edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Chair. Just to respond to a couple of the points and it will be enlightening as well. Mr Hudson I think I'll just reiterate the points I made before around those time lines and the five years. Yes it does seem quite a long period and you're aware of the local feeling there. The precedent we have from Cold Creek is that it took a year. There is quite a lot to get through. There's a lot of boxes to tick here and a lot of processes—[Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member but would members who are entering the Chamber please pay some respect. We do have someone speaking to this bill. Find your seats and we'll carry on. MARK PATTERSON: Thank you Mr Chair. It's good to see the wave of enthusiasm coming in for the Otama Rural Water Supply bill. So there is a lot of local pressure. As I say it's local body politics. There are elections this year so heaven forbid any local councillor who is looking to hold this up. But there is a bit to get through so it is prudent to give it some time and of course we have some regulations coming up that will more than likely shift the goalposts in terms of where that compliance needs to land. So I think that while the five years does seem quite generous it is prudent and I don't think we need to adjust that. In terms of the points Mr Young made the scheme itself in terms of being well resourced to meet its 30-year plan is very very well resourced. This has been an incredibly well-resourced scheme. They've prudently put their money aside as we do in the South. It has been very well governed. It does have considerable means and as I referenced earlier they have replaced the whole mainline pipeline to cover 73000 hectares in the last 15 years. They are well up to date with their maintenance. So there is plenty of money there. In terms of the process around the election and whether you get into postal voting or how that is conducted that of course will be dealt with in accordance with the Local Electoral Act 2001. Thank you.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Just in response to the amendment and also the—well firstly the list of assets and inserting a catch-all which was referenced before as something that may clarify the bill. I'm reliably informed and it's there for all to see that clause 4(a) does provide that catch-all when it says that the assets means the real and personal property of the Council that is held or used (whether solely or partially) for the purposes of the scheme;" which I think perfectly covers off that catch-all provision.In terms of the amendment it is semantics—it really is. I mean I was there at that meeting that heated meeting in a local hall that was bulging at the seams and they are passionate about this. This does mean a lot to them but I can tell you now that not one of those people are going to be poring over the minutiae of this bill and looking at whether it says "return" or "authorise" a transfer. No one will give a flying toss about that. What they are after is an outcome. They're after this Parliament to deliver and to not get bogged down in the minutiae of small phrases that may or may not reflect the historical legal precedent. I'm told by the officials that "return" indeed would not actually be appropriate to change ownership or to ensure that property in the scheme is transferred to ownership of the company. So actually legally it wouldn't wash either. With that I'll conclude."
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Hudson. Just in answer to your substantive point there I've been looking through the list of assets: plant and land—land described in Schedule 1—the Pyramid well the Pyramid pump station all reservoirs associated with the scheme all pump stations associated with the scheme all break tanks associated with the scheme all gravity and pressure mains associated with the scheme etc. etc. down to valves and meters and of course the important water permit. So it is hard for me to conceive.I note you are the chairman of the Governance and Administration Committee. I would imagine that the select committee process would have gone through this with some fine-tooth comb as to making sure that they had everything covered; it does look like it's covered to me. If there is an amendment coming forward in that there is the prospect that there's a very small component that may be missing but it does seem inconceivable to me looking at what appears to be a very exhaustive list. Although as you've referred there is not a catch-all for anything that may fall outside of that. So I do concede that small point. Thank you.