edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. Along those same lines I wanted to talk to the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker—actually it's not along the same lines; something a bit different. I wanted to talk to the Minister about the enforcement functions of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) because we had a number of submitters to the Environment Committee who were concerned about this. The concerns that were brought to us were around the EPA's ability to now undertake enforcement actions and investigation. The concerns were around uncertainty and complexity that this would bring. The submitters were concerned that there wasn't any certainty as to who would be undertaking the investigation and at what point the EPA could come in and take over an investigation. Now we understand very well that in some cases local authorities don't have the ability to undertake an investigation and that's why the EPA would come in. But the problem that submitters had was there was no certainty as to what the factors were that would mean that they would have certainty that the EPA would be taking the investigation rather than a local authority and then that would in turn mean that a judicial review of the EPA's decision to take on the case would be made more difficult. Then there's of course all of the different machinations I guess when you've got a local authority who's taking a case and then the EPA can come in halfway through so you're increasing the cost and uncertainty. That was some of their concerns. There were also concerns around if a local authority finished an investigation and found that there wasn't to be any action to be taken and the EPA can come in and do the job again creating more costs and uncertainty and more delays. So I was hoping that the Minister could respond to that just to talk about or to allay some of the concerns of people like Trustpower. If I could just read out in fact Trustpower made a good comment. They said Consent holders and the public will not have any certainty about who the regulator is likely to be when an incident occurs." and "A lack of certainty will result in unnecessary duplication." So those are some of the concerns of the submitters and I'm just hoping that the Minister might be able to give us some clarity around that."
Simpson ScottRESOURCE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to speak to a couple of clauses in Part 1 of this bill that is essentially a tinkering piece of legislation designed primarily just to undo the changes that were made under the careful guidance and stewardship of the Hon Dr Nick Smith in the previous Parliament. The area that I'm keen to have the Minister explain to the committee and to the public of New Zealand a little bit more about is why he feels the need to make changes to—I think in clause 6 that amends section 11—the legislation that was passed in the last Parliament that effectively meant that if a subdivision had been consented as being a subdivision the presumption was that unless specifically restricted by a district plan then a subdivision could occur. That seemed to make a lot of sense. It was widely proclaimed as being a useful provision that would help speed up the consenting and the Resource Management Act process around subdivision. For some reason the Minister has decided to take that out and I'm keen to know quite what his motivation was for that. Then there's the area that is similarly related that essentially under the Dr Nick Smith provisions if residential zoning had been granted under a plan then there should be no need for further consenting if the objective was to build residential dwellings on that consented residential-zoned land. Again it seems to me that that was a good sensible practical change that was made by the previous Government and is now being reversed. So if the Minister would like to maybe just give his response to those things we will—I'm sure Madam Chair you're going to take the same sort of process as previously with the committee; we don't need to use the five minutes so we'll have a free-flowing backwards-and-forwards debate? CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yep that's correct.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He's just checking on it. Have you got another question?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Is the Minister going to respond or do you want to take another—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He's just checking on the answer. Do you want to take another question?
Wood Michael; Rurawhe AdrianMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to make a brief and positive contribution one is to acknowledge and thank the Opposition for coming around on this issue having spent their last nine years in Government resisting through the courts every equal pay claim that was brought by working women and their unions. I want to have a shout out to the trade unions who have been at the forefront of this issue for decades and who have won pay equity claims and who have worked constructively with this Government in recent times to actually get pay equity in place for tens of thousands of workers. Finally I want to acknowledge the two Ministers who have spoken in this debate this evening Ministers Lees-Galloway and Genter because they're the people who have worked across party lines across sectoral lines with business and with unions to make this piece of legislation a reality. The Labour Party on this side of the House with our partners on both sides—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but it's come time for me to leave the chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 12 a.m.
Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this Equal Pay Amendment Bill through the second reading. I don't intend to take too much time of the House on this important common-sense change to legislation and the Minister outlined very clearly and in detail what the bill was about and why it was so important. I'd just like to acknowledge the 596 submissions through the select committee process and that the Government has listened and we have heard those submissions. Some of those submissions were actually very personal experiences; they brought forward very important aspects of developing legislation and ensuring that we're aware of the context and the importance of legislation such as this that we are aware of that and that's why we are supporting this.I'd just like to congratulate the Minister on working very hard on this piece of legislation. I know it wasn't easy. I know the Opposition want to stand up and try and make it out that the Minister has been sitting on this legislation and doing nothing. That's hardly the case and in fact it's quite the opposite. So I'd like to congratulate the Minister on doing so. It's a very good bill it makes a lot of sense and a lot of important changes and we do acknowledge that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper coming forward and we look forward to that coming through and making those important changes to this legislation. We commend this bill to the House.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 54New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Every MP in this House would love $100 for every constituent who has complained about the Resource Management Act (RMA); most of us wouldn't have to sell another raffle ticket in our life. However we also hear from those same people who then as soon as they want to stop something happening in their neighbourhood the RMA becomes their best friend and they start waving it around like certain politicians do with a Bible.So when I look at this bill this is about getting started. You wait nine years complain do nothing and then when this party this side of the House actually gets started on doing something about the Act something about getting this country moving then we hear nothing but complaints from the other side. This is a very good piece of legislation that will ensure that those who so often dominate the discussion will actually now hopefully be silent and we'll have a common-sense approach to getting things done in this country. I commend this Madam Speaker.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look I'm really delighted to take a very short call on this bill. What we know from the community is that water is a really important issue and what we know is that our community wants to be swimming in their rivers they want to be having healthy waters and this bill really moves towards that. This bill sets up commissioners which are part of the community and those commissioners are in fact able to look at all the water issues there are. It essentially stops the degradation of our waters and people tell us that this is really important. I think the Minister earlier today spoke in his final speech about the fact that there's a concern about whether we put our head under water; we shouldn't be like that in this country. This bill is stage one of two stages but it is actually going to fix one of the major issues that all of our country is concerned about and therefore I absolutely commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. Just a brief contribution firstly to touch on the points that Ms Stanford was mentioning. Firstly I look forward to a thorough rigorous and cooperative engagement when the next tranche of resource management reforms come before this House which they undoubtedly will next term. I think we agree in principle that low-cost high-quality development is good and I'm very proud of our record of building more houses in this term than that Government did in nine years previously. But in terms of the other thing that this bill does I just want to touch on the climate change point which is a really important one and it's really heartening because it shows that the select committee listened very carefully to submitters who pointed out the inconsistency of all of the hard work that had been done in climate change with the zero carbon bill and the work being done on emissions trading and yet the Resource Management Act said it was inappropriate to take climate change issues into account when looking at consenting issues. Now that just makes no sense and so it's really quite heartening to see an alignment of those things an alignment that's being carried through with other legislation before the Environment Committee—I must have one of the most hard-working committees in this Parliament meeting six times this week no less which I hear is unprecedented.But I just wanted to say that that zero-carbon approach is one we really need to emphasise and the freshwater planning process is really a kick-start that has been languishing for years—well overdue. I want to absolutely emphasise that this is not about rural/urban and we absolutely acknowledge that some of the dirtiest waterways are in the cities and the cities will be held to account to exactly the same stringent standards as any other New Zealander. Of course it's not going to be a political matter. The setting up of freshwater panels with commissioners makes sure that you're getting an objective view setting targets and goals and implementation which are fair and achievable and meet national standards—something that we have been needing for 30 years and which progress has not been made on until now.I'm really quite proud to have been part of this important piece of legislation. It's not a massive document. It's not a sea change for the Resource Management Act but it did pick some critical areas that needed attention. It's done it effectively. It just shows what a hard-working Minister David Parker is. The fact is that this is going to be a great contribution to our resource management law. I commend it to the House.