edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Te Mana Whakawā it is an absolute privilege to contribute to the third reading of the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill. And it would be remiss of me not to respond to unicorn land" to the Rt Hon David Carter's payment or to anything that was contributed from the other side.We've heard "makariri" and we've heard "mahana". I think those words are words tossed around in this House. It is time that we hear from the people who receive this benefit. So can I read this Madam Assistant Speaker if you can allow me to say this. One woman wrote and I quote: "Thank you very much for the winter energy payment. My son has autism and lives at home and gets supported living payment. I really appreciate that the Government cares about the least privileged members of our community. Families affected by autism are often struggling so an extra help is great." Another voice from the street—as I was on the streets of Māngere in Tāmaki-makau-rau one person came up to me and said "Anahila tell the Prime Minister my dad says we can turn the heater on." That was last year.What basically that means is that—as the member Jan Logie spoke about as she puts firewood into her fireplace as the Rt Hon David Carter as mentioned by the member across the House turns on his heater—we don't even think twice. We don't think twice. I go back to my apartment tonight; I turn the heater on—I don't even think twice. But to people like this—like people who have just spoken like this mum or the daughter that told me that her dad is so thankful that they can turn the heater on—it has a rippling effect of warmth in the community in the household that these New Zealanders live in these taxpayers. These people are also taxpayers. They've worked hard. If you are receiving superannuation you've worked all your life. This is about listening with the heart. "I can't turn the heater on because I can't afford it." Well this coalition Government said last year "Yes you can." This year we are correcting a drafting error—only one or two. No new policy coming through; we're just correcting it. I say let's finish the talk now. Spark it up. I commend this bill to the House. Malo."
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Well here we are here again cleaning up a mess that should not have been and it's become something of a regular occurrence under this Minister—where a bill is drafted and then we revisit it with a Supplementary Order Paper or a revised amendment bill to clear up her mistakes.The previous speaker Jan Logie who I really thoroughly enjoyed listening to mentioned the intent was not realised in the initial drafting of the bill. But that is the point: when you've got good process you get the laws right the first time and that is in essence the reason why we don't support the winter energy payment amendment bill; not because we don't support the universal nature of the winter energy payment but that this bill did not go through a proper process and we're here revisiting it and wasting valuable time when we could be talking about more important things. So this bill has been rushed through Parliament in a very ill-informed manner. It doesn't have the proper scrutiny and the mistakes that we've been correcting may in fact not be corrected at all in terms of the advice that we've had—Stuart Smith: They didn't do the mahi.DAN BIDOIS: —and so if you don't do the mahi you don't get it right the first time. So we definitely oppose this bill. Again the intent of the bill we can understand and I refute the previous speaker who says that we don't care about how people heat their homes. We do but we care we believe that—we've got to ask ourselves what the right mechanism is for that to occur and in a scenario where you've got rising costs of living—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Could Mr Penk please refrain from those interjections. They're very disconcerting and disorderly.DAN BIDOIS: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. When we've got rising costs of living across the board whether it be petrol prices increased taxes increased rents increased food prices Consumers Price Index about 2 percent you've got to ask yourself Is there a better way to help these people heat their homes?" We just think that this is an ill-informed policy. It's a policy that we think should be better targeted and managed. So with my closing remarks tonight—Brett Hudson: No keep going Dan. You're doing a good job.DAN BIDOIS: Ha ha! And thank you to my colleagues because this has been a rushed process and that is what it's about. It's about getting the right process and the right process at the right time. Sixteen months after this bill was considered we are back here cleaning up the Minister's mess. You know Einstein said if you do the same thing over and over again expect the same results. I mean that's the definition of insanity. And if this Minister doesn't change her approach we're going to see this not just with this bill once again but with other bills that she puts before the House. So we oppose this bill. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Anahila Kanongata'a Suisuiki—you have five minutes."
Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā e huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Well I'm someone actually that is mahana because that previous speaker Jenny Marcroft—kia ora to that speaker. But you know I can remember when we—our nine kids—were in our State house. I also know what it's like. We used to toss up for Dad's army coat actually to put on our beds to keep warm so we've been there and done that. All we're doing is our job—this is our job on this side of the House. Our job is to actually hold the Government to account and what we are doing here—you know we are sympathetic to the intent of this bill but it's really just the process. Just for the record what I want to do just for the sake of the Hansard is to cover the National Party minority view which came out in the Social Services and Community Committee report: National reiterates concerns that legislative changes are being made in a rush due to mistakes having been made when the original legislative changes were rushed through Parliament without proper scrutiny. National members are concerned that a bill that purports to correct a mistake related to those in funded residential care is still not being corrected. There will be a number (officials were unable to advise the precise number of people) who will be fully funded by the Government for their full-time residential care and will still receive [the winter energy payment]." Also: "This does not make sense [at all] because their energy costs will be funded twice by taxpayers. This perpetuates an inequity and there is a risk of legal challenge for those who will be excluded from receiving the [winter energy payment]." So looking at those different clauses of the minority view is very much about holding the Government to being responsible in actually putting together legislation through this winter energy payment bill. That is why I think we have heard from this side of the House all of the different sorts of reasons why we need to oppose this bill and we do. But I want to make the point that particularly when you talk about us being cold on this side of the House and you being warm—I mean our whole whakaaro here is to hold you to account particularly on what's been highlighted throughout this whole process of this bill. E Te Mana Whakawā tēnā koe. So that was my short call just to reiterate why this side of the House cannot support the bill. Nō reira e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora."
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill. I'll begin my contribution by just acknowledging the member from Tāmaki who spoke—after spending some time today with pink fluffy unicorns—to suggest that perhaps he has never been on Struggle Street. Perhaps he has never had a cold home. So when you are in a cold home you get sick your children get sick your old people—your seniors—get sick. There are two words I'd like to reflect on today. Makariri—that side of the House makariri. This side of the House mahana—mahana. Cold warm—those are the two words that this bill encapsulates. For me it is making sure that our people who need it and those members of society who are vulnerable have this winter energy payment to keep their homes warm during winter. This is a slight technical fix-up. There was a drafting error and no more than that. Perhaps the members on the makariri side of the House would like to stop seeing pink fluffy unicorns and get back down to earth. Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I just want to talk about some of the other issues in this bill around what we are trying to achieve. I think the point that Mr Mark Mitchell was making before is a very important one. As of right this moment there are many many—248000—people who are legitimate owners of these types of weapons. Once we pass this bill obviously that becomes illegal. I think it's very important that we don't demonise them and that's why striking the right balance between what we are doing and what we're seeking to achieve is very very important. I think the other issue that relates to this is the issue around compensation and amnesty and we heard a very good submission from the chief of staff to the Minister in New South Wales who was responsible for the buy-back of guns in Australia. One of the most important things that came through in that discussion with him was the importance of having very fair and reasonable compensation provisions for these weapons. I know that there's been discussion and a Supplementary Order Paper that you've talked about Minister regarding this but I just think it's absolutely very important that you as the Minister sponsoring this bill provide comfort to those legitimate gun owners who will be forced to return these weapons and hand them in that the compensation that they're going to receive is fair. I think that's important because that will mean that people feel fairly treated by these changed circumstances but I think it also strikes at the whole issue of whether this gun law that we've all been part of is actually going to work. The issue is around the number of people who choose—and I use that word advisedly—to comply with this voluntarily in the time that's permitted. To do it quickly is of vital importance to Parliament and I think what you do what you propose around those terms and how you go about addressing it is vitally important. I think there is an assumption that we're going to have an amnesty period for six months that ends on 30 September and that everything's going to be fine and dandy. I don't unfortunately think that's going to be the case. When you look at the example in Australia I don't have the exact number but I think that I saw quoted somewhere that they've had 30 amnesty periods. We do not want to be in a situation where this country goes through multiple amnesty periods to try to get to the point where we actually achieve the outcome that all of Parliament is seeking to achieve and a lot of that rests with you as the Minister being explicit about those terms. I urge you to do that as soon as possible because every day you delay will create uncertainty in the minds of those gun owners but also will potentially put at risk the whole success of this. I just urge you because we all want to achieve a good outcome but also we will want to actually rely on the good nature of those gun owners who will voluntarily do what Parliament requests in this bill. I just say to you again please act speedily to make sure that we achieve the outcome that Parliament wants.