edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): It's a pleasure to rise and take a call. I just want to reassure some members on the other side of the House who seem to think the reason we're doing this is because we have to—some trade agreement. We're doing this because it's the right thing to do very very clearly. It's the right thing to do and it's a good thing to do. I've referred to our living standards framework which really guides Treasury's decision making about how we ensure improvement in living standards for people and it talks about the wealth of our society and individual and collective wellbeing and the role that leisure and play and social cohesion and the arts play in that. So it is a good thing to do. It helps the arts of course when we support them; they help us to thrive. It is good for our souls when we support these people. There were concerns raised and I'm reassured when I hear about the 80 other jurisdictions where this has successfully run—the sky hasn't fallen—including Australia the UK and the EU. I feel very reassured that this scheme is built on solid ground and experience.Finally when I was the head of arts at a small rural secondary school I taught students who took what their families often thought was the hard road and went out into the world intending to make a living as an artist. I can remember my own mother saying to me when I thought I was going to drama school There is nothing romantic about starving in a garret." This legislation helps us to make sure that if they write it you know that for our visual artists like our playwrights and our songwriters they will actually have some additional access to their rightly deserved income. And it is because of that that I thank the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage for making sure that this happens and commend it to the House."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I want to talk about something we haven't discussed yet which is the use of this by groups that are disabled or what we would call outsider art. I went to a studio last week called Māpura Studios. I also visited Tui Ora studios—both are in the Mt Albert electorate. It's incredibly work that they're doing there. They're studios where people come often with a disabled relative or they come as a person who is disabled intellectually or they have had a stroke and then Tui Ora is dealing with people who've had mental illness and they're coming to these places and they're creating beautiful artwork. And they're often collaborating with their family to create the art and the works are utterly beautiful. If you go to my Facebook you'll see some from Māpura Studios. There's one that they created when I was there and were working on and there's also ones that they created for a Matariki celebration that they held at Alberton. This work is stunning and it isn't really something that they get any income from in this situation.Imagine if our intellectually disabled people creating this beautiful work and their whānau creating it with them were able to have a secure income for the rest of their lives because of the cumulative effect of something like this. And this little bill deals with that. It allows them a stream of income and in fact deals with joint ownership. I met a mother and son when I was at Māpura the other day and the mother was telling me about the work that was being done by her and her son. Her son had actually won a big award—actually alongside Carmel Sepuloni's husband. It was an incredible thing for his status that that had happened and for his self-confidence and she was telling me about how her family was going through a healing process by doing that art—that it gave her so much healing herself as the mother of that boy to be able to do that work with him and to see her child happy in that situation was a pretty stunning thing.So I hope that that kind of art isn't really treated as outsider art but is seen much more as a legitimate part of the creative process across our community and I hope that this bill helps create a dignified income stream an independent income stream that recognises the value of these people in our community creating this beautiful art and I commend this bill to the House.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Mr Speaker. It'll be a very short call. I haven't been involved at all in the preparation of this bill but I commend those who have; neither am I any form of an artist. But I am very pleased to say that today National is supporting this bill and I commend it to the House.
O'Connor GregTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Happy to take a short call on this. I laugh constantly about the kind of political amnesia that sometimes happens in this House. It's always good to have a little refresher. Because sadly as our Minister alluded to this was actually on the cards back in 2008. We were talking about this all the way back then. Sadly there was a change of Government. Although we congratulate the National Party for supporting this today it was actually the National Party that dumped it all the way back then and it's made Kiwi artists worse off for more than a decade before our Government—that's right: Labour Government—have picked this up again and actually brushed it off—forgive the pun—and brought it back to the fore.Let's just do a little comparison to Australia. In Australia from the commencement of their scheme in June 2010 to April 2022 A$11 million has been generated in royalties for visual artists. That's right we still have this image of the poor struggling artists here in New Zealand—and part of that reason is because we missed this opportunity back in the day where we could have grabbed it with both hands and made our artists better off for it. Instead the National Government dumped it. We've picked it back up; we applaud them for getting back on the bus all these years later but it's our artists who are front and centre of this conversation. We need to make sure in this digital age that actually our artists are getting as much benefit of their original art as possible.I want to use the example from the Copyright Licensing New Zealand website. On there—for those people that don't understand what this is all about—they give a really good clear crisp example. Here's the example they give. They say: [Imagine] you've created a series of sketches. Eva buys one from you. A few years later she takes it to an auction house to sell it. Ricky buys it and pays three times the amount that Eva did. The resale royalty scheme when it comes in will mean that you the artist will be paid 5 percent of the price that Ricky pays Eva." It's a stamp on you as an artist on your ability to be able to put art out into the world and know that every time it gets reproduced or resold you'll get a cut of that art.I think about all of our struggling artists and I think this is a really good piece of legislation. I wish we had got this off the blocks all those years ago back in 2008 but we are here now. It's good to remember the past. I commend it to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a five-minute call—Barbara Kuriger."