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Every now and then in these committees comes a speaker and a speech with courage conviction precision and a devotion to making better law for every single New Zealander. I want to say on behalf of the ACT Party that we heard just such a speech earlier this afternoon from one Brett Hudson. He showed the conviction required to make better laws when he pointed out that clause 3(a)—the specific clause in Part 1—may not properly reflect the intention of those users.I want to warmly encourage the member in charge Mark Patterson to reconsider his decision not to draft an amendment to clause 3(a) so that wording can better reflect the intention of the system's users. I want to give my moral support to Brett Hudson. I want to tell him that I'm right behind you mate and you should draft that amendment. You should get out there you should draft it and you should put it on the table so that the people can vote on the wording of clause 3(a). Look Brett Hudson if he doesn't do it I don't know how he'll live with himself. Know that I'm right behind you.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thanks Madam Chair. I just would like to respond to a couple of the points raised to date. So in terms of Mr Hudson's suggestions around a Supplementary Order Paper—and could I just first of all commend Mr Hudson and the Governance and Administration Committee for travelling down to Gore. I should have acknowledged that first off. It was a really great move. It allowed many of the submitters to submit who would not have been able to make it in person. So I commend it for that. Just in terms of clause 3(a) I think it was—that you authorise a transfer as it currently stands versus return—I tend to agree with my colleague Rino Tirikatene over here that we're actually dealing in semantics there. I see it from the National Party's point of view: this is a very blue heavily blue electorate. You do have a local member there and I know that there is some sensitivity around a New Zealand First member being asked to bring this bill forward. I get that but I have tried to rise above that a little bit because I know that the members of the community—this is important to them. So I have not tried to politicise that and I think that what you are doing is—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Not me. MARK PATTERSON: Sorry Madam Chair. Mr Hudson what you are doing is trying to almost out-enthuse me for this bill and to make out that it's more important to you and the National Party than it is to myself or to New Zealand First or to other coalition party members. We actually have some cross-party buy-in to this. So I will not be pursuing from my end a Supplementary Order Paper—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's good because you need to talk to the bill.MARK PATTERSON: OK. There is legal precedent here too which is something else we should have covered off earlier: the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill of 2013. So we are on rock-solid legal ground—or the Otama Rural Water Supply committee and the Gore District Council are in bringing this forward.In answer to Rino Tirikatene's question about which marae: it's not the Hokonui one; it's the one on the entrance to Gore just at the north-eastern side there. So that covers off those points. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to participate in the committee stage of this bill and I would like to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill Mark Patterson. Seeing him for the first time participating in this bill—it's good to see you in the chair over there. Part 1 of this bill specifies the purpose. The purpose is to transfer all the assets of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to Otama Rural Water Ltd. It is important that we should understand why this bill is being debated in Parliament. These assets are very important for that region and the people who have paid for the assets in the early 1970s have been maintaining this whole scheme and paying for it and they have done the hard yards to build up this scheme. There have been issues from time to time where their authority was being challenged. That is why this bill is required—to make sure that Otama Rural Water Ltd owns these assets—and the purpose of this bill is very specific on this. In the purpose clause clause 3 paragraph (b) provides for certain related matters if the scheme is transferred to the Company." That means that it is certain that all the assets are owned by this company. This also specifies in the interpretation clause clause 4 what the assets are and these assets include the wells the pump station associated with the scheme break tanks gravity mains associated with the scheme valves water meters and electronic controls and the last item which I would like to also specify is the water treatment chlorination system which is very important in today's atmosphere as we have seen in Havelock North where the water quality became a big concern for the population over there. This scheme provides water to households in the area. It's not only provided to the households but to the marae also and to the school also. We want to make sure—the Governance and Administration Committee decided—that this provision should be added so that the water can be purified and chlorinated so that it is safe for the people to consume. So the purpose of the bill is very specific and I commend this to the committee."