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll just take a very short call. I just want to address the Minister of Police and say that I think that the debate in the committee this evening has been good. But I think that Duncan Webb made a very good point: this legislation is about prohibition and what we're saying as a country is that we don't want the general public having access to military-style weapons. What I'm concerned about with some of the language that I've heard in the Chamber tonight is that we're starting to demonise Kiwis that have got legitimate firearms licences for legitimate reasons. We should make sure that the debate remains fully focused on the fact that we're saying as a nation that we don't want military-style weapons readily available. I think that Chris Bishop's Supplementary Order Paper was an important one and I'd appeal to the Minister to pick that up in the second tranche of the work that's being done. Although we're sending a very clear message as a Parliament and as a nation around what we think about military-style weapons we also have to protect the rights of law-abiding Kiwis that are actually just wanting to participate in things that they've probably done for a long time. I don't accept the argument that was put up around the fact that it's very easy to form a gun club and a range. It's actually extremely difficult in New Zealand. Even the police would tell you that sometimes they struggle to find places that they can get signed off as being used as a range. It's very very hard. So I'd just appeal to the Minister and to the House—because I think we've got the third reading debate in the House tonight as well—to let's stay focused on the prohibition side of the bill and let's not start to demonise Kiwis that actually hold a firearms licence and have got very legitimate uses for having those firearms and using them. Thank you Mr Chairman.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Chairman. I'd just like to rise to take the opportunity to ask a very specific question of the Minister. I note in new section 4A in clause 8 the exemptions. I actually commend you on the very pragmatic approach you've taken particularly around the vintage weapons and the collectors category. This is history and it could have been crushed if you had taken that heavy-handed attitude. You have been very pragmatic about that but we also know that there is some risk with that. By taking all these other weapons out of circulation we have actually made potentially the collectors' weapons more of a target. So within this select committee process what we have done is be quite clear and I refer actually to new section 33A(1)(c)(iii) in clause 31 where you say ensure that the removed vital part is kept at a separate address from the prohibited firearm;". We have changed that wording from "location" to "address" so you've actually got to have it on a separate property. Now my question is—and apologies if I drifted off for this part of the select committee—does the person for whom that address is have to have a special licence to hold that extra part? So you can't just take it down to your neighbours and the appropriate safe and drop it off or will it be specified that it has to go to a police station? What are the provisions? What are the technical provisions around storing those disabling parts at a separate address? Thank you."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want really to talk about the principles underlying this major Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 201. In particular there seems to be a suggestion there that in fact this is a licensing regime and it's not. We've changed direction entirely in respect of these weapons. In fact what we have is a blanket prohibition on these semi-automatic weapons with some very narrow exemptions which need to be thoroughly justified. Those exemptions which are in the SOP are justified—such as the pest control exemption—but a broad-ranging justification for sports in terms of economic benefit or in terms of personal welfare and enjoyment simply isn't justified. So that's really all I wanted to say about that. This is a prohibition regime not a licensing regime and that's how we need to approach this question.
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thanks very much Mr Chair. I would like to put this to bed once and for all and there are a couple of points I'd like to make. First of all as the previous member Andrew Bayly alluded to and the member introducing this Supplementary Order Paper 203 Chris Bishop has articulated if it was all about All you need to do is join a club." then there is the great fear that these clubs would pop up everywhere—if you join a club you can own a rifle. For me that risk is too high. The second thing is the National Rifle Association (NRA) could well become an international sporting organisation. Chris Bishop: Oh come on. Hon STUART NASH: No no seriously—the NRA competition sporting division offers a wide range of competitions. They are by all accounts a legitimate sporting organisation so that opens that up. So that's the second thing. The third thing is that there is no club oversight regime—at present there is no club oversight regime. What happens is you get 10 20 40 of these guys all saying "You know what? We've lost our weapons. Let's form a club. We can get these back—all we need to do is set up a club. Let's go and get a little bit of land and away we go." It could be that easy. Andrew Bayly: You think it's that easy to get a permission consent to do a target range—really? Hon STUART NASH: You set up the club and away you go. It is a loophole that you could drive a truck through Mr Bayly. The second thing is that international competitions need national and regional competitions. The reason the Australians come over here to compete is because the competitions were banned in Australia when they banned military-style semi-automatics and semi-automatics. That's why they come here—because they're not allowed to do it in their own country. Why are we the easybeat? Why should we allow those in Australia to come over here and compete when they don't allow them to do it in Australia? There's no reason—Andrew Bayly: So it's fine for them to go around the world but they can't come here? Hon STUART NASH: —whatsoever why we should allow them to do it. There are some other niche sports that you need to travel overseas for that you can't do here. There are others so there are precedents. So we're not saying that you can't compete overseas. We're not saying that as a Kiwi and a Kiwi passport holder you can't go and train in the States if this is your livelihood and that's what you really want to do and this is your passion. The last thing I would say is that the pistol club ranges are developed around risk management for short-range targets not for the long-range targets that these prohibited weapons are designed for. Keep in mind that the weapons we are looking to ban the weapons we are banning are designed to kill people—that's what they are for. The purpose of this legislation is to remove them from our communities; to get rid of as many of them as possible from our communities. If we have an exemption that you can drive a truck through then we begin to defeat the purpose of the legislation. It's the reason why I am so against the sporting exemption."
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members before I give the next call I want to make the following ruling. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 202 in the name of Chris Bishop to amend SOP 201 is out of order as the subject matter is outside the scope of the bill. Therefore debate on the subject matter of that SOP is also out of order.
