It might be a tenancy agreement that's registered it might be a separate letter that covers other things like first right of refusal and it might be a different type of arrangement that is actually filed on the title.So what I'm trying to understand is why you want to limit new section 28A(2)(c)(i) and amend it from "exclusivity covenant" to "lease". Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I apologise for suggesting to the member it was SOP 174; it's actually a different one. But the piece of paper the SOP that the member refers to—the number of which I don't have in front of me either—actually fixes a typographical error. There's an attempt to—Andrew Bayly: So it should be "lease"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It should be "lease". The whole new section is about aggregating bringing together the different parts—as I understand it—that might have the effect or likely effect of impeding competition. So it's only to describe those different parts."
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. Yeah just going back to the question before—I suppose the first question is: is the Minister proposing to give the Commerce Commission any sort of additional framework other than what's set out in new section 28B? The criteria for the Commerce Commission to assess whether in fact someone should be designated as a grocery retailer is actually pretty light. Basically it sits under those two subclauses that I mentioned. So the first question: is the Minister proposing even by regulation to give further framework for the Commerce Commission to designate someone?But the second thing is: it's pretty easy to sort of contemplate the grocery industry as just going to your supermarket and what you buy right? As we all know it's the whole value chain. We've got important suppliers particularly growers—and vege-growers in my area of Pukekohe who supply supermarkets—you've got the logistics of transporting that you've got storage facilities that the supermarkets operate they have their internal transport arrangements and then you have the retail distribution outlets. Now all of those contribute to the cost of the ultimate product. In fact if you're talking about how much you're going to pay the wholesaler for instance through a Gilmours arrangement or whoever it might be or how much the supermarket charges for the internal transport all those things go to make up the pricing. As the Minister said before—what you're suggesting is that the Commerce Commission is likely to have a view on what will lead to a change in price. So do you anticipate that the Commerce Commission might take a disaggregated look at the supply chain of the supermarkets rather than just focus on the end price of what you might pay for a roll of toilet paper?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): In response to the member's first question more specifically no. It kind of relates to his second question.The Commerce Commission is populated by technical experts with the necessary and requisite skills in competition law. I think it's important that they make independent judgments—they are an independent agency—independent from Government. We would expect them to use their expertise to make those judgments and not have us as politicians telling them in too greater detail what constitutes competition because the measures and the factors that will be taken into account will vary over time.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Minister it would be great if you could clarify from the date of when the law is actually passed whether the advisers—and pardon the pun—had contemplated any sort of countdown mechanism for when a release an occupation set of dates or the market could be moved on or the local urban area or a selection of a site could be actually chosen and that the competitor didn't receive any sort of dissonance to getting on with the job. So did the advisers contemplate anything in that area apart from just passing a law but there's time frames for doing things?
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Just while the Minister's cogitating the point my colleague was making before was that a market store like on a Sunday morning may be occasional but it will probably more than likely cover everything covered under the grocery product range right? Dairy products eggs whatever. And so the question was: is there any possibility that inadvertently some of these other activities might be captured under that arrangement? So that was the question. I'll let the Minister—and then I'll come back to it with a new question.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): No. If I've understood the question correctly the selling of those things in a store that happens to be near a major designated grocery retailer is—now how am I going to best express this? First it has to be by a designated grocery retailer where they're acting in an anti-competitive way; that is stopped. But if it's not a designated major grocery retailer doing it then it's not stopped if that makes sense and I hope that I've understood the member's question correctly.
Lee Melissa; Clark DavidMELISSA LEE (National): I am just wanting to address the issue in terms of the point that I made about the local market and the fishmongers and the butchers in the local suburbs and I don't think the Minister in fact actually had anything to say about that. Do you have an opinion Minister Clark? If you could address that that would be really helpful.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'm not sure then that I've understood the member's question correctly. I haven't understood—if the member could rephrase it I will happily seek to answer it.MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I think that a couple of speakers before the Minister addressed our questions and then we're trying to remember what the question was. I was adding on to what Mr Bayly had said in terms of the point that was actually made in terms of exclusive covenants. I know we're actually getting rid of it but when we define grocery products in such a way where supermarkets have leases that suggest that supermarkets have certain activities which include everything from bread eggs even men's shoes—all of those things—even though we're getting rid of this exclusive covenant and the restrictive covenants from the leases are we not stuck in the position where we're not fixing it? Because a definition of what a supermarket" is in the lease for example as those things supposedly supermarket activity even without those covenants—when we remove them—and they can still act as though the covenants exist because it will include everything from pet food and shoes and even day-care centres potentially because that's supposed to be a supermarket activity."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. I just want to ask a technical question. So under Part 1 clause 4 which inserts new section 28A(4)—so it talks about the exclusivity covenant. I'll just read it: includes without limitation a right of first refusal". But then overleaf it defines what "grocery product" is and it says "means goods in any of the following product categories: bread dairy products eggs [and] egg products fruit vegetables meat fish rice sugar manufacturer-packaged food and medicine other than prescription medicine". So can the Minister just be absolutely clear by defining it this way—and most people would agree that this is what a grocery retailer does and sells and we saw many examples in lease agreements that the large supermarkets already have in place that they exclude a whole lot of other activities—can you be assured that the supermarkets won't also take the opportunity to say "Well we will put a restriction on pet food operators." as an example or alcohol operations around their supermarket operations as an example? So I suppose what I'm just asking is: by defining it so closely have we led inadvertently to the situation where we still allow supermarkets to stop certain other competitors? I think it's a pretty important point to clarify—whether in fact that's the case."