Patterson Mark; Tolley AnneGORE DISTRICT COUNCIL (OTAMA RURAL WATER SUPPLY) BILLIn CommitteeMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party has long fought for an end to oil and gas exploration. That's why we are certainly not celebrating the recent onshore block offer in Taranaki. Globally if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change we need to keep at least 80 percent of the current fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Knowing this exploring for new oil and gas reserves just doesn't make sense. We have been warned for years and years that climate change caused by humans is leading us on a worrying trajectory. We know that continuing with business as usual will have a disastrous outcome for planet Earth and humanity. It is time to act. Here in Aotearoa the Green Party is proud of its achievements in getting real action on climate change. We have achieved a ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration. Now this wasn't in our confidence and supply agreement; this is something we negotiated and won as part of being in Government. It's a shame we were not able to convince our Government partners that onshore oil and gas exploration should also cease but the people of Aotearoa and the world are calling on us to do better—and the Green Party is listening to that call. My co-leader and the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw will be ready to introduce a historic piece of legislation: the zero carbon bill. Here in New Zealand we need Kiwi smarts and ingenuity and boldness to step up and ensure that we can look our kids and mokopuna in the eye and say that we did try our best to protect this planet. We need to be able to tell the thousands of students who marched and striked for the climate on 15 March around this country that they did not march for nothing. They are asking for system change not climate change. They're asking for us to choose a liveable future for our whenua tamariki and communities rather than supporting the out-dated and dangerous business model of fossil fuels. The Green Party will continue to fight hard for a swift transition away from fossil fuels from all forms of oil and gas exploration. You will see more announcements about the progress we have made in Government in the coming weeks. We will also continue to fight hard for Government to support people through that transition and allow them to harness the opportunities that are safely available. We look forward to the Just Transition Summit in Taranaki next week. New Zealand has to be able to hold its head up high and say that at a critical crossroad we did the right thing the enduring thing. We are the first generation to feel the impacts of climate change but we are also the last generation that can actually stop it and we must be able to say that we did just that. This will mean we've done our part on the world stage to keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius slowing the melting of our ice caps that would lead to climate change disaster. The Greens have pushed to extend our oil and gas ban to include onshore prospecting and fracking but didn't get this over the line. If we care about our future about our mokopuna we need to end all oil and gas exploration. It's that simple. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 1 MAY 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.SPEAKER'S RULINGSWritten Questions—Overdue AnswersSPEAKER: Before I move to oral questions I've received a letter from the Hon Paul Goldsmith indicating his frustration with the lack of answers to written questions. This is a matter which has been before the House previously and on this particular occasion there are—in fact he's written to me with eight questions that were due on 16 April from the Hon Shane Jones. Mr Jones' office indicated on 23 April that they would be answered that day. There were further inquiries last Friday and they are still unanswered.Written questions are a way of holding the Government to account and I will note that there are an additional 17 subsequently unanswered questions from that office. I have not reviewed the situation generally; I will do that before the House sits next Tuesday but in the interim as a result of this complaint for each of the unanswered supplementaries I will grant the National Party an additional supplementary question to be used today or tomorrow.
Thursday 11 April 2019 - Volume 737
Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
12. Question No. 12—AgricultureKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of AgricultureQuestion No. 12—Agriculture12. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he seen about the importance of sustainability to farmers?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): The Ministry for Primary Industries survey released this week shows the growing understanding among farmers that sustainability is vital for them to get the most value for what they produce. The results show that 92 percent of farmers surveyed focused on making their farm more environmentally sustainable up from 78 percent in the last survey in 2009. That is very very heartening. In my travels around the country I've seen some excellent work farmers are doing using riparian planting waterway control and improving fertiliser management. I'd just like to acknowledge the good work that they're doing in this area.Kieran McAnulty: Why is sustainability so important to farmers?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I'd like to inform the National Party and the rest of the country that it's really important that our farmers and growers know that international customers are more discerning now about the origins of the food and fibre they buy. Those customers want to know the story behind their food and that it's been ethically and sustainably produced. I note that Rabobank's chief executive recently said that we can't rely on the ways of the past if we're going to get more value from what we do now. That's why we applaud the farmers that are taking on sustainability with enthusiasm.Kieran McAnulty: What is the Government doing to help farmers achieve their objectives?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We're doing heaps to help farmers—heaps and heaps. We've rolled out the SFFF fund which is the Sustainable Food & Fibre Futures fund which has $40 million available not for business as usual but for leading-edge initiatives across the private sector. We're working on an integrated farm plan template to help farmers meet all their obligations. We'll be putting in money and effort to make sure that farmers get more from what they do not just expect them to do more.
