edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It is my pleasure to have a right of reply to the previous speakers and all others on the other side of the House who wish to impugn my character and the roles I had as the leader of Local Government New Zealand. That was an important role I had and I'm very proud of that role and the role I now have in this Parliament.Despite what members of the other side might say things are not all as they are portrayed by the previous speakers and others. The reason I say that is that this side of the House would have supported this bill had it not been for the complete gutting of the Local Government Commission in this bill. That's what the Government has done and not replaced it with anything.I want to give members of the House a little bit of history here. It is very hard to change structural arrangements in New Zealand—very hard—without a little bit of push or a little bit of an agency to lead that change. There was massive reform in 1987—massive reform. Many people thought the world would end. You know what? The world didn't end and many people would say if you asked them now do they like the change they would say yes and they wouldn't go back. Now what I'm saying is that people resist change. It's a normal facet of life but things do need to change with time and if the Government takes the Local Government Commission out of the loop and not give them any role whatsoever to look at structures and reforms and the way things are organised it is my view that there will be very little change.Then I say what is the role of the Local Government Commission? There is none. Effectively what this bill says: we will have a commission we'll have one board member from time to time—more could be co-opted—to redraw wards and the number of members of wards in local authorities every three years. We'll run a bureaucracy in Wellington and we'll have a commission. In my view it's a complete and utter waste of time. If the Government was really strong about this it should've just simply abandoned the Local Government Commission given that role to the Department of Internal Affairs or somebody else to fulfil it because all we're doing is wasting their time. My point is that's really why this side has objected. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand and make a contribution to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2). I'm going to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our newest community leaders in West Coast - Tasman: the new Mayor of Tasman Tim King; the new Mayor in Buller Jamie Cleine Grey District's Tania Gibson; the really re-elected Mayor of Westland Bruce Smith; and I'm looking forward to the selection by the West Coast Regional Council of their new chair. Now these people dedicate their lives and their time to local government and they do it with a passion. In 2016-17 the National Party actually introduced this legislation. Parts of it were actually already being modelled in the area that I was actively involved in in local government. One of the things that we were very keen to do was to use some of the attributes out of this legislation to what we call shared services—across the councils actually sharing our services. That means that for instance instead of having three or four small councils that were each replicating activities we could perhaps have one centre of excellence. One of them would maybe for example do payroll. One may have the mapping services and have all the geographic information system data on one programme and have all the licences there. Others may be consenting so sharing services across the region. The one that worked really successfully for us was in civil defence.But unfortunately some of that good work that was done in the previous readings of this bill has been undone through the committee stage of this bill. Unfortunately because of that the National Party feels disinclined now to support this legislation which is a real shame because there was real potential in here to support those activities and share those services across councils. I'd just like to make a very quick comment too about council-controlled organisations (CCOs). CCOs do have a place in local government and if we're going to operate some of those activities in a commercial way then they do need to have distance between the politics and the activity. And I know in my own area that CCOs work extremely effectively. They provide a higher level of service and they also have higher levels of satisfaction from their user groups. Unfortunately we will not be supporting this piece of legislation. Thank you.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Pleasure to speak to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2). I'll start with a truism if I may. All politics is local—as ascribed to US House of Representatives Speaker Tip O'Neill. I've got a tip for him in turn: not all Government is local. So while Government should always be responsive to local needs—and we see that played out across the electorates so-called across the land in a way that we're very familiar with in this House—of course in relation to local government it's important to have a balance between responsiveness and efficiency. That is at the heart of the disagreement between the two sides of the House tonight in terms of the support that we feel that we cannot offer to this legislation in the sense that we believe that the balance has not been struck in the ideal fashion.So it is that regional solutions need to be gained and it might be that areas desire that for themselves but it might also be that some assistance is needed to rationalise and reorganise. We have a situation where currently in certain parts of Auckland—those that I represent—the question is not so much who can make the trains run on time but who can make the trains run at all and that's something which as an advertisement for myself as local MP I remain very firmly engaged with in Auckland's north-west.I won't take too much more of the House's time but I would just note that the Local Government Commission may not be perfect—and few institutions populated by humans are by definition—but one does not discard a leaky life raft merely because it is leaky if one does not have some substitute means of keeping oneself afloat. Council-controlled organisations should of course be controlled and controllable by councils and you'll find no argument from us there. But unfortunately as my colleague Dr Jian Yang has indicated as a whole we cannot support this legislation tonight.