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Public Service Legislation Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 47New Zealand National 46; Ross. Bill read a second time.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kei te tautoko ahau i tēnei pire ki te Whare.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): We have fantastic public servants in the mighty East Coast and this bill will build a more effective and unified Public Service which is great for them. So to that point I commend this bill to the House.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to endorse New Zealand First's support for this Public Service Legislation Bill. In doing so I echo the words of Andrew Falloon who's just sat down in terms of the commendation of the role that our Public Service had in the COVID response. Prior to coming into the House I had no previous experience of dealing with the Public Service outside perhaps the local council. I had a perception of the Yes Minister television series which is one of the greatest TV shows of all time in my view. But what I've seen since coming in here is that we're incredibly well served by some very very capable people. Just going back to the COVID response I do want to actually just have a shout-out to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). I know that within my role in the primary industries side of things dealing with the various industry groups and businesses whether it be in horticulture the dairy sector sheep and beef shearing—absolutely without exception the feedback I was getting as they were having the interactions with MPI was exceptional. In the circumstances around that with the speed of rolling out massive changes and communicating that response and how that would be complied with in order to keep workers safe MPI absolutely excelled themselves in that response from all the feedback I've had. The State Services Act of 1988 and the Public Finance Act of 1989 which intersect with the precursors for this bill—it ties those up nicely or it is certainly attempting a step in that direction. I think that's incredibly wise because whilst there was the nimbleness of the COVID response sometimes that's not always the case. The Government to someone coming in from the private sector is a big lumbering beast. It has a lot of moving parts to it and I think anything we can do to streamline those processes—and just as a small example I was in at Invermay the other day at AgResearch and they were talking about the process of getting funding. When they look at what they would like to do it starts off with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and at some point it cuts across to MPI and then it drifts down to them at the coalface. I think the more seamless we can make these processes the better and that's exactly what this bill sets out to do. So I commend Minister Hipkins on bringing these reforms forward. He's certainly been a busy Minister. I'm on the Education and Workforce Committee and we've had a deluge of really significant legislation coming through there as well so I commend him on bringing this forward as well. So without further ado New Zealand First supports this bill.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.
7. Question No. 7—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 7—Transport7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What is his best estimate of the cost incurred by his Government so far in relation to Auckland light rail and will he undertake to release all Government documentation relating to Auckland light rail including costings for the NZTA and NZ Infra proposals before the election?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The Ministry of Transport had a budget of $5 million to manage the parallel process and receive and evaluate the proposals from NZ Infra and Waka Kotahi. To the second part of the question yes I do hope to release as much information as I can while being consistent with the probity requirements of the process and upholding commercial sensitivity.Chris Bishop: Does he consider the $5 million that he's just mentioned spent by the Government investigating light rail in Auckland to be good value for money?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes because the Government was committed to thoroughly investigating what was an innovative and compelling proposal from NZ Infra as part of a competitive process. On top of that the Government has learnt a great deal through a business case process that has fleshed out the options for delivering light rail in Auckland.Chris Bishop: Can he give the House some explanation as to why the Ministry of Transport recommended the NZ Infra proposal over the New Zealand Transport Agency proposal when it was not solicited by the Government and the wider international market was not tested?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well it was a process that was conducted within the bounds of the Government procurement rules and guidelines. It was designed to rigorously and fairly assess an unsolicited proposal. I can't give the member details about why the Secretary for Transport recommended the NZ Infra proposal because of commercial probity other than to say that the Secretary for Transport advised Cabinet that both options were credible and selectable that there were important differences and trade-offs between them and on balance the secretary judged that the NZ Infra proposal was on balance stronger.Chris Bishop: Is he seriously telling the House and the public that he's unable to disclose to the Parliament why the Secretary for Transport recommended to him and the Cabinet that one particular proposal was better than the other?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes for the reasons I just gave.Chris Bishop: Will he release the letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters to his office over light rail now that the cross-party consultation has finished and the issue has been considered by the Cabinet?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It's not our Government's practice—and I don't believe it's been any Government's practice under MMP—to release communications that occur as part of inter-party pre-Cabinet consultations.Chris Bishop: Can he give the public a summary of the issues raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in his letter as he did last year with the letter from the Hon Julie Anne Genter to him over the Mount Victoria Tunnel issue?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