11. Question No. 11—TransportCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 11—Transport11. CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statements and actions in relation to light rail in Auckland?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes in the context they were said and taken. Chris Penk: When if ever will construction of light rail to Auckland's north-west be completed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Light rail is the plan for both of Auckland's proposed light rail lines. The two—city centre to Māngere and the line for the north-west—are designed to extend Auckland's rapid transit network which currently consists of the heavy rail network and the Northern Busway. A market-sounding and procurement process is now under way and the Government will be considering options shortly. Chris Penk: Why did the Minister say at a recent public meeting that if it's not possible to do both Cabinet has prioritised the city centre to Māngere over light rail to Auckland's north-west?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because that is the situation in the hypothetical scenario that there's not enough money to fund and finance both those lines. Cabinet has indeed prioritised the city centre to Māngere line because that has the strongest case; it's connecting two of the biggest concentrations of jobs in the country. But make no mistake about it; we intend to deliver rapid transit on the State Highway 16 corridor to support the north-west growth corridor. It's a massive growth area and the north-western motorway currently resembles a carpark in the morning and afternoon peaks. Chris Penk: So is there enough money or not?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well there's never enough money for transport projects. There are always more projects than can be funded at any one time. We have a procurement process under way now with business cases so the member's question can only be answered substantively by the completion of that process.Chris Penk: Does the Minister not accept that he'd already answered the question by promising that within the Auckland Transport Alignment Project document—namely the completion of the project would be within 10 years?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That is certainly our intention: to deliver that project within 10 years both light rail lines. But we are well aware that west Aucklanders were let down by the short-sighted decision to spend $860 million widening the north-western motorway without any provision for rapid transit on that motorway corridor. We don't intend to take such a short-sighted decision. We will deliver rapid transit to support the north-west.Chris Penk: I seek leave to table a uniquely annotated page within the Auckland Transport Alignment Project document.Hon Member: By who?Chris Penk: Annotated in the sense I've crossed out the bits that the Minister's now broken promises on.SPEAKER: So is the unannotated thing publicly available?Chris Penk: For what it's worth yes.SPEAKER: So all we're being offered in this particular case is a publicly available document with the member's markings on it?Chris Penk: I thought that might be helpful given the circumstances.SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
9. Question No. 9—CorrectionsHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of CorrectionsQuestion No. 9—Corrections9. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: Yes within context.Hon David Bennett: When he said last week that to ensure the safety of prison officers the biggest measure the Government has introduced is to continue to safely reduce the prison population will the number of prison officers reduce as the number of prisoners reduces?Hon STUART NASH: What I can say is that the prison population is below 10000 and in the last year the prison numbers have dropped by 821.SPEAKER: No I think the member better have another crack at answering the question.Hon STUART NASH: As far as I'm aware at this stage—on behalf of the Minister of Corrections—we're not looking at dropping prison officer numbers.Hon David Bennett: What incentives does he believe prisoners should have for good behaviour when dealing with the issue of assaults on staff?Hon STUART NASH: Well on behalf of the Minister of Corrections they won't get parole.Hon David Bennett: Did he ask the Department of Corrections to provide a range of options that could set out incentives for good behaviour by prisoners with the goal of positively impacting on staff assaults?Hon STUART NASH: I don't have the answer to that question right now but if the member wants to put it down in writing I'm sure the Minister will provide a response.Hon David Bennett: I seek leave to table an email sent by the Department of Corrections on 22 March 2019 which is not publicly available which requests incentives—SPEAKER: All right—OK. It's been clearly described. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Bennett: Does he believe prisoners should respect prison officers and the justice system without the need for incentives?Hon STUART NASH: We're not dealing with kids here; we're dealing with some of the worst offenders in our society. To ask them to respect authority—part of the reason they're in prison is because they have disrespected authority. We're working very hard to ensure that we give these men and women the opportunity to become productive citizens once they leave prison.