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I can't believe that you finally did that to me Mr Speaker but it's an honour and a privilege I think for every member of the House! It is a pleasure to take a call on the Resale Rights for Visual Artists Bill. May I begin—I am a musician and have a music degree and actually it's unusual for me to talk about my actual area of expertise in this House and it's nice to be able to do so this morning.I could give a full 10-minute call on the concept of patronage but I won't—but it's a useful concept to speak about because actually if we're serious about this artists and musicians very often live precarious lives. They have precarious incomes precarious livelihoods; precarious work. I've experienced that myself including working many many times as a musician for free. And when compared with sports and with commerce the arts are very much the poor cousins when it comes to funding support and certainty of income. Many of my friends who I want to give a shout-out to live precarious lives as artists. I just note the points Mr Simon O'Connor made earlier around music: actually we have a royalties scheme for music already—unfortunately it's often not adhered to. There is so much undermining of artists and musicians in terms of the incomes that they rightly deserve. This is an excellent bill. It ensures that artists can continue to receive income based on the value of their art that they've created in perpetuity. It's worked overseas and it will work here and I think it's a timely reminder to the House that we all have a duty to uphold the lives and the livelihoods of artists. They add enormous value to our nation both here in New Zealand and globally. And I feel as those of us with high incomes working in this House we have an obligation to always ensure that our artists and our musicians are supported so they don't have to go down a pathway of precarious work. This is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.
Penk Chris; O'Connor GregCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Just a short call from me. As our spokesperson on the issue Simon O'Connor has made clear: National continues to support the bill. I'll join others in giving a shout-out to the local artists of the area that I've kindly been given the opportunity to represent; I think about the Art in August exhibition recently in Warkworth for the benefit of local Mahurangi College markets in various places where great artists and craft workers produce for example in Matakana and the Helensville Art Trail—which are all local institutions. I think Simon O'Connor makes a very interesting point about the extent to which Parliament needs to respond to the executive treaty-making power. Although again I emphasise as he has done that that's not a criticism of the substance of the bill nor even necessarily the process—just to note that agenda setting in the traditional way that local legislation is needed to give effect to or ratify such treaties.My final comment is that there has been interesting discussion in the House at previous stages and I understand at select committee as well about how to define art. Obviously famously subjective in terms of how one regards art as good bad or even what has the status of art. Some might say that speeches in the House of Parliament attain the status of art and to avoid ascribing too greater value to this that would put it outside the remit of the bill I'll conclude my remarks there except only to join others in commending it to the House.Rachel Boyack: Mr Speaker?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Um—remind me—Rachel Boyack.
SpeechANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker a real pleasure to speak on this bill the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill. I'm going to take a short call but just want to reiterate the thanks for all who have been involved in this legislation. The Minister who is wearing some fabulous earrings by the way from an arts collective—just noting—has really helped and supported us with this piece of legislation in enabling us to get this through fast.The bill does three simple things and I have talked about this in the previous speeches. It establishes the scheme and it authorises a ministerially appointed committee—non-government organisation—but the thing that we're all delighted about here in this House is it ensures that those artists out there continue to make an income from their artwork. I think about what it must have been like say if I had created a piece of art in 2010 for example when we would have had the scheme in place had it not been removed from the legislative direction by the National Government and what it would have been like for an artist who perhaps created something made a beautiful piece of artwork and it was sold once and then sold for maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars and onwards and onwards. I just imagine how that must feel as an artist to see their artwork appreciating and not to be able to benefit from that.So with that I would like to commend this bill to the House and to thank all of those for their participation particularly our officials sitting in the gallery for their wonderful work. Thank you.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thanks Mr Speaker. Look it's still no surprise to the Minister in the House that National supports the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill. Look conceptually too as I've said a few times we don't by and large have a problem with the overall concept it's just been a slight debating point within some sitting on this side of the House whether in fact an artist resale scheme is appropriate or whether or not you know if you're going to introduce the concept to visual art whether it should be expanded into the musical and other collectible areas too. So for us it's not so much an opposition to the concept it's just a sense that there's a much wider discussion that could be had. But this has been ultimately precipitated by a free-trade agreement which we do come back to because this is exactly how we've come to this space. Importantly too with the timeliness which the Government's operated in I think this has to be in place by February next year. I could be wrong on that but long and short—we're bound by trade agreements to get this through which actually raises a particularly interesting somewhat constitutional question. I raised this in the first reading speech and again it's not opposing the bill I just think it's something we need to ponder: that in effect this Parliament has been bound to a degree to pass this legislation because of an act by the executive in this case an international treaty. And I want to be really really clear for the record: that's not opposing what's happening but it's just an interesting constitutional quirk.To acknowledge the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage she has picked this ball up quickly and swiftly and brought it to the House and in a few minutes time will bring it to resolution. So to acknowledge the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for the work that she's done as the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. It would be remiss of me to not thank the officials; I think they've actually been outstanding. Their knowledge—if they're still in the back room or wherever just to acknowledge that what they knew was fantastic and as we threw curveballs various questions or idiocies they took it with grace. So to acknowledge them and all the submitters. Look fundamentally this is actually an important piece of legislation for the sector. It will take some time—particularly for the professional resellers to provide their processes. I do have a question—well it's not really a question. I think ultimately this is a classic piece of now modern legislation where we're giving lots of regulatory powers—I think that's something that the Minister and into the future the Parliament will want to look at and that's not disparaging those who will be making or operating said regulations. But again the primary legislation sets a lot of power into regulation.As I say we support this bill we look forward to it concluding and we look forward to a continuing vibrant visual artistry in New Zealand.
Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill — In Committee
Watts Simon; Sepuloni CarmelSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair and I appreciate Minister Sepuloni's contributions to my colleague Simon O'Connor's questions to open them. I have got a question in regards to clause 21(2) and it's in regards to whether each party must ensure information is collected. I guess Minister I think of Depot Artspace which is in Devonport in my home electorate of the North Shore and Amy and Tere and Nina and the team down there that do an absolutely amazing job in terms of showcasing both cultural examples of some of our leading artists but actually in a broader spectrum what is the best of a community gallery—or two galleries actually in respect of that place. But can you just give a little bit of context in terms of what are the potential implications for a gallery such as that around the information-collection aspect—as my colleague Simon O'Connor noted—around some of that burden? Do you feel that that is going to place a significant burden on a gallery like that? Or whether you feel that galleries such as that should not have any concerns in regards to this legislation—that perspective would be appreciated.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): The impact on art market professionals was a common concern at the time of introduction of the UK and Australian schemes. Reviews of these schemes show that overall the administrative burden is not significant. For example the 2014 review of the UK scheme found that the median time spent on administration by auction houses and dealers per quarter was 95 minutes and cost around $50 per quarter adjusted for inflation. Similarly a review of the Australian scheme estimated two to three hours per quarter at a cost of about $100. We do recognise as a Government that there will be some additional administrative impacts and costs for art market professionals who will be required to provide information to the collection agency on resales and will be jointly liable with the seller for the payment of the royalty. In establishing the New Zealand scheme the collection agency will work with art market professionals and businesses to support them to adapt to the requirements of the scheme and reduce administration and compliance costs. The royalty—5 percent of the sale price—is also considerably smaller than fees charged by art market professionals through buyers' and sellers' premiums often at least 17 to 20 percent.