Sio Hon Aupito William; Dyson RuthPart 1 Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I want to briefly table three Supplementary Order Papers that make urgently required amendments to the bill. The first is Supplementary Order Paper 385 which amends section 63 and section 64 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. This Supplementary Order Paper inserts new clauses 122A and 122B into the bill. These new clauses pluralise references to the deputy registrar for the Court of Appeal. Sections 63 and 64 of the Senior Courts Act provides for the appointment of only one deputy registrar due to a previous drafting error. However the Court of Appeal currently has eight deputy registrars four of whom were appointed before the Act came into force. The court relies upon multiple registrars and it's therefore important that their roles are correctly described in law. The second Supplementary Order Paper is Supplementary Order Paper 386. This inserts a new Part 22A into the bill to make a minor amendment to the New Zealand Film Commission Act 1978. This new Part repeals section 19(3) of the New Zealand Film Commission Act in order to allow the New Zealand Film Commission to give guarantees or indemnities a new interpretation of the New Zealand Film Commission Act which is preventing the New Zealand Film Commission from entering into a valid indemnity contract without approval from the Minister of Finance. This is out of step with other Crown entities and is hindering the commission's procurement of business software and may affect its online presence. This Supplementary Order Paper resolves this issue and brings the New Zealand Film Commission into line with other Crown entities in the cultural sector. The third and final Supplementary Order Paper is Supplementary Order Paper 387. This inserts a new clause 133B(5A) into the bill. This amendment clarifies that once a person admits liability for an infringement offence then they may only make written submissions to the court and are not entitled to appear in person. The amendment is needed because it is an unnecessary waste of the court's time to hear from people who have already admitted liability for an infringement offence and it was never intended that this should happen. Can I simply acknowledge and thank the Governance and Administration Committee for their work. I want to thank all the parties and all members of Parliament; as the chair has rightly pointed out anyone can declare that they do not support clauses of the bill. All of the amendments that are part of this bill fit the purpose as minor and technical and can be introduced as part of this Statutes Amendment Bill. I hope that helps with the deliberation. I'm anticipating that all of you simply support this. Thank you. I seek the leave of the committee for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Dyson RuthSTATUTES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Now with the galleries still packed we move to the Statutes Amendment Bill. Members should note that there are special requirements for statutes amendments bills—Standing Order 305(2) provides that If any member objects to a clause standing part of a Statutes Amendment Bill … the clause is struck out of the bill". Therefore if any member wishes for there to be a separate vote on any provision please indicate this to the Chairperson during the debate so that we can put those questions first."
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I will very briefly just respond to a couple from the lengthy list of questions that the member did. I think he did very well to get to the full five minutes and I congratulate him for that. But there is Supplementary Order Paper 394 in the name of the Hon David Parker dividing the bill into two separate bills which are something we don't do as often as we used to; we used to divide bills all of the time. The reason for Supplementary Order Paper 394 and for the legislation being divided into two separate Acts is so that the repeals and amendments don't sit on the end of the main bill in the long term. So basically it's about creating clean legislation effectively and that's the reason for dividing the bill.In terms of why the commencement clause is drafted as it is I think it also relates to the member's question about the staging for the implementation of the secondary legislation clauses. The Government is building I think on the work of the Justice Committee which recommended a staged implementation to publication of aspects of the bill to recognise that it is actually an enormous and complex task of gathering and publishing all of New Zealand's secondary legislation—and dare I say it I hope that they will be able to find it all because there is quite a large volume of it and I think the process of drawing it together is very important. So that is part of the reason I think for the staging that's set out in the bill.I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question for the purposes of the vote.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Hipkins Chris; Dyson RuthLEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for all of the provisions in the Legislation Bill to be taken as one debate with separate votes at the end of the debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Dyson Ruth; Smith NickCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that the Minister's—Marama Davidson: Madam—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 be agreed to. All those in favour say aye.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I thought Marama Davidson was wishing to take a call.Marama Davidson: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry I didn't see you.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave for Marama Davidson being able to take a call.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I've already started taking the vote. I'm sorry. I've already started taking the vote. I apologise. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I'm seeking leave for Marama Davidson to be allowed a call.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I've already started taking the vote.