6. Question No. 6—HealthHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—Health6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his answers to Oral Question No. 6 on Wednesday 3 April?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen a report of comments by patient advocate Malcolm Mulholland who said yesterday I again spoke with Ms Wall and asked where the inquiry was at. She then told me that the inquiry was being blocked by Dr Clark and at a 'higher level than him.' "?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have seen some of those comments reported and I would comment that I'm not responsible for the comments of Mr Mulholland.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he discussed those claims with the chair of the Health Committee and what was the nature of those discussions?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree or disagree with Mr Mulholland's version of events?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm not responsible for the comments of Mr Mulholland and in so far as I've seen them to the best of my knowledge they're not correct.Hon Michael Woodhouse: What then if anything did the Minister communicate to the chair of the Health Committee that could have been perceived by Mr Mulholland as blocking the inquiry?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Again I'm not responsible for the perceptions of Mr Mulholland but I would say that I've been completely consistent on this issue. I don't believe that an inquiry is necessary. That's been my public comment and it's been reported as far back as October last year in Stuff. I've always said that the Health Committee is free to hold any inquiry it sees fit. That's my public comment and that's on record from last year.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports of the Health Committee chair saying "There does need to be some form of independent review." and might that form of review be the one that he explicitly ruled out in a media interview on 14 March?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I just want to observe that I am no more responsible for the comments of Louisa Wall MP than I am for the comments of Michael Woodhouse MP."
4. Question No. 4—Housing and Urban DevelopmentPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 4—Housing and Urban Development4. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress if any has Housing New Zealand made providing assistance to tenants affected by previous methamphetamine contamination policies?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Housing New Zealand advises that since September they've been in contact with 900 people on this issue. Of those 425 people have received discretionary grants averaging $7889. A further 336 claims for assistance due to the meth contamination fiasco are being considered and 33 claims have been approved and are awaiting payment. Paul Eagle: What steps will the Government take to ensure that this does not happen again? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well Housing New Zealand's previous meth contamination policy was a moral and fiscal failure which harmed many people and in the worst cases left families—SPEAKER: Order! Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —homeless. SPEAKER: Order! Order! What the member's going to do is he's going to answer the question which was in order. His answer describing policies of a previous Government was not. Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So under our Government Housing New Zealand has become a compassionate landlord that supports people to live in its homes with dignity and respect. Housing New Zealand no longer ends tenancies and makes people with addictions homeless or throws people out on the street on the basis of no decent evidence. If there are issues around addiction Housing New Zealand now connects people with the support services they need to help them. Paul Eagle: What else is Housing New Zealand doing to better support its tenants with issues such as addictions? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well Housing New Zealand is now a very different organisation and is well on the way to becoming a world-class public housing landlord. It's partnering with other agencies and specialist NGOs to help those tenants with complex issues such as mental health and addiction—for example the new Greys Avenue development in central Auckland will have 24-hour specialist social and health services on the premises.
1. Question No. 1—Energy and ResourcesGARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Energy and Resources1. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by MBIE's decision to extend OMV's Great South Basin application last year given the company is now seeking a consent to drill?Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): On behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources the 2018 decision approved changes to some of the conditions of OMV's work programme for the permit. This allowed OMV to seek more information on the underlying geology before commencing drilling. The application was made to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and assessed against the statutory criteria in the Crown Minerals Act. It met the criteria and so the changes to the work programme were approved. This is not an extension of the length of the permit which still expires on 11 July 2022. Gareth Hughes: What does the Minister have to say to New Zealanders who thought the Government had banned new offshore oil and gas permits for good?Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister the Government I think has been clear that we are pursuing a transition away from fossil fuels towards clean renewable affordable energy. This has been very well publicised and I think most New Zealanders understand the detail of it. Gareth Hughes: Doesn't this change to the work programme that OMV is benefitting from and the 16 other possible extensions raised by the Minister in the industry over the next 10 years undermine the historic oil and gas line we drew in the sand?Hon DAVID PARKER: No we don't think so. We think that we are helping New Zealand transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy.Gareth Hughes: Given we've already discovered enough fossil fuels to guarantee catastrophic climate change why are we looking for more?Hon DAVID PARKER: I think we have signalled a pretty clear direction. We are transitioning away from the use of and exploration for fossil fuels. We've been clear that existing rights are protected but we have blocked more block offers in the offshore area. Gareth Hughes: Does the Minister agree with climate strike organiser Greta Thunberg who said I want you to act as if the house was on fire"? And isn't looking for more oil we can't afford to burn like pouring petrol on that fire?Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister I do agree that New Zealand and the world need to quickly transition away from the use of fossil fuels towards renewable energy and that it is a pressing and urgent problem."