6. Question No. 6—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to address long-term pay inequities for teacher aides?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'm very pleased to say that teacher-aides have now voted overwhelmingly to endorse their historic pay equity settlement which was negotiated as part of this Government's commitment to addressing pay equity. The settlement will see more than 22000 teacher-aides—mostly women—being valued and paid fairly for the work that they do. It will acknowledge the value of the skills responsibilities and demands of teacher-aide work. The teacher-aide pay equity claim has had a long history and I'm pleased that the agreement has now been reached. This is a milestone for teacher-aides and a significant step towards addressing pay equity for women in the education sector. Jan Tinetti: Why has it been important to address these inequities for teacher-aides? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This Government recognises the vital role that teacher-aides play in schools and we've been focused on making sure we recognise that in the way they are paid. Teacher-aides are front-line workers who work closely with some of our most vulnerable children. They're playing an important role in our schools and they have responded to the challenge of COVID-19 in helping to get the county back on to its feet. But fundamentally nobody should be paid less because of their gender. Jan Tinetti: When will teacher-aides see the benefits of this settlement? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Schools will receive the additional funds to pay their teacher-aides more in October 2020. The teacher-aides will receive the new pay equity rates from November but they will be backdated until 12 February this year. The new pay rates will range from $21.20 to $34.68 per hour.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Part 1 agreed to.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This goes over ground that has been traversed many times both in this House and in the Finance and Expenditure Committee which have had briefings from Treasury on exactly these matters over the last couple of years as well as my own appearances at that committee as well as the Budgets that we've produced. Our wellbeing objectives are based on the four capitals of Treasury's Living Standards Framework. That means the financial capital that is the prosperity and the financial health and wellbeing of New Zealanders; natural capital the promotion and the importance of the environment in what we do; it is also on social capital which is about the strength of our communities; and natural capital which is about our individual wellbeing in terms of our health our skills our sense of safety and so on. All of these are outlined within Treasury's Living Standards Framework there is a dashboard of indicators for each of those areas of wellbeing. I note that the member mentions the question of spiritual wellbeing. That is not part of Treasury's Living Standards Framework but I do note that it might be of interest to the member that we've had representations from the Pacific community to say that spiritual wellbeing should be included within it—Hon Judith Collins: And is it going to be?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No it's not. But this is to highlight to the member that I actually agree with her and she can go back and check in a number of the speeches that I've given that actually it is not the Government's role or responsibility to determine an individual person's wellbeing. It is however in the opinion of this House and it would appear the leader an important thing for the Government to set objectives around wellbeing and support our communities' overall wellbeing. Mr Muller obviously accepts that; we do; it seems other members of the National Party don't.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Mr Chair—excellent decision. I've got a question for the Minister. Can he stand in the committee and just tell us which particular definition of wellbeing in the objectives we should be looking for or expecting when we see these wellbeings being measured?Because I've been looking in the particular examples of what is wellbeing and I've already listed a few of them and I've found another set of definitions which is it's multidimensional that it looks to physical wellbeing which includes lifestyle choices that affect the functioning of our bodies—sounds dreadful really doesn't it? What we eat and how active we are will affect our physical wellbeing. Emotional or psychological: that's our ability to cope with everyday life. I guess that's really resilience isn't it? Our social wellbeing: which is the extent to which we feel a sense of belonging and social inclusion; the way we communicate with others our relationships and values; and beliefs lifestyles and traditions. Then there's the spiritual wellbeing. I shudder to think of Treasury worrying about the spiritual wellbeing of people but well we never know. Then there's the intellectual wellbeing which is it's important to gain and maintain intellectual wellness to expand our knowledge and skills. And economic wellness: in short it's our ability to meet our basic needs and feel a sense of security.So I'd like to know are Treasury going to be reporting on all of those or one of those or a combination of those? Or is there something else that I've missed?