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting programme for 2020 be as follows:February 11 12 13 18 19 and 20; March 3 4 5 10 11 12 17 18 19 and 31; April 1 2 7 8 9 28  29 and 30; May 5 6 7 12 13 14 26 27 and 28; June 2 3 4 16 17 18 23 24 25 and 30; July 1 2 21 22 23 28 29 and 30; August 4 5 6 11 12 13 25 26 and 27;September 1 2 3 15 16 17 22 23 and 24; October 13 14 15 20 21 and 22; November 3 4 5 10 11 12 17 18 and 19; December 1 2 3 8 9 10 15 16 and 17.Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2)—Leave to Introduce
Prayer in Niuean
Bridges Simon; Mallard TrevorARMS (FIREARMS PROHIBITION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)Introduction and Setting Down as Government Order of the Day No. 1—Leave DeclinedHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A point of order in relation to the questions?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): No Mr Speaker. It's to seek leave.SPEAKER: We'll take a point of order.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) a member's bill in Brett Hudson's name to be introduced and set down as Government order of the day No. 1 today. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There is objection.
Mallard Trevor; Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaWEDNESDAY 16 OCTOBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.PRAYERSSPEAKER: Faakalofa lahi atu. Because it's Niuean Language Week I've asked Anahila Ngatongaha'a-Suisuiki to—I'm going to say that again—Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki to recite the prayer in Niuean. I apologise.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Ko e Atua nae kua ole mo e fakatokolalo atu a mautolu ke he Haau a takitakiaga mafola kia tuku kehe e tau manako fakatagata ka e ole atu ki mua Haau kia tonu mau e lilifu he tau tauteaga oti ki loto he Fale nei mo e ha mautolu a motu ne fakaheke ke he Haau a higoa Tapu ke fakafetui mau mo e taute e tau fifiliaga tonu ki mua he lilifu ko e Patuiki Fifine mo e lalolagi mo e tau tagata katoa ke he mafola mo e milino a Niu Silani katoa ha ko e higoa ha Iesu Keriso ko e ha malu Iki. Amene.[Almighty God we humbly acknowledge our need for Thy loving guidance and laying aside all private and personal interests humbly ask You that we conduct with dignity all the affairs of this House and of our country who worship Thy holy name always striving to meet and make correct decisions to the honour of the Queen and the public welfare peace and tranquillity of New Zealand through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.]SPEAKER: I again apologise to the member. I explained to her previously that I was getting nervous over the greeting and then of course I massacred her name which is actually not forgivable.
Tuesday 15 October 2019 - Volume 741
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteLOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeDebate resumed from 26 September.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment 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.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended 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.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill and the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment.Report adopted.
Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteClause 1 agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56 New Zealand National 55; Ross. Clause 2 agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56 New Zealand National 55; Ross. Clause 3 agreed to. Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 360 in the name of the Hon Eugenie Sage and the following amendment in her name to Part 1 be agreed to: in clause 16(3) in new section 48A(1)(s) replace 26ZJA(4)" with "26ZJA(5)". A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56 New Zealand National 55; Ross. Amendments agreed to. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of Sarah Dowie to Part 1 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 56 New Zealand National 55; Ross. Noes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Amendments not agreed to. The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sarah Dowie be agreed to: in clause 9 in new section 26ZJA insert after subsection (1): (1A)Before the Director-General declares by Gazette an area on private property to be a spawning area the Director-General must—(a)consult the property owner; and (b)provide for an appeal process which must include a right for the property owner to be heard; and (c)give effect to the property owner's right to justice under section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 56 New Zealand National 55; Ross. Noes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Amendment not agreed to. The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 391 in the name of Sarah Dowie to clause 16 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 56 New Zealand National 55; Ross. Noes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Amendment not agreed to. Part 1 as amended agreed to. Part 2 Amendments to Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56 New Zealand National 55; Ross. Part 2 agreed to. ScheduleA party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56 New Zealand National 55; Ross. Schedule agreed to."
Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Parts 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
12. Question No. 12—Local GovernmentHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 12—Local Government12. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all her actions and policies?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Fakaalofa lahi atu—Happy Niuean Language Week. Yes. Hon Jacqui Dean: Is it her expectation that the proposed wellbeing work will be undertaken by councils at the same time as they work on the three waters programme and the planned changes that will be required under the action plan for freshwater?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes and I'm pleased to say that one of the early representations that I had as the Minister for Local Government from the sector was to insert the wellbeings because it sits alongside environmental outcomes outcomes for better urban planning and urban design and outcomes for better places to live and I'm pleased to be able to support the sector by including the wellbeings back into legislation. Hon Jacqui Dean: How will communities set specific objective and subjective priorities for intergenerational wellbeing" under the wellbeings framework? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I'm pleased to say that this is a matter that the sector themselves have led out. The Society of Local Government Managers have actually launched for some time now a live document on wellbeing indicators. They have discussed the matter thoroughly within the sector to determine the types of indicators that councils can use and apply to achieve a number of outcomes in the environmental area social wellbeing area and physical and built environment and I think we should support them.Hon Jacqui Dean: How much will all this cost?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The cost will be determined in accordance to the priorities of those councils and this is well-established. And more importantly this enables councils to engage with their communities to set the types of priorities that look across environmental wellbeings social wellbeings the types of cities and communities that people want to live in and most importantly so that their children can thrive and grow in a prosperous region. Hon Jacqui Dean: How much does she expect rates to rise in order for councils to fund all of the work she has just described?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That's a matter that I can't be entirely responsible for. The setting of rates is a matter for local councils to determine and they are mindful that in balancing the impact on ratepayers with the priority that their people have within their communities they must balance the books based on what the revenue is that they get from rates. But can I say this: when we came into Government it was very clear that the local government sector had been left to languish for nine years and the issues of affordability on councils had been neglected. That's why we embarked on a Productivity Commission report that is looking to provide some solutions and we're considering that report and will respond in due course to the cost pressures facing councils."
7. Question No. 7—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action if any is the Government taking to improve the welfare and pastoral care of students living in halls of residence and other tertiary accommodation?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday the Government introduced legislation—well today actually the Government introduced legislation to change the Education Act to create a new mandatory code of practice that will set out the duty of pastoral care that tertiary education providers have for their students. Recent tragic events have highlighted that a lack of minimum standards for domestic students in tertiary accommodation exists. Students and their families pay a premium for a package of accommodation which includes a legitimate expectation that the provider will include a level of pastoral care and support. Our changes are designed to ensure that they get what they pay for.Jo Luxton: What did initial investigations by the Government uncover around the pastoral care of students living in halls of residence and other tertiary accommodation?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A couple of weeks ago following media publicity around a tragic death I asked the Tertiary Education Commission to contact all tertiary education providers that operate student accommodation and I asked that they check on all of their students in halls of residence and I asked for initial information to be gathered on the processes and systems that they have in place to ensure the welfare of students living in accommodation provided by them or on their behalf. It revealed significant inconsistency in the pastoral care that's provided across the country and some concerning gaps in the delivery of pastoral care. I also found that the voluntary code of practice for tertiary accommodation that was developed by providers and stakeholders back in 2004 had effectively fallen into abeyance. The Government is prepared to act to ensure that every student is provided with a high quality of pastoral care wherever they are in New Zealand.Jo Luxton: Why is the Government moving so quickly to put in place a code of practice for tertiary students?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Right now today there are thousands of students living in tertiary education provider - provided accommodation throughout the country and parents and students will be making decisions for next year about where young people will go and where they might stay during that time. The Government wants to ensure that every one of those families as they make that decision can be confident that if a student is enrolled in a hall of residence provided by a tertiary education institution they will receive an adequate standard of pastoral care and that their safety and welfare will be paramount.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the Government's finances?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): Last week the Government released the Crown accounts for the 2018-19 year showing the books were in surplus and that net debt came in below forecast. The healthy surplus was due to a stronger economy but also a number of one-off factors including a $2.6 billion revaluation of the country's rail assets. The accounts show the Crown's total net worth is $146 billion a net increase of $10.7 billion. These accounts show the coalition Government has achieved strong financial results while also making significant investments in wellbeing and infrastructure.Dr Deborah Russell: What do the Crown accounts show about the strength of the economy?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The accounts show the economy is performing well. Revenue was up as a result of higher corporate profits growth in domestic consumption more people in work and higher wages. The results show businesses are investing employing more workers and paying higher wages while at the same time reporting stronger profits. This is a timely reminder not to talk ourselves into a downturn just because it suits some people's negative narrative. It's important to remember that the underlying fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are solid.Dr Deborah Russell: What do the accounts show about the Crown's level of capital investment?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The accounts show the coalition Government continues to increase investment in areas that were neglected by the previous Government. Capital investment—including in new hospital buildings classrooms roads and rail and the super fund—was up 13.7 percent over the year. In dollar terms capital investment in the 2019 year was more than $6.7 billion building on the $5.9 billion we invested in 2018. This compares with just $3.7 billion in 2017 before we came to office. Our high levels of capital spending demonstrate this Government's commitment to investing in turning around the infrastructure deficit we inherited after nine years of neglect.