Report of Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee — Insolvency Practitioners Bill
Young Jonathan; Williams PotoJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Just very briefly—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Jonathan Young. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Yes I have called—thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for the work that the Minister has done on this bill. He's certainly backed up the work that the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee have done. It's a very technical bill and it's timely that we come to a closure hopefully on this debate now and send it to the vote. Thank you. Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Insolvency Practitioners Bill—the consideration of the select committee report—this evening. The first thing that stands out for this bill is its age. It was first introduced in 2010 and in fact is just approaching its ninth birthday now which doesn't quite make it as old as Simeon Brown and doesn't quite rival I think it was the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill which from memory sat on the Order Paper for about 20 years and saw about six different Prime Ministers. So it's not quite as old as that bill but I'm sure it is much more worthy. I would like to commend Minister Kris Faafoi for progressing this bill. He's given a very good explanation this afternoon of what the bill does but also given a good explanation of why we've got to this position of having to debate a consideration of a select committee report which is quite rare in this Parliament. I of course sit on the Economic Development Science Innovation Committee which was previously called the Commerce Committee which has now looked this bill twice and has recommended it both times with some amendments. I would like to commend it to the House. We will be voting for it this evening. Thank you.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to take a very short call on this bill. The previous speaker has spoken of some of the requirements around who may practise—insolvency practitioners and the like. I'm interested in the minimum standards to become licensed to become an insolvency practitioner. They're contained in clause 35 of this bill—sorry it'll be subclause (2) and it'll end up in a particular part of the legislation. It prescribes minimum standards for people who may be insolvency practitioners: you need a degree a diploma or a certificate you might have to pass a specified exam and you might have to demonstrate a certain level of competence. These are not just mere ticks in a box. What they are saying is that in order that someone holds themselves out as an insolvency practitioner they must have the skills required to do the job. We've had a few too many cowboys operating in this space—a few too many people who might have wanted to have practised well but seem to have been unable to; a few too many people where things have gone wrong in insolvency practice—and of course by the nature of insolvency you're already dealing with a business where something has gone wrong. We require a high standard of skill from our insolvency practitioners. From the work of the select committee and the work of successive Parliaments we have now reached a stage where we are able to say who should be able to practise as an insolvency practitioner and to set standards for them and that is part of what this bill does. I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I also am a previous resident of Christchurch. I also was—I look back now—privileged to spend three weeks basically in the red zone in a sort of roaming troubleshooting role basically in the three weeks following the second earthquake. I know that I was privileged to understand just what effect this had on Christchurch. It was such a tragedy. The rest of New Zealand and the rest of the world sat and watched and put their hands in their pockets and had nothing but sympathy and sorrow for people from Canterbury but then life went on. Like with all these tragedies the low-hanging fruit was picked the easy claims were dealt with and slowly Christchurch came back to some sort of order. That great word munted" that has entered our lexicon now—it is no longer mentioned probably every day as being munted but for those residents who haven't yet been able to resolve their issues it still remains munted because they haven't been able to move on. This bill is about allowing that to happen. The system that currently exists which has the potential for these claims to go on and on for years meaning that those people will remain in that state that I basically and many others moved and found Christchurch in in those days following the earthquake—but they're still there. So this piece of legislation is really a piece of moving-on legislation if you like. It will just allow a new system to ensure that those whose lives are pretty much stuck as they were at the time of the quake can actually get on and be part of really the recovery of a great city. Those that are going and visiting Christchurch now will see that it has moved on for many. It is once again becoming the pleasant place to visit and to live in that it once was and I'm sure it will be better in the future. Let's just make sure that everyone gets an opportunity to be part of that recovery. So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Amendments recommended by the Governance and Administration Committee by majority agreed to.Bill read a second time."
Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill — Second Reading
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to contribute in the second reading of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. As other members from this side have already mentioned we will be supporting the second reading of this bill and there will be some amendments coming through during the committee of the whole House. I agree with all the speakers who have talked about the intent of the bill and that is what should be happening. But there are issues that have come through because of some lack of consultation on the provisions which have been put into the bill which are going to be problematic in the future. First of all I would like to highlight that there was a lack of consultation other than with the Ministry of Justice which was consulted. Even the Earthquake Commission was not consulted when this bill was being formulated. Even in the regulatory impact statement it says that lack of consultation has compounded to the lack of data which means Cabinet faces some significant unknowns. So even though Cabinet is under dark clouds how can we expect that this bill will be providing the fairness which was recommended by the select committee? Another point I would like to touch upon is the system in which the lawyers and the technical people are being put on this tribunal. They are already involved in court cases and there could be a chance that there will be a conflict of interest. Those things could be addressed in this good-intentioned bill if we want to get this work through all of the systems. With these words I commend the second reading of this bill.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): E Te Māngai thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee it's great to see it at this point at second reading and to have such strong support across the House. Primarily I'm pleased for the people of Christchurch that have waited a long time to have ongoing claims resolved. While I may reside in the Hutt Valley now I'm proud to say I was a child of Christchurch—in Cashel Street I waited. That was really a long time for a lot of people waiting to have their justice served. So I'm so pleased to see after eight years Cantabrians are no longer having to feel so weary and frustrated and are having this option in front and it's good to see that it's not such a combative process as what going through the court system can be. Through having mediation and having people able to go through and get a sense of closure so people can get on with their lives mediation is a far more flexible tool to be able to suit the needs of each and every one of those individual claims that come forward. So it's good to see the tribunal's been designed so it can be easily accessed by policyholders and that there's no application fee—so no obstacles for people to get access to that. It's not intended to replace the courts at all but it provides another option for people to go forward when they're not seeing it. I will not speak too long on this bill. I want to acknowledge the fact that we heard some really good submissions from people and we were able to have further scrutiny to make some subsequent changes to this bill. It allows a resolution process for those people in Christchurch to go forward and hopefully enables there to be a higher rate of resolution than what we've seen in the past. So without further ado I would like to thank all the officials that did great work on that to commend Andrew Little for championing this through and to acknowledge all of those Christchurch MPs for the hard work that they've done to champion this and make sure that we see some delivery in terms of an election promise made by this Government. Without further ado I commend this bill to the House.
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I've been in this Parliament for about 18 months now but this is my first opportunity in that time to take a call on a Canterbury earthquake recovery bill despite being from Canterbury myself. So I'm looking forward to taking a very brief call tonight. The Christchurch earthquakes or the Canterbury earthquakes as they're probably better described in this legislation had a very profound impact on Canterbury right across the region. As has been talked about this afternoon by my colleague Jacqui Dean there have been increased levels of anxiety and unfortunately we continue to see mental health issues across particularly Christchurch but also Canterbury. Although not on the same scale of the catastrophic damage that we saw in Christchurch there was of course other damage in other parts of Canterbury in places like Kaiapoi and even some damage further south in my electorate—particularly around Ashburton. In fact there was some damage to my parents' house and that resulted in an Earthquake Commission claim as well—joining many thousands of other Cantabrians. So we join the Government in wanting to see a flexible and fast and—more than anything—fair approach in relation to claims. We do support the intent of this bill. As has been laid out earlier by Brett Hudson we will be putting forward some changes at the appropriate time but at this point we do support the bill. Thank you.