McKelvie IanCOMMERCE (GROCERY SECTOR COVENANTS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 22 June.Part 1 Amendment to Part 2 of the Act (which relates to restrictive trade practices) (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill. I know we don't need to remind members of Zoom but please if you're on Zoom or coming in via Zoom make sure you signal to us and make sure you pay attention. When we were last considering the bill Part 1 was being debated. This is the debate on clause 4 which is the debate on the amendment to Part 2 of the Act which relates to restrictive trade practices.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTIONS OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Open Forum for Health Information requesting that the House replace the existing nutrition guidelines for schools with the requirement that all schools including kaupapa Māori supply healthy nutritious food and create a duty to only provide healthy drinks and food.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: City Rail Link Ltd Statement of Intent for Financial Years 2022-25 and Statement of Performance Expectations 2022-23.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK:Report of the Environment Committee on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment BillReport of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the He Puna Hao Pātiki 2022 Investment StatementReport of the Regulations Review Committee on the Examination of COVID-19 order presented 31 May 2022.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Hipkins Chris; Woodhouse Michael; Shaw JamesBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The legislation the House will consider next week will include the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2021/22 Supplementary Estimates) Bill the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill and the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill and also the first readings of bills that were introduced this week. The House will debate motions to continue the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 and to confirm orders made under that Act. Wednesday 29 June will be a members' day.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker and I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I note that the Government isn't intending to progress the Data and Statistics Bill before the winter recess. Given that the Government intends to make a decision on whether the census next year will go ahead in 2023 and needs the legal basis to make a postponement decision can he confirm that it's the Government's intention to do so before the end of July?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Questions around the decision-making process for the census are ones for the Minister of Statistics. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Leader of the House. I just wonder if he has a time estimate for item No. 8 on the Order Paper.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): It depends how fast the House goes.
Williams ArenaTHURSDAY 23 JUNE 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga o Aotearoa. Ka waiho nei i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha nei rā ēnei e inoi atu ana mō tō ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga ā kia whakahaere ai e mātou ngā take o te Whare nei i runga i te mōhio me te whakaiti mō te oranga me te maungārongo o te tūmatanui o Aotearoa. Amene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on New Zealand. Laying aside all personal interests we pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare and peace of the public of New Zealand. Amen.]
Tuesday 7 June 2022 - Volume 760
Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill — Second Reading (resumed)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.
Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 97New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32.Noes 22Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.
Appropriation (2021/22 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2021/22 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 44New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 77 Noes 42.SPEAKER: Sorry can we just check the Māori Party vote? Was it for or against?Chlöe Swarbrick: Against.SPEAKER: Sorry I apologise. I misheard it—Ayes 75 Noes 44. Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
8. Question No. 8—TransportSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 8—Transport8. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What recent updates has he received on transport infrastructure projects?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): It's all go in the transport space thanks to our Government's commitment to upgrading crucial transport infrastructure to make it safer and more efficient now and for future generations to travel around our communities and regions. For example I recently joined members of the Franklin community to review the Glenbrook roundabout on State Highway 22 which has just seen the completion of the last major milestone of that project. The roundabout is a futureproofing project and is expected to be used by over 21000 vehicles a day. It's making State Highway 22 significantly safer by reducing speed and eliminating a dangerous turn that large trucks previously had to navigate on the former intersection and community members were very pleased.Shanan Halbert: What progress is being made on green transport infrastructure?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As a Government we're committed to walking the talk on climate change by making our transport network more sustainable and supporting people to transition to lower carbon-emitting forms of transport. This weekend I attended the opening of the New Lynn to Avondale shared path in Auckland which connects communities through shorter links between schools town centres and public transport. The shared path links to Auckland's growing and comprehensive network of shared paths including the Waterview shared path; the Northwestern cycleway; city centre networks; and of course the new cycle path over the Tamaki river to the electorate of Pakuranga. As more people travel around on bikes and by walking we'll see reduced traffic congestion reduced emissions and healthier communities.Shanan Halbert: How will investment in transport infrastructure help secure New Zealand's economic future?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: By delivering on projects such as Penlink Auckland light rail the Manawatū-Tararua Highway the Mount Messenger bypass the Cromwell State Highway safety improvements and the ones I've mentioned will help to address New Zealand's current and longstanding infrastructure deficit will improve road safety outcomes and will contribute to jobs around the country. When we took office infrastructure spending stood at $32.5 billion; Budget 2022 lifts it to $61.9 billion from 2022 to 2026. Our Government is committed to plugging the infrastructure deficit and planning for growth in our country while reducing carbon emissions.