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Again I'm struggling to see the relevance to the bill and I've already answered the member's question which he's obviously very focused on hearing. In answer to this question—in fact I won't bother.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Well the Minister said he was listening very carefully for questions to answer and I gave him a very simple question which he hasn't answered yet which is: why should New Zealanders believe a Government can deliver higher levels of wellbeing as a result of this piece of legislation when they haven't delivered on all their other promises? And those promises were the KiwiBuild houses the hundred thousand that haven't turned up; there was light rail down Dominion Road which is not rolling at all; and the promises made about the border which haven't been fulfilled.Look the greatest shock that I found when sitting on the Epidemic Response Committee in the first week in lockdown was when we had the Commissioner of Police Mike Bush come along on his final day. We'd heard all week the Prime Minister saying very much focused on our wellbeing that rest assured people coming in from overseas were going into self-isolation but the police would visit them within three days—You have no need to worry." So we asked the Commissioner of Police: "Have you been and checked up on these people within three days?" and the answer was "No no we haven't."So that gap between promise and delivery is something that Kiwis are getting more and more concerned about. So my simple question to the Minister is: why should Kiwis believe this Government will be focused effectively on wellbeing when they have failed in so many other promises that they've made?"
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Madam Chair I am as you noted at the outset here to answer questions and I'm trying really hard and listening very hard to find questions within what the Opposition members are raising. I would invite him—and I know the member is reading off his phone—just to turn a couple more pages over and we come back to this concept of the wellbeing outlook. He'll actually see in there a number of areas drawn from Treasury's Living Standards Framework dashboard a number of indicators of people's wellbeing be it through mental health or be it indeed through reducing rates of child and family violence. So that is the first problem with the member's assertion. The second issue—and the page he was looking at is a summary within the Budget documents of how the Government arrived at its priorities for Budget 2019 and that is when you look at the part that the member mentioned new section 26KB. The priorities that we created in Budget 2019 were drawn from the evidence within Treasury's Living Standards Framework and then tested against the Government's network of science advisers and external experts on what will make the biggest difference to dealing with the issues that have drawn out of that Living Standards Framework. That's why mental health was identified as a priority. Now we can have an argument about the amount of money that was spent or anything—that's fine—but in terms of what this clause is about it's about how we identified those priorities using this framework.We did it because we wanted to do it. In the absence of this bill passing future Governments will have no obligation to do that. So the issues that Mr Doocey thinks are important or that Ms Upston thinks are important won't feature as a requirement of Governments to do it. So that's what this bit of the bill is about. Getting into the specific elements of each individual area and each indicator will be up to each Government but unless we have this change there will be no obligation on Governments to do the very thing that members are asking us to do. That's why new section 26KB is being put forward.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Madam Chair you did ask the member who's just resumed his seat David Carter to make you happy and once again his performance has failed to find satisfaction certainly from me in this particular instance. In many ways it's not a surprise. It's a track record of failure to provide satisfaction from that member on the other side of the House.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That is going too far.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha ha! What the member was asking for I've already answered in my very first contribution that I made in this debate; that is the fact that the wellbeing objectives of this Government are clear. They were provided in the last Wellbeing Budget. What this does is put into the Public Finance Act exactly what we did in Budget 2019. There is a wellbeing outlook; the member can go and take a look at it. He can see the way in which we've used the Living Standards Framework objectives and taken them and put them inside the Budget. It will be up to future Governments to decide whether they want to take that approach or another approach in dealing with wellbeing. From our perspective using Treasury's Living Standards Framework as the core actually does what Louise Upston asked: to make sure that New Zealanders can see the full range of things that matter to them in a Budget. I think Budget 2019 was welcomed in that regard and I repeat what I said in my last contribution: the leader of the National Party said just two Sundays ago that this is exactly what he wants to do as well.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): My primary question for the Minister is: why should New Zealanders believe a Government will improve their wellbeing when this particular Government has made so many commitments and promises that it has abandoned already?So to give you the two most dramatic examples—and I could give many more but they promised 100000 houses under KiwiBuild and they've delivered—Hon Members: 380.