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It gives me great pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. I want to begin by thanking and acknowledging the Minister of Justice the Hon Andrew Little for driving this manifesto commitment into legislation. It is long overdue and has been warmly welcomed in Canterbury. It's 8½ years since the series of earthquakes started and finally we're giving Cantabrians an opportunity to have their outstanding earthquake issues resolved. I want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee for the work that they've done. They've made a number of really sensible suggestions—probably prompted by submissions or discussion that they had amongst themselves—and I want to commend them for that. They added the word fair" to the purpose. So the member who's just resumed his seat Jian Yang talked about a "speedy flexible and cost-effective" resolution process but the select committee added the word "fair" and I think that's an excellent addition. They extended the date range so that the 23 February 2011 quake could be included they added the ability for parties to comment on transfers at more stages than the original legislation allowed and they've expanded the opportunity for expert and technical advice. With all the recommendations made by that committee—chaired by Brett Hudson list MP from National—I think they've done a really good job. They've obviously thought about it and listened carefully to the submissions which were almost unanimously in support of the legislation. I think the recommendations they made have improved it. I want this bill to make progress fast so I'm going to limit my comments to those that I've already made and I commend its progress to the House."
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): The purpose of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill is to provide speedy flexible and cost-effective services for resolving disputes about insurance claims due to the Canterbury earthquakes. In principle National supports the alternative measures to resolving outstanding claims. I understand there are about 2233 outstanding claims. In principle we support that. The concern is that this bill may not be able to achieve what it intends to do. It may not be able to achieve that speedy flexible and cost-effective process. The reasons are firstly that for the tribunal to function well we need experts and lawyers. But these experts and lawyers can be too busy to be available. Secondly even if some of them are available there is a possibility that they are already involved in some court process and therefore may not be able to serve in a tribunal because of the conflict of interest. Thirdly the tribunal can always pass complex cases back to the court system. But we understand that many of these outstanding claims are complex so in that sense this may actually slow the whole process. Finally all the decisions made by the tribunal can be appealed. That means that there will be a double-up in terms of the process because once the tribunal has made a decision and then it's appealed and goes back to the court it means a further delay. So it's a long process. In that sense we are concerned that this whole bill might not be able to achieve what it intends to do. Hopefully during the committee stage we will be able to improve this bill. Thank you.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. With regard to the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill National supports the bill through this stage but we did flag a number of issues that will potentially be raised in the committee of the whole House stage. But the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee Brett Hudson has canvassed those so I'm not going to go over them. I do want to make a few comments however about the homeowners whom this bill addresses the concerns of and to note that it has now been a number of years since the Canterbury earthquakes and those families—and I'm seeing Christchurch-based MPs across the House who are very aware of the anxiety and sheer toll that being caught up in a tribunal process to do with your home creates. It creates a lot of stress and anxiety on those families and the committee was always mindful across the committee of those stresses. But I do want to talk about the consultation on this bill and how it has been expressed to us that the limits placed on consultation may not have provided the breadth of views and experience that could have been really useful as this piece of legislation went through. So for example the Ministry of Justice consulted with Treasury but not the Earthquake Commission themselves or any affected homeowners or indeed insurance industry specialists. While we did hear from the insurance industry specialists in particular—whose views were very useful—it does seem that the breadth of consultation could have been broader and wider. However in the committee of the whole House stage we will make some comment about that. I also just note that the regulatory impact statement stressed throughout the statement—and it did so several times—that the lack of consultation is thanks to the tight time frames. Well is the House going to do this properly—is the Government going to do this properly—or are we going to have to come back again and make amendments to a piece of legislation that isn't quite fit for purpose? I'll quote from the regulatory impact statement where it says The lack of consultation has compounded the lack of data which means Cabinet faces some significant unknowns"—not ideal. While we do support this legislation I'm mindful of the colleague sitting next to me Jian Yang whose comments around statistics and the New Zealand Census really highlight the fact that we should be able to rely on good quality data. It would seem as is highlighted both in the census which has got wide-ranging implications—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Ahem. Hon JACQUI DEAN: —returning to the bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. Hon JACQUI DEAN: —but also to this piece of legislation in getting what is the subject of this bill the earthquakes insurance tribunal right. Thank you."