6. Question No. 6—Health (Māori Health)TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)Question No. 6—Health (Māori Health)6. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): Kia orana Mr Speaker. What additional support will Budget 2022 provide to help protect Māori and Pacific people from bowel cancer?Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Alongside my ministerial colleague the Hon Aupito William Sio we announced over $36 million across four years to shift the starting age for bowel screening from 60 years old to 50 years old for Māori and Pacific people. We know if cancer is detected early and treated earlier our people have a better chance of survival and the current age for screening misses Māori and Pacific people who need it the most. We are proud on this side to introduce bowel screening earlier which will save lives and continue to rise to the inequities that have been long suffered in the health system.Tangi Utikere: How significant is this announcement for Māori and Pacific people?Hon PEENI HENARE: The $36 million investment is significant but preventing the death of our Māori and Pacific whānau means so much more. A higher proportion of bowel cancer occurs in Māori and Pacific peoples before they reach the age of 60 at approximately 21 percent compared to 10 percent for non-Māori and non-Pacific peoples. This investment will ensure that the screening system reflects these statistics. This announcement will mean about 60000 more of our whānau will be invited to access screening every year. Our people deserve to live longer and have healthier lives which is why this Government is committed to making services like bowel screening fairer by lowering the screening age.Tangi Utikere: What reaction has he seen from health practitioners about providing additional support through Budget 2022 to shift the starting age for bowel screening for Māori and Pacific people?Hon PEENI HENARE: I've received only positive feedback about this announcement. Medical Director of the New Zealand College of General Practitioners Dr Bryan Betty stated on Saturday Morning with Jack Tame that lowering the bowel screening age to 50 for Māori and Pacific peoples levels things out and is the right thing to do. Bowel Cancer New Zealand medical adviser and senior Māori health researcher Professor Sue Crengle stated that extending the age range is really transformational because it means we will have the same opportunity to benefit from that programme as non-Māori and non-Pacific people.
4. Question No. 4—PoliceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 4—Police4. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What announcements has she made regarding the roll-out of the Tactical Response Model?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): As part of Budget 2022 I announced the $185 million nationwide roll-out of the tactical response model. This is a vital step forward in the improvement of police front-line safety and builds on the $45 million investment we made into front-line safety last year. The tactical response model will ensure that police are well trained well equipped and well supported to keep themselves and communities they serve safer. One of the key parts of the model is that it will give police better access to tactical options when required while maintaining a routinely unarmed police service.Ginny Andersen: What does this mean for the front-line capabilities for New Zealand police?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As one front-line police officer put it Yesterday was one of the scariest days of my front-line career. But the tactical response model training helped me feel like I had the skills to get through it safely." Budget 2022's investment into rolling out the tactical response model is one of the largest investments in police front-line safety ever. The model will see a significant shift in the front-line capabilities of our police including more than doubling the current tactical training for front-line staff from 3½ to 7½ days a year the deployment of tactical prevention teams with advanced armed offenders squad - level training to undertake search warrants in high risk situations and the double crewing of tactical dog teams.Ginny Andersen: How has the tactical response model been further developed?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The $45 million investment we made into front-line safety last year allowed the tactical response model to be trialled across four police districts: Northland Counties Manukau Waikato and Central. Police have engaged with staff iwi and the wider community to gain feedback to support any refinements which would ensure success of this model in practice. Public feedback was welcomed over a four-week engagement period as we want to make sure this works in our communities. This feedback will help inform police roll out the model across the country."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): New Zealand's strong economic and financial position has been recognised by Moody's Investors Service. In its annual credit analysis released yesterday the credit rating agency notes that New Zealand has very strong institutions sustained policy effectiveness and a healthy fiscal position relative to its peers. They say that the New Zealand Government has a strong track record of managing shocks through effective fiscal policy while demonstrating fiscal discipline over the long term and that they expect this to continue. They also highlight New Zealand's ongoing economic performance relative to its peers and that the strong economic recovery illustrates New Zealand's resilience to the pandemic shock. While the output remains volatile New Zealand finds itself in a good position to support New Zealanders as they deal with the challenges arising from the global energy crisis supply chain disruptions and the ongoing pandemic. Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The construction sector is supporting our recovery. Statistics New Zealand reported on Friday that the volume of building activity rose 3.2 percent in the March quarter following on from a 9 percent jump in the previous December quarter. Residential construction rose 3.5 percent while industrial and commercial building activity increased 2.7 percent. Statistics New Zealand also reported last week that annual building consents rose 18.1 percent to 50583 compared with the previous year only the second time ever that it has been over the 50000 mark. Economists are expecting the momentum in the construction sector to continue despite the challenging environment that they are facing. Ingrid Leary: What do the reports say about challenges facing the construction sector?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Westpac's economists say that businesses show that continued demand in building activity is happening over 2022 but staff and materials constraints are limiting the extent of the industry to respond further to current elevated levels. The Government has been working together with the construction sector through the construction accord on critical supply chain resilience working on construction sector product dependencies from off shore and options to mitigate further disruptions. We've also continued to invest in trade training and apprenticeships which in the last two years has seen over 190000 people benefit. We also want to make sure that Kiwis get access to fair price building materials and that's driven the Government's decision to review the residential building supply market. The Commerce Commission is investigating any factors that might affect competition for supply or acquisition of key building supplies and that will report back at the end of the year.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It's great to be able to take the final call on this bill which strikes out the three-strikes law. It is a clumsy arbitrary unfair and ugly piece of legislation. It is racist in its effect—81 percent of the 23 offenders who have received three strikes are Māori—and it doesn't work. It has not made communities safer and there is no evidence for that and that is clear in the Ministry of Justice evidence brief in 2018. But even if it did work even if there was evidence that it worked it does not make it right. We know that torture works—torture somebody long enough and they will give you the information that you're seeking. But that does not make it right and the three-strikes law is simply not right. It has resulted in absurd sentences that are disproportionate—in one case somebody going to prison for 10 years for a crime that would normally elicit an 18-month sentence. That belongs in a banana republic—it does not belong in Aotearoa New Zealand. The fundamental reason is whatever the Opposition tries to make about the three estates of power—or the four estates if one includes the media—what the three-strikes law does is it takes power from the judiciary puts it fairly and squarely into the executive and makes one big and unbridled mass of power that then usurps the role of the courts. That is the sort of thing Trump tried to do when he was in the States trying to say that he had power that was above the law. That is what this three-strikes law does. It is jurisprudentially flawed it plays to popular politics it preys on people's fear it doesn't make sense and it diminishes trust in the judicial system and in our democracy. Therefore I am commending this bill to the House that strikes out the three-strikes law.
Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Davis KelvinInstruction to the Finance and Expenditure CommitteeHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move That Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 August 2022 and that the Committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evenings on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Motion agreed to.
Coffey TamatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): What a terrible contribution that was. That was awful. I remember in school learning about monologues and that's exactly what that was. It had no reaction—not even from his colleagues—especially when he went to bust out a few jokes. Nobody was laughing around him. Why? Because he didn't really know what he was talking about. So come over to this side of the House. We know rural communities. Remember they gave us their votes in the last election and we're going to make sure that we look after that.Rotorua is the home of forestry in New Zealand and I am stoked to be able to stand here and give a better contribution than that because it was actually our grandfathers it was our uncles that grew up working in the mills and in the bushes all around the Waiariki rohe. It was our grandparents and our parents that used to go into the mill and work really long days and they used to have to go into the forests and do their yards because that was what they needed to do to support their families. When it comes to forestry our side of the House know about it a lot more than that side do.Why do we need to change this? Well we need to make sure that we are doing right by those of our grandfathers and parents that had to do the long yards in the forestry sector. We want to make sure that we are applying the same rules so when it comes to overseas investment we want to make sure that we're continuing to have that benefit to New Zealanders remembering it was our grandparents and our parents that did the hard works on this. We want to make sure that we've got the right forest in the right place for the right reasons. We've got to make sure that the proposed changes are also going to help manage those increasing concerns that New Zealanders have around the difference between planting out our farms and managing farm to forestry conversions particularly in relation to pastoral land and land that's otherwise important to local economies and communities such as my community back home in Rotorua.As is the case with all other overseas investments in non-urban land forestry conversions will need to go through the standard benefit to New Zealand test instead of through the special forestry test. That's what we're talking about. That's what that side tonight is going to agree to and I commend it to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.