Regulatory Systems Amendment Bills (No 2) — Second Readings
Lubeck Marja; Dyson RuthMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Fakaalofa atu. I really would treasure the opportunity to take a few minutes and talk about this excellent legislation the second reading of this omnibus legislation. Each of these regulatory systems amendment bills amend legislation that is administered by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and are highly technical bills. I think someone mentioned before that they amend in fact 14 pieces of legislation—quite incredible work that has been done here. These bills ensure that statutory provisions are updated where necessary and clarified addressing duplication and any issues that really need tidying up in general. That in turn will bring some more efficiency and effectiveness to our legislation. It also removes—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the flow of this debate. The debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption on the next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to commend this legislation to the House. I'd first like to commend the Hon James Shaw on speaking for five minutes on the regulatory systems amendment bills a detailed matter that I'm sure when he envisaged coming to Parliament was the sort of thing he imagined he would be speaking on in great detail. I also just want to respond to some comments made in the debate by the Hon Tracey Martin who talked about the need for action in retirement villages and I reflect on this because I visited some retirement villages yesterday. It's Seniors' Week and I thought it was an opportune moment to check in with retirement villages in this city. Isn't it funny that as I sat down and spoke to the leader of one of these he reflected that we have a Government that were all talk on so many things and for him absolutely nothing had changed. In fact when he thought about the important things that had happened in retirement villages over time he thought of National who of course did bring in increased wages for aged-care workers and who have done substantive things. Dr Deborah Russell: After going to court. NICOLA WILLIS: I won't take you further into the detail of some of the derisory comments that we shared about the record of this Government on delivering but it was of course Tracey Martin who raised retirement villages and it's to that that I respond. But I commend this legislation to the House. I in particular want to commend the committee who considered the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill. It's fair to say that on the Education and Workforce Committee the matters we discuss are I would suggest of a more relatable nature for many New Zealanders and therefore possibly easier matters to consider. So I truly do commend the members of this committee and in particular the very able chairperson Jonathan Young. I do commend to the House a bill that we're all in agreement on and isn't that nice on a Tuesday evening? Thank you Madam Speaker.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to rise in support of this legislation and I'd just like to touch on a couple of—isn't it a shame that the Minister for Seniors continues to blame and take no responsibility for the Retirement Villages Act? She's said herself that there's a whole lot of work to do. She's just picked this up read the notes and realised that there's actually a hell of a lot more work to do. It was good that she admitted that but she's been here for two years and she's saying she needs to do more about it. Well how about getting on and doing it—how about getting on and doing it? It is the year of delivery after all.Then she talked about the bad old days in the 1980s and 1990s about the issues around insolvency and liquidations and receiverships—about the bad old days of the 1980s and 1990s. It must have been the National Government that was to blame for that too. Is that right? Is that what the Minister said?Look—no idea what the hell she's talking about; no idea what specific regulations and Acts she's talking about or even changes that occurred at the time. Just had to fill some space in—just like I'm doing now.This is very good legislation. It is legislation that both sides of the House agree on and speakers have said so. It is constructive. It is an ongoing evolution of how we do things here. One could blame the other side for not picking these things up in the 14 Acts that this omnibus legislation covers but we're not. We're saying this has got to be done. This is stuff that makes things more effective cost efficient and comprehensive for the general public to understand. It saves costs it improves the lives of New Zealanders and that is why we are all here tonight and next week and the day after that. I commend the legislation to the House.
Partnership Law Bill — Third Reading
Williams PotoThird ReadingHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move That the Partnership Law Bill be now read a third time.Bill read a third time.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Speaker. Happy to take a short call on the Partnership Law Bill. If there's one thing that I always enjoy at 9 o'clock at night it's a history lesson from the good doctor Dr Duncan Webb—always makes my night. We've had such excellent speeches this evening. I don't think there's any more to add so I won't prolong this any further. We support this bill and I commend it to the House.Bill read a second time.