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —380. Fewer houses than this Government has stopped by bungling the Ihumātao development. So they've stopped more houses being built than they've actually caused to be built with the $2 billion KiwiBuild project. So having demonstrated that why should New Zealanders believe that this Government will deliver anything for all their fine words on wellbeing?Second example: the slow tram down Dominion Road. People might say that that's unkind so we'll call it the light rail. But we're not clear whether it was supposed to be a rapid transit system to the airport or a community building tram or was it to go to the airport or was it to go to Māngere or where was it to start or when was it to finish? The thing that really irritates people is that rather than actually getting on with the job of building the roads that they had inherited they've spent 2½ years with all the officials and all the money being spent trying to come up with a scheme that has been abandoned—so big promise no delivery. So why should New Zealanders trust this Government to achieve anything on wellbeing?Another example is the promises made about getting loans to small businesses in trouble and sharing the risk between the Government and Treasury. They promised and announced $6.5 billion of loans will go to help those businesses and I think we're up to $83 million—another complete failure—Andrew Bayly: 86.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Is it $86 million? Another example is that we were going to improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders by—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah OK. It's all very well to mention the word wellbeing" but the member does really need to talk to Part 1.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I appreciate that point Madam Chair but the point is that this bill is pure fluff and the fluff is the essence of the bill. So there is no substance to talk about other than the fact that we're talking about the word "wellbeing". So that is the only substance of the bill. The entire point of the bill is fluff. So the primary point I'm asking is given that why should we believe that they'll deliver even the fluff because they've delivered nothing else. That's the question that I have."
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Little difficult to divine the question out of that. I have two or three comments for the member Judith Collins. It's quite clear to me that it would be difficult for the National Party to have an understanding of the concept of happiness. It's not a happy caucus not a happy place so I can understand the member's point in that regard.Second point though: I would refer the member to the speech given by her new leader just a couple of Sundays ago which actually extolled the virtues of a wellbeing approach and suggested that in fact to what the member's just said—that Treasury should just be thinking about fiscal matters and the Fiscal Strategy Report should just be about fiscal matters—National he explicitly stated would include wellbeing objectives within their Budgets and that they would dictate how the Budgets are working. So unfortunately once again mixed messages from the Opposition.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): So let's go into Groundhog Day. It is urgency but we're going backwards not forwards which is reasonably interesting. In a bill that the Government professes to have as such a priority given it speaks about wellbeing I think it's more of the same. It's all about talk and not about delivery. So in terms of going back to my questions my questions were very clearly in terms of Part 1 of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. There is no dispute that any party in this House is here to serve the people of New Zealand and their wellbeing. What is at dispute is how simply inserting the words and wellbeing" into the Public Finance Act actually does anything because at the end of the day if it's the people we are serving in our communities have they got a job? Have they got an income to put food on the table? Are their kids well enough to go to school? Have they been immunised? Are they safe in their own home? What's happening in terms of crime? These are all very specific things. I'm curious as to why when the Government talks about wellbeing they've actually not put anything in detail in the legislation. They talk about objectives but then actually don't state anything—don't state anything in terms of how it's going to be measured when very clearly the previous Government had better Public Service targets that were reported on publicly. And all of those elements that could be considered as elements of wellbeing were publicly reported on. So in terms of this particular piece of legislation it looks like another of these examples where wellbeing is a great word but actually the New Zealand public wants of their Government delivery. They want results. They want to ensure that the fundamentals of wellbeing—i.e. being able to earn an income—are being taken care of. So my question and I'm repeating it given that the Minister—Hon Grant Robertson: You can't say that.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Not allowed to say that but it's actually on the record anyway because the chair of the committee has put that on the record. At the end of the day why was an approach to the child poverty legislation not taken in here where the targets and the measures are specifically included in the bill?"