O'Connor GregIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1.GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill — Second Reading
SpeechSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm absolutely delighted to rise in support of this bill this morning. As we're aware artists have some of the lowest median incomes in New Zealand with very few opportunities to benefit from their work on an ongoing basis which is pretty shameful. Here in the Labour Party we realise that hearts starve as well as bodies: Yes it is bread we fight for but we fight for roses too." Thank you Madam Speaker.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): This is what urgency has been building up to. This is the—and I'm sure the Minister of arts and myself as a spokesperson would agree—most exciting bill and actually quite genuinely it is. This is a bill that has been by and large well received by the sector but I only say by and large—there are artists and certainly some resellers who are not happy. We might tease a bit of that out at committee stage but National remains in support of this bill overall.Although again just to indicate as I have in previous speeches—or speech actually in the singular—and in the select committee there's a little bit of a concern philosophically on this side around the scheme. But really importantly as the Minister knows this is part of our free-trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union so we have to bring it about. And to that and not wishing to delay it any further I'm happy to commend the bill to the House.
SpeechTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you again Madam Speaker for allowing me to take just a short call on this the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill. I won't take long because I was on the select committee that saw this bill through the Social Services and Community Committee and one of the things that all the submitters said was It's about time." It is about time and that is what this Labour Government does. It listens it knows what needs to happen in terms of supporting our artists and our creative communities and we've made a real focus on that. I'd like to thank the Minister Carmel Sepuloni for her focus on that community.This is about making sure that we get it fair and right and equitable. Five percent of the resale cost to the original artist—it should be a given right? This is already happening all the way over in many places overseas and so this really just brings us in line with the rest of the world really. Again it's a no-brainer. Again it is around saying "Hey it's about time that we put things right." I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechRESALE RIGHT FOR VISUAL ARTISTS BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 17 August.SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): I'm pleased to take a short call on the second reading of the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill. I would like to acknowledge well-known leader and advocate Rangi McLean who I don't know personally but have met on several occasions. He's an artist and just last year Rangi McLean was looking to take legal action against a German artist who stole his tā moko image and is selling it overseas. It is for that reason—and for other artists that find themselves in this situation—that I wholeheartedly support this bill and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. We do live in a complex world at the moment and my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson has spoken very well to that. We've seen the war in Ukraine. We've seen COVID. We've seen the fact that supply chains have been clogged. We've been subject to serious weather events. I think it's fascinating for—and I hope people are observing at home—the fundamental issue in terms of governance is resilience right now.We have the National Party and ACT members with very clashing views on this very fundamental area of Government. I am the most disappointed with my ACT Party colleague—the ACT Party yes but too my colleague Simon Court in particular. He is a West Auckland MP. Mr Court I hope you have walked down Don Buck Road and visited those families on lower Don Buck who had their electricity go out who were reliant on emergency services. I hope you've been out further north-west into Muriwai. I hope you've spoken to the community on the ground who want to make sure that we do have resilience as we face these challenges into the future. This is a much-needed bill and I commend it to the House.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. We do support this legislation on this side of the House. We do so because fuel security is very important to New Zealand and New Zealanders.The simple reality is that in geographic terms we are at the very long tail-end of the international supply chain network that involves and evolves around the globe. What's worse and more risky for us is that not only are we at the very longest end of that international global supply chain but we are a very tiny market at the end of the supply chain. International fuel operators are just international commodity traders and will at times of stress reprioritise their supply chain priorities depending on need as they see it in commercial terms.Notwithstanding that commercial operators here in New Zealand will of course make prudent decisions to protect their own business and commercial interests this legislation provides a legislation backstop and a requirement on those operators to do what we would hope would be done but this provides the guarantee.Just as an example of how fragile that global supply chain network is members need only to have a look at what's currently happening in the Panama Canal: a global hub where right at this very minute there are more than 200 vessels stuck in a queue simply because transit through the Panama Canal at the moment is being impacted by climate conditions actually. The protracted droughts in that part of the world are meaning that shipping is not able to transit through the canal as it normally does and that will have a knock-on effect not only for fuel deliveries but for a range of other trade and supply features around the globe.Those are some of the basic reasons that we support this legislation on this side of the House. We think that it's pragmatic and sensible for the New Zealand Government to put in place a range of security issues that are prudent and that are practical but we know also that the commercial sector will do their bit. So on that note I'm happy to commend the bill to the House.
SpeechSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to stand to take a short call on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. As a Cantabrian who was in rural North Canterbury after the earthquakes I am fully aware—as are many Cantabrians—of the essential nature of keeping your fuel tanks full. So traumatised I think were many of us that all these years later we still refuse to actually run with anything less than half a tank of petrol because we know the importance of keeping our fuel stocks available to us.So this bill is a complete no-brainer and I'm glad to hear the support from the National Party and it's extremely interesting to me that ACT opposes it. I commend this bill to the House.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise for a short call on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. This is one that National does support. The National Party does support this as a means to increase resilience in fuel supply. Although we did have some concerns about the speed at which it progressed through Parliament and the time for adequate consultation with stakeholders—noting particularly that suppliers will only have until April 2024 after Royal assent to comply with stockholding obligations and the industry does have concerns about a requirement to quickly invest in new tankage to meet obligations that could impact consumers through subsequent potential increases to the cost of fuel. Obviously following the closure of the Marsden Point refinery along with global events such as the invasion of Ukraine fuel security and the sovereign risk for the lack of fuel security has been identified as a potential risk and this bill seeks to introduce minimum fuel stockholding obligations on fuel importers to ensure that New Zealand's fuel security is not in question.I just note that this does underpin the continuing importance of oil and gas to New Zealand. We are a country that is trying to transition to alternative fuels and there are some exciting things happening in my region. For example. H. W. Richardson Group is turning some of their trucks about 40 percent into hydrogen powered and 60 percent diesel. They have the first commercial hydrogen production refuelling station being built in Gore which should probably go live this year I think. We have Fabrum in Christchurch which is a small hydrogen company that's doing some pretty exciting stuff and is probably one of the world's leading companies in this space. There is Mike Casey with his 100 percent electric orchard in Central Otago who is doing some quite incredible stuff with integrated energy systems electrifying the entire production. But the simple reality is that for the short to medium term at least we do continue to need oil and gas. We need this to transport products to New Zealand. We need it to transport food and other products around New Zealand to keep our tractors etc. going and it's quite critical. I note that Norway is often held up as an exemplar of the shift to new energy systems with about 85 percent of new cars sold in Norway being battery powered. But Norway has also this year approved more than $18 billion in new oil and gas investments to develop 19 oil and gas fields. So I am just noting that this is going to take some time and the reality is that energy is complex and challenging and we need it to keep our economy moving. We do support this bill as a means to ensure continuing security of supply of fuel in New Zealand to ensure that we keep our economy going keep the lights on keep people fed and keep our economy moving.
SpeechGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I'm glad that I'm able to make a short call on this because the ACT Party was just speaking so passionately about this—so passionately that they didn't even participate in the select committee process. That's how passionate they are about this legislation obviously.Last week I was with executives from Air New Zealand who were asking me Have we passed this legislation yet? Because it is necessary." They have been asking for it so I'm glad—and I love it when you look at the bill and what it says on the packet is in the tin: Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill."
SpeechTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity just to take a short call this morning on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. That is it in a nutshell. The title of this bill does what this bill says it does right? So it's about improving fuel resilience.This bill ensures Aotearoa New Zealand has fuel resilience by ensuring that we have adequate fuel stock. Any major disruptions—although we know there is a low risk of that however we're being prepared—would make a massive huge costly debt to Aotearoa New Zealand in the millions and billions of dollars.This bill is about looking after New Zealand it's about looking after New Zealanders—that's what we do on this side of the House that's what the Labour Government does: it plans and it supports all New Zealanders and it's doing that by this bill making sure that we have enough fuel to make sure that we will be resilient. It's a good piece of legislation and I commend this bill to the House.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. The Green Party is supporting this bill. It does make sense. It's unfortunate that subsequent Governments over decades haven't done enough to create a transport system that is more energy efficient that's already electrified that gives people the option to get around and not have to rely on so many private vehicles because that would mean we'd have a better current account deficit. It would be smaller if we imported less vehicles and fuel. Some people mistakenly believe that if we had more oil exploration in New Zealand that would solve our problem of petrol in our cars but New Zealand has never used the oil that we extract off the coast of Taranaki in cars and trucks; it's not that type of oil. So the whole idea that we would somehow produce oil here and use in our cars and trucks is misguided.What we can do is electrify our transport fleet invest in rail and coastal shipping make our cities more hospitable for walking and cycling and provide proper public transport just like they do in the five countries that the National Party keeps talking about because they're rated as having the best roads. The reason top executives—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order order! I hope the member can anticipate what I'm going to say. In the third reading while this is a summing up of the debate the discussion must be confined to what is contained in the bill and not what is out of the bill.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I don't believe that has applied to previous speakers. I feel there's some—no I won't say it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Good.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: True resilience when it comes to fuel true resilience for New Zealand will be electrifying our transport system and investing in a more balanced transport system as the Green Party has long called for. But that will take time and of course we need to start now. In the interim it makes sense to have this provision and I believe it was well supported at the select committee.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): This is a bill which is fundamentally about the national interest. Our country—as nearly all other countries have experienced—has been through extreme supply change shocks over recent years caused primarily by COVID-19 but also other events such as the war in Ukraine and the blocking of the Suez Canal. Those events have brought home to us the fact that we can no longer rely on a just-in-time mentality when it comes to critical parts of our supply chain. The Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill ensures that for a critical product in our supply chain we will have greater security of supply. It is a standard and prudent measure that is employed by many other countries and it will give a range of actors across our economy greater confidence about our fuel supply in the event of future shocks. It's a good bill; I'm pleased to see broad support across the House. The ACT Party predictably is against it and that points to some of the risks that will occur if the ACT Party is a part of the next Government. I commend the bill to the House.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): I'm a little bit conflicted as to whether I should actually take my mask off but I'll keep it on because I've got a terrible case of a cold and I don't want to spread it in the room.Ricardo Menéndez March: Stay at home.MELISSA LEE: So—no I've been tested for COVID; it's not. But without wanting to labour the time I just want to actually acknowledge all of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee members and the chair Naisi Chen who is actually an excellent time keeper. Although on this side of the House we were rather concerned about the rushed nature having actually had only two months to consider the bill when the bill was introduced in June and it's only August and we're actually doing the final reading. We felt that because it was rushed stakeholders literally only had two weeks to actually make submissions and for select committee to actually consider and we felt that there wasn't the robust discussions and understanding of the situation. That was the very nature of our opposition initially but we actually support where we have come to and providing fuel security for the industry is actually what we need to do.I was particularly taken by the submissions from the aviation industry where they've actually had several bad shipments and their explanation as to why we could not actually include shipments that are on the way to New Zealand in that stock counting in terms of the number of days that it might actually take to get here the reason being that even though it might have been tested on board those vessels once it actually lands it could test negative or positive. So they had to actually have a goodquality fuel stock onshore to make sure that there is no interruption to our aviation industry. I found that quite compelling.I'd just like to take the final few seconds to acknowledge all of the officials: the clerk of the committee who has actually been absolutely excellent; the advisers to the committee who have actually provided all the information; and also the Parliamentary Counsel Office for having actually gone through several iterations of the bill and actually providing it on time so that we can get it back to the House. On that note I commend the bill to the House.
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): This is a very good bill done by a very great select committee so I too echo that. But yeah we are a very collegial select committee and we have made lots and lots of changes to this bill including the way that we look at the average the way that we want to be making sure that we delay the implementation to give the industry time to adjust as well.This is a bill for our times when we face disruptions around the world. We want to make sure that New Zealand sees itself through all of these disruptions well. We need to make sure we keep our onshore supply at a level that we're all comfortable to be able to support New Zealand through difficult periods of time. It's great to see the National Party have made a huge in" on this bill. I do hope for more today. So I commend this bill to the House."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. I too would like to thank my fellow members on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee which is a very hard-working and collaborative committee and we did give this bill due consideration and we did make some positive changes. While we support this bill we—as I pointed out in previous readings—believe it was rushed needlessly and it should have had more time to consider things more adequately.However that's as good as we're going to get clearly and we support it with those remarks that I alluded to earlier and I don't believe I need to say anymore at this stage. So it's with that Madam Speaker that I commend the bill to the House.
SpeechGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm going to let it go just a little bit longer but I am listening very closely to new material and I'll just see how we go.
Smith Stuart; Woods MeganSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair and good morning. It's a fine morning to be the Chamber. I really have a question for the Minister about the minimum required stockholding obligation which has 28 days of consumption for petrol on average; 24 days of consumption for jet fuel on average; and 21 days of consumption for diesel on average.I just wonder if the Minister is aware that after the Christchurch category earthquake sequence it was diesel that was in very short supply—not petrol but diesel—and that was a significant issue. When a natural disaster happens why then wouldn't we want to protect the fuel that enables the emergency services to function fully? Yet we've got 21 days of diesel fuel minimum which is seven days less than the petrol—that minimum stockholding. That just doesn't seem to add up. Why was that not considered? I'm sure the Minister was aware of the Canterbury earthquake sequence and what happened there so I think that's a major miss in this part here. So I'd really like to find out what the rationale was for the difference.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I can reassure that member that the minimum stockholding on the companies is 21 days. But the Government will be procuring an additional seven days to have as a reserve which will take it to 28 days.
O'Connor Greg; Salesa JennyDEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill.FUEL INDUSTRY (IMPROVING FUEL RESILIENCE) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClauses 1 to 14 and the ScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. Members we come first to clause 1. The question—Glen Bennett: Point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all parts be considered as one. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are none. The question is that clauses 1 to 14 and the Schedule stand part.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Yesterday I used the word perplexing" when I talked about the Opposition speeches. I think today it's "confused". Let's be clear: the Opposition talk about democracy but they're voting against better representation for Aucklanders on Auckland Council. Let's be clear: the Opposition talk about supporting localism but they're voting against the council's power to make decisions locally about ward boundaries. Let's be clear: they talk about supporting democracy but they're voting against a very practical change of allowing councillors to participate and have their votes counted online.There seems to be a collective amnesia on that side of the House where they've forgotten how we've adapted in the last five years to be able to participate online. This is a confused set of Opposition benches. This is a fantastic piece of legislation. As an Aucklander I support it."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. In the dying days in the last gasping breaths of this failed horrible Labour Government they are insisting on continuing with their ideological claptrap and nothing better represents that nonsense than this bill. Tāmati Coffey the member that has just resumed his seat made a strident case for something that already exists which is the potential for councils to make their own decisions. But only in the befuddled Labour Party's minds filled with their own ideological philosophical agendas would they consider that this is some kind of technical approach.My colleagues Joseph Mooney Stuart Smith and Simon O'Connor have argued the case on this side about why we oppose it. But there is a very simple principle here about democracy and it's only in the Labour Party that they feel the need to redefine democracy: one person one vote. I didn't ever think that in my lifetime in the Parliament in New Zealand members on this side of the House would have to stand to defend the basic premises and principles of democracy in the free world. But here we are in the dying days of this Government under urgency having to do exactly that. The primary point that we object to in this legislation relates to the forced representational reviews and the compulsory consideration of Māori wards. Now in practice this is going to require councils to decide not to implement Māori-specific arrangements every six years. Let me put that in sort of a different context for some of the younger members of the House who may not understand or perhaps remember a commercial practice that used to occur back in the last century in I think the mid-1960s. There was an organisation called Reader's Digest that used to actually send out invoices to people and say We're going to send you a subscription to Reader's Digest unless you tell us you don't want it."—unless you tell us you don't want it! Well that that practice was outlawed because it was wrong commercially obviously just as it is wrong politically to insist that councils do something that by dint of a legislative approach requires them to decide not to implement something unless they decide to do it. It's completely backwards and there is a term that that I can't use in Parliament—about face—so I won't use that.We do object to this piece of legislation. We do so on the basis of fundamental democratic principles and institutions that have held not only New Zealand in good order for our entire democratic history unbroken over more than a hundred years—one of the few nations in the world that can claim that proud right and privilege of having an unbroken democratic tradition—only to be put at jeopardy by an ideologically bereft Labour Government in its dying gasping last days."
SpeechTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): I stand here on behalf of Hinerangi Goodman who was a councillor that was celebrated after the last local body elections back in 2019. She was elected to be a councillor for the Murupara-Galatea ward on the Whakatāne District Council. She went in she had her celebration her friends and her whānau were there and then she was challenged. There was a recount that had to happen. She lost that recount after she had been sworn in and been there lifting up her mana in the chambers in Whakatāne District Council and she had to deal with the shame of having to step down from that position. She lost by one vote and it was embarrassing because she had to endure a coin toss. There is no mana in a coin toss and she had to endure the humiliation of having to go through that process because our situation our processes through Government weren't for her. It was embarrassing it was humiliating and she is somebody that is well respected in that community. For that reason I absolutely support the changes that have been made through here. I commend Taituarā for fronting up and making the series of changes that they have dealt to us to say This is what our people want." The Opposition say that it's the Labour Party that are doing this. They are wrong on that. Local government support this. Taituarā who are the Māori that exist within local governments around the country have supported this. This is a really important piece of legislation. We're doing it and I just don't understand. I think that they're playing politics for the sake of politics and I believe that having 66 new Māori councillors sitting around council tables up and down New Zealand is a really positive thing.And there is a perception amongst Māori communities up and down the country that councils have been the domain of white people for a very long time that they have been a racist institution which has locked in power for the majority for the dominant majority in this country and I find it heinous that the National Party want to support locking in that majority that dominant voice into our councils and locking out the voices of Māori who are finally coming to the table. I commend this to the House."
SpeechGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I find it so interesting that we have the MP for Coromandel and the MP for Southland in the Chamber this morning. Obviously their two councils specifically supported and asked for legislation to be passed such as this. They actually championed and pushed for us to make changes in terms of the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill. So as we hear the rhetoric coming from the other side I think it's disappointing the fact that we have two MPs whose councils have actually specifically asked for us to do some work—so we are doing it and we are listening. This is very simple stuff.The other thing that's disappointed me was that the other side of the House did not support the remote quorum participation. I think that in this day and age when we want participation in local democracy surely simple things like remote quorum participation is a part of it. This is good legislation. I commend it to the House.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look that was actually quite a good contribution by that member Lemauga Lydia Sosene as she sat down about talking about diversity. One of the great things about democracy is that one person gets one vote and those who are interested in standing put their hands up and if the other people in the community from diverse backgrounds and experiences like them they get voted on. It's quite a novel concept. It started in Greece. It's been around for about 2500 years but the Labour Party has decided in these dying days that it's time to gerrymander the system. Now look this is not high-level Republican-Democrat gerrymandering that we see in the United States—thank God. However it's tinkering with the system here and look there's that sort of almost quasiOrwellian talk of Oh there's choice and there are going to be options"—there aren't. OK if there were choice and options this would not be a Labour Party bill.It is a Labour Party bill. It's gerrymandering. It's setting a whole set of criteria and part of the issues too is twofold. One is that this is a change to electoral law. Yes it's local government but by and large there's been a comity across the House. The fact that this side—National in particular—are opposing it should be a signal to New Zealanders that there's an issue here. It's not on every aspect of the bill but significantly for us to oppose it.Secondly this is urgency on a Thursday morning on what is I think the fourth-to-last day of this Parliament. That in itself should be a red light that the Labour Government with its far left mates in the Greens are pushing this through. This is not good form and it is desperate stuff.Look the other thing I'd just add—and look it's no offence to my Auckland Council and local board people—is that we don't need to increase it to 29 councillors. Honestly we don't. The bureaucracy runs Auckland in many ways with thousands and thousands of officials in the council. Yes we have 20 councillors—and to each and every one of them thank you for what you do for our city. But to me expanding the potential expansion of the council to up to 29 persons doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So that's another reason we're opposing this.But fundamentally I come back to the key point. This is a Labour Government using urgency in the dying days of its reign to ram through—ram through—legislation. That is not being done in good faith and it's at least another reason not to vote for this bill."