Partnership Law Bill — Second Reading
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mr Speaker I can tell by the look on your face you might be thinking this is going to be a brief call but partnership is a thing very very close to my heart—SPEAKER: Don't challenge me!Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I wouldn't dare Mr Speaker. But I just do want to note the passing of this bill because this bill is one of a tranche drafted by Mackenzie Chalmers. In fact the whole of the English commercial law was drafted by this fellow back in 1906 and we adopted them holus-bolus—Sale of Goods Act Bills of Exchange Act—and here we have the last vestige. So it's actually quite a historic moment to update it and to get rid of language that has lasted to its credit for more than 100 years and has served us well. I think parliamentary counsel could actually look back and say given the time that was actually a fantastic piece of drafting. Anything that can last that long is actually something that has worked effectively.Partnerships are critical in New Zealand and I think it's worth just noting that if you and I unlikely though it may seem Mr Speaker were to strike up a bargain to go into a joint enterprise—very informal oral only—the whole force of this law would come and bear on our relationship. That's a really important thing because a lot of enterprises large and small are based on this law and to make it accessible so that ordinary business people who might be just opening up a corner fruit stall can understand it and can get on with their business with certainty is actually a fantastic thing.The last thing I was going to say: Minister Peeni Henare I think was perhaps worried that you might intervene when he started talking about Mesopotamia but that was in fact the oldest laws known to us at the moment the laws of Hammurabi—1754 B.C. had law on trading mercantile relationships and partnerships and here we are bringing it up to date today. What a fantastic day it is. I commend this bill to the House.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well I've been a member of this House now for five years and it's the first time other than Treaty settlement legislation that I've spoken on something that actually goes back this far. It just makes sense to support this into a new phase. My grandmother was born in 1916 and she's still alive at 103 years of age. There are not many things that supersede my grandmother but this bill does.So with that—look obviously the languages have changed the systems have changed and there are a whole lot of things that have happened in the time between 1908 and now so it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a great pleasure to follow the members who have just spoken—SPEAKER: I'm glad someone's getting pleasure!RAYMOND HUO: —ha ha!—on such an interesting and thought-provoking bill especially Mr Chris Penk my former Justice Committee buddy rather than member who raised some interesting but valid points such as how to define partnership—whether in the business sense or in the context of relationship.This bill does contain very interesting provisions such as how to define partnership. For instance—I think it is—Schedule 2 provides a reference to replacing the references in section 20(2) and (3) of the Act from retiring partner" or "partner who retires" to another reference with regard to a partner who "leaves" a partnership or a firm—so providing a more accurate and easier-to-understand definition.Overall as members have raised this is a revision bill and this bill does not seek to change the substantive nature of this 1908 legislation; rather it seeks to modernise the Act. I commend the bill to the House."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a very short call on the Partnership Law Bill and to follow my learned colleague Chlöe Swarbrick from the Green Party. I'm glad that she's researched this bill in depth and I have too. It's a great bill. One of the pieces that it does is it removes some archaic references to books". I thought that was a very interesting thing because it changes it to "records". Of course in relationship to businesses we don't often talk about going and having a look at the books; it's what's in the records and of course nowadays we'd go and see what's in the cloud. So in 110 years' or 111 years' time I'm not sure what this Parliament will be doing in keeping the records but at least it's in the Hansard that it's no longer the books or the records; it's in the cloud. So I commend this bill to the House."