Doocey Matt; Tolley AnneMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Thank you. I was just seeking some clarification. We are working under the new sessional order. The understanding of this side of the Chamber is we are taking shorter calls asking questions for the Minister to answer. Are we now saying the Minister won't answer questions?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. For the benefit of the committee and people watching of course we are under the new regime. We did finish the previous bill earlier than perhaps was expected and the Minister responsible for this bill was then called urgently to the House. He's now arrived. In defence of the previous Minister he was just the duty Minister in the House I think and took the chair. So I will allow repetition of the questions from the members if they want to put those questions again to the Minister who has now joined us in the committee.MATT DOOCEY: Speaking to that point of order I was just wondering whether it would be helpful for the committee if the Government was better prepared and got their Ministers down on time.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order.Michael Wood: Speaking to the point of order—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Speaking to the point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No no no no no. Everybody sit down. Thank you. I don't need any help. That's not a point of order. I have explained the situation and I am allowing repetition from the members of the Opposition if they wish to repeat their questions to the appropriate Minister.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: We need an effective Opposition.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's not helpful either.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. So look here we are and we're sort of making comments around the wellbeing bill and everybody sort of talks about the focus of wellbeing. Of course the most essential indicator if you follow the wellbeing economics is a job and health. When we've seen over the last week the difficulties that we're having on the border and the management of the border which is causing great concern around the health of New Zealand but also delaying the opportunity for us to reopen our economy and the impact that that's having on jobs—and just overnight we had statistics coming through from—Michael Wood: Is this Part 1? Which clause is in Part 1 is this from?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well I'm coming to that. So we just had overnight statistics from the IMF showing that New Zealand's economy will be slowing at a faster rate than Australia—the equivalent of about $4500 per household.So we can have fine words in Part 1 of this bill about wellbeing—fine words—but what I think New Zealanders are seeing and what I'd like to hear from the Minister is how he can assure us that this won't be another example of fine words and fine intentions and a description of an intention to improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders when the reality is just more of the same incompetence in delivery and a lack of attention to the reality of how you improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders which is about providing jobs and opportunities. So what I'd like to hear from the Minister this morning is what's different—what will be different after this bill comes through in terms of actually making a difference for the wellbeing of New Zealanders.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I too was kind of expecting that the Minister was going to take a call so I did hesitate there for a moment. My questions are more in terms of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill just asking some questions around specificity of why the objectives themselves haven't been included and specified in any detail. We've seen in this term of Government the child poverty legislation which clearly states targets in legislation so it's not that it couldn't be achieved. I'm interested to know why that level of detail isn't included in this part of the bill what the considerations were and why they've been excluded and if they've been excluded how it is that the Government intends to be able to measure the very wellbeing they speak of.
Bayly AndrewPUBLIC FINANCE (WELLBEING) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Wellbeing objectivesANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Chair. This bill is one of those bills that I gently describe as providing a warm glow of incompetence because I'm not quite sure what this bill is seeking to achieve in terms of trying to drive better outcomes. Now I know it talks about wellbeing and I know it deals with the issue of the wellbeing framework but as I've said in this House before when we have heard representations from experts on the notion of wellbeing and how it's going to be framed up and what are the key drivers behind it and what are the specific drivers behind it that we should be trying to achieve as a result of a wellbeing Budget that's where the concept whilst it sounds great in principle starts to fall apart.I know the Government's very keen to introduce this as they have in other parts of the legislation but the reality is apart from sounding nice the big issue that we have is that we do not understand exactly what it will achieve and what its purpose is and what the specific key result areas are. Now when we were in Government—and I talk about the National Party—we had a focus on goals and they were very specific. Mr Steven Joyce was someone who was famous for pursuing those goals to make sure that they were measured and we were accountable for them. Unfortunately in this this talks about an intent but it doesn't actually give the level of specifics that we need to see coming through so we can actually measure outcomes.I think the most concerning thing has been the move by the current Government to actually remove a lot of targets and measurable targets particularly—we've seen that in the health sector but in a range of other areas where we've actually moved away from measuring. Yet we've got a bill here in front of us that talks about introducing the wellbeing notion into legislation. There I think we've got a disconnect in the discourse around intent and actually what should be happening on the ground.