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Madam—Mr Chair—Mr Speaker I apologise. We've had a lot of women in the chair as of late as I've been speaking in this House.SPEAKER: Not today we haven't. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Not today no. Interestingly enough in canvassing exactly how old the Partnership Act 1908 is I turned to our trusty friend Google. Given that this Act—or rather sorry the Partnership Act 1908 which the Partnership Law Bill seeks to amend—is over 110 years I found out that actually on this day in Parliament 110 years ago women actually didn't exist in the Chamber. Women weren't allowed to stand for Parliament until 1919—that being 29 October where we finally secured the right to stand for Parliament—26 years I might add after we won the right to vote which of course backs up the point made by my colleague from the National Party Dan Bidois that this is indeed an antiquated piece of legislation which the Partnership Law Bill seeks to amend.This is of course a non-controversial piece of legislation because it is a revision bill that has been backed up by three submissions from lawyers who helped to prepare the bill and then four lawyers who were appointed under the Legislation Act who certified that the statutory revision powers were exercised appropriately—that being in accordance with revision requirements and powers in the Legislation Act 2012. In the broad sense this of course does not change the law whatsoever—i.e. that being the effect of the law. It does however change and update the legislation—that being the language which is used.Just in closing the Green Party's contribution in our support of this piece of legislation at its second reading I just want to make the point that accessibility and transparency are two quite different things. New Zealand Parliament consistently ranks at the top of the charts as one of the best parliaments in the world for transparency's sake but there is a difference between having all of that information publicly available and that information being digestible and accessible to everyday people who seek to access that information without necessarily needing the help of lawyers. That is of course what the Partnership Law Bill seeks to do in tidying up the Partnership Act 1908 and modernising the language. The Greens commend this bill to the House.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and to speak in the second reading of the Partnership Law Bill. I did have to do a double take because the Minister wasn't sure I don't think about what reading this was in. But none the less we're in the second reading. I've learnt a new word tonight apparently from the other side of the House. It's a pleasure to speak in the second reading of this bill.Partnerships are really important for New Zealand. I'm bringing back a little bit of my commercial law 101 here but not only partnerships. If you want to set up a business you can either form a company form a sole partnership or a sole trader business or the third option is a partnership and this law is really about the third option of setting up an enterprise. As was mentioned before there are over 60000 of these in New Zealand so it's a really important law. It is a law that is a little bit antiquated and I think this side of the House does look forward to updating it and modernising it—bringing the language into the 21st century which is what this bill seeks to do.So there are lots of things that have been traversed today but of course the bill itself is really important. It defines what a partnership is and what a partnership is not. It also defines the nature of partnerships and the responsibilities of partners to a partnership but also how one goes about establishing or dissolving a partnership throughout the life of the entity. So this is actually a really important law for New Zealand and really important that we modernise it. It doesn't actually have much in the way of substance in terms of the changes. So I don't want to labour the point too much beyond that other than National certainly supports this in the second reading and I commend this bill to the House.
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Oh Mr Speaker. No Mr Speaker—may I have a turn?SPEAKER: Oh Fletcher Tabuteau. You've got the call.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Thank you very much Sir.SPEAKER: You don't have to use it.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No—I would very much love to use it. Ha ha!This evening's legislation with regards to the Partnership Law Bill is pretty much just a simple indication of a Government and a Minister that are doing things in the right space at the right time. As previous speakers have acknowledged—Simeon Brown: It's 111 years late.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —it's simply about tidying things up. The Opposition member from the other side of the House may recollect the 1908 original legislation but we have to say—Hon Member: Which one?FLETCHER TABUTEAU: That one at the back. Ha ha! But what we are saying this evening is that this is essentially a tidy-up. We have heard from previous speakers about antiquated legislation antiquated syntax wording and phraseology and that's not really helpful for modern business Mr Bidois. I appreciate your look of incredulation there. So what we're doing and what the Minister has done along with our officials is tidy it up essentially. Actually this is an opportune time to acknowledge the work of the select committee in this space as also noted by previous speakers. This is a tidy-up that needed to be done.The bill defines a partnership. It establishes what it is in terms of governing the rights and obligations between partners and third parties. It contains financial reporting requirements for large partnerships and governs what the end of a partnership actually looks like. I think it's important to note in the House that we have over 60000 partnerships that are GST-registered in New Zealand and I think it's probably fair to comment that not necessarily all partnerships will be GST-registered. So there are many many more that will be out there that will appreciate the work that has been done in this legislation.So on behalf of New Zealand First I wanted to stand up outline the sensibility of this legislation the need for it to be undertaken the appreciation that we have not only of the Minister but of the select committee and simply congratulate the House on work that is well done. It is not significant but it is things like this that make business easier to do and undertake and I think it is work like this incrementally added up that makes a difference. So thank you for my opportunity to speak Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Just before I call Dan Bidois I will say that I have referred to the dictionary and the member has used a new word when he's put together incredulous" and "adulation"."
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Mallard TrevorKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to stand in support of this Partnership Law Bill. The previous speaker the Hon Meka Whaitiri chair of the Justice Committee explained it very well. This bill doesn't make substantive change to the effect of the current law but makes minor changes to ensure it is modernised and up to date. This Act is more than 110 years old and I would like to acknowledge the Hon Meka Whaitiri for taking eight minutes to explain the whole thing. The Minister Peeni Henare wrapped up in three minutes so she has done very well. I acknowledge your insight about it even though you were not the chair of the Justice Committee at that time.Hon Meka Whaitiri: I wasn't even on it.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yeah but still you have got a very good insight of the bill. So there's nothing much to add because there are minor changes in this bill. I commend this bill to the House.SPEAKER: Very good. The question—