Tinetti Jan; Peters WinstonJAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to actually take a call here in this third reading of the Racing Industry Bill and I congratulate the Minister for Racing on this bill for an industry that many people might be a bit surprised that I'm actually quite passionate about. I grew up in the heart of the harness racing area of Canterbury in Templeton and went to school with many of the industry leaders or names that people will know and so spent many of my weekends around stables and going to courses. I really know the industry and have followed it inside out for a long time. I was fortunate enough to sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee once during that and found that absolutely fascinating and this bill is really timely for an industry that I'm delighted it will actually give some security to. So it has been said before me. I'm really delighted in this bill and I commend this to the House.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think Mr McKelvie wants to sing Camptown Races" by way of a waiata for the end of this bill.Bill read a third time."
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): As peace and tranquillity breaks out across the House I rise to commend this bill to the House. I sat in on a couple of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee hearings for this bill and a couple of things were evident to me. The first was that this is an issue in an industry the problems within which can no longer be kicked down the road; that it is absolutely imperative that appropriate changes are made to give this industry a sustainable future. My electorate of Mt Roskill on the Auckland isthmus is actually surrounded by three different courses between Ellerslie Avondale and Alexandra Park covering both trots and gallops. Each of those courses is in a very different state and each club is in a very different state. We heard from submitters not necessarily uniform views about what the future of the industry should be but a clear recognition that something should change. So I commend the Minister for taking up the mantle on this for leading a good process which started off with the Messara report and substantial engagement across the industry. I also commend the Transport and Infrastructure Committee because there were some really gnarly issues within this none the least of which was the issue around property and around the fact that racing clubs even if they're not currently in a particularly viable financial state are an important part of the social fabric of their communities. So the changes made by the select committee which put a structured set of considerations around community needs and aspirations I think will give some comfort to those organisations that we'll have good processes that support the sustainability of the industry while also hearing about the needs of communities that have built up around clubs over many generations.This is an excellent piece of legislation. It's good that there's widespread support and it's a strong indication that this is a Government which doesn't kick issues down the road. We pick them up we deal with them and we work with our communities to make this a better place for everyone. I commend the bill to the House.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased and privileged to be able to speak on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill in its third reading and I think it's a lovely way for me to say my farewells to the people of Christchurch through this bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee the Hon Nicky Wagner and the Hon Amy Adams for the work that they did in the original bill the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill because it was a lot of work and being in Christchurch East we saw a number of families that were affected by the by the earthquake and a lot of displaced families. I think we're moving and turning the corner on the regeneration of Christchurch and to be able to hand back to the council and to the people of Christchurch a project a bill that has actually helped to get the regeneration projects moving is great.I like my colleagues on this side of the House have been quite disappointed with the I suppose inaction of the Government over the three years in terms of getting major projects sorted in Christchurch. There to me was really no excuse for that to not happen actually and to advance some of those big projects like the metro sports centre. The rugby grounds are always used each summer. That's where as Matt Doocey voiced yesterday in the committee stage the Crusaders rule and will continue to rule in their patch—I won't say any more than that. But anyway I just want to say that the work that this side of the House has done to actually be able to prepare this and move it across into local hands has been amazing.I just want to voice the regeneration project of the Ōtākaro/Avon I suppose strip and I just want to voice a concern around regeneration of the Southshore area. You know it's a really lovely area for the people of the east and very picturesque. It has you know birds very sacred birds that come in there each year and nest there and then they fly out. People flock there to take photos to row down that part and that stretch of the river out through the river mouth. I would've liked to have seen some of that Avon/Ōtākaro corridor go right through to the end of that spit and give it some emphasis some kaha and some mana down there.So anyway without any further ado I think that having the regeneration office in Carnaby Lane during that whole period gave the people of the east some hope that there would be some extra projects and so they were quite disappointed when nothing came of that. But anyway as I said I'm very privileged to speak on this bill alongside of my colleagues to support the bill and to wish everybody in the Christchurch-Canterbury area the very best. Thank you Mr Speaker.Bill read a third time.