2. Question No. 2—ForestryJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of ForestryQuestion No. 2—Forestry2. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made regarding the One Billion Trees Programme?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): This morning I announced the first partnerships under the $240 million one billion tree fund $120 million of which is reserved for partnership initiative. Briefly the first one is in Otago—SPEAKER: That would be your first time.Hon SHANE JONES: I shall take that as a source of motivation. QEII Ngā Kākano Whakahau seedling trial a Hawke's Bay right tree right place regional study and a New Zealand Plant Producers industrial national native nursery strategy will enable the nursery sector—that is a big employer a large earner—to prepare for the full roll-out of the billion trees strategy.Jenny Marcroft: What are the benefits of supporting these initiatives?Hon SHANE JONES: Naturally the value of these initiatives will grow as the forests and the trees grow. If I could alert the House to invaluable stats: the nursery sector to New Zealand has a value of $600 million—the fifth-largest horticulture sector by value grossly neglected over the last nine years. There are 595 nursery businesses. They have about 5000 hectares of seedlings planted and 3400 people are employed in this sector. This sector as a consequence of this partnership grant will grow into a fit state to cope with the demands of a highly successful billion trees strategy.Jenny Marcroft: How else is the Government progressing the one billion trees strategy?Hon SHANE JONES: Last Friday I made one of my infrequent announcements in Northland. We were invited into the Hokianga Harbour. We were—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to require the member to rephrase that. Irony is not allowed either in questions or answers.Hon SHANE JONES: Recently I went back to the broad tūrangawaewae that a number of us MPs on this side of the House have a connection with: Hokianga Whakapau Karakia. Whilst we were there we announced a 4 million tree planting strategy. It involves whenua located in the Kaipara Harbour. It also involves whenua called Tapuwae where there is over 4000 hectares—about 4 million trees as I've said. Given that we are now working with young men coming out of the Ngawha Prison through those trees being planted the devil will find less time for their idle hands.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does Stan Semenoff have any connection to Tapuwae Inc. or its associated companies?SPEAKER: Order! That's not a matter that the Minister has responsibility for.Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He just referred to an announcement that he made on Friday about giving funding to Tapuwae Inc. and was talking about all this progress that he's making and I'm asking him if there is a connection between a particular individual and that company.SPEAKER: Yes and what I've said is that the details of the connections of that organisation are not something that the Minister has responsibility for.
Thursday 4 April 2019 - Volume 737
Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) 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 55New Zealand National 53; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
12. Question No. 12—ACCJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister for ACCQuestion No. 12—ACC12. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What changes were made to ACC levies on 1 April and why were they made?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): The average work account levy paid by employers and self-employed people has decreased from 72c per $100 of liable earnings to 67c. The Government was able to do this because ACC has done a good job in managing its investments and claims liability and it's great to be able to pass these savings on to levy payers.Jo Luxton: What does this mean for business?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The reduction in work account levies will save businesses $100 million over the next two years and I'm sure that those businesses will put that money to good productive use.Jo Luxton: What other decisions has the Government made regarding levy rates?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The earners levy remains at the current level of $1.21 per $100 of liable earnings and the motor vehicle levy at its current level of $113.94 on average per annum. Like all investors ACC does face global headwinds but I have confidence in their ability to navigate those. New Zealand can be reassured that ACC is in excellent hands.Hon Tim Macindoe: If significant levy reductions are possible what is the Minister's justification for increasing ACC levies payable by a clear majority of New Zealand's motor vehicle owners?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well as we have traversed a number of times in this House there is no evidence that variable levies based on vehicle risk ratings promote injury prevention or encourage the purchase of safer cars. What it did do though is put a disproportionate impact on low-income vehicle owners. Removing it is estimated to transfer around $4 million from high and medium income people to low-income vehicle owners and that is about getting the right balance in the ACC system.Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was all very interesting but I didn't ask about the vehicle risk rating mechanism or most of the other things the Minister has just mentioned; I simply asked him to explain to New Zealanders why for the vast majority of them—SPEAKER: Yeah. I heard the question and I heard the Minister respond. Is there a further supplementary? No.
11. Question No. 11—Regional Economic DevelopmentJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 11—Regional Economic Development11. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements have been made regarding the Provincial Growth Fund?FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regional Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: The announcement from the under-secretary on Tuesday was hugely positive for our regions. Up to $200000 a year for up to two years will be made available to the country's regional economic development agencies. It will help bolster their capacity to progress key regional and national economic goals such as job creation. SPEAKER: Well I think it's fair to say that that was said in the voice of the Minister!Jenny Marcroft: How will this Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) investment bolster capacity in the regions?FLETCHER TABUTEAU: On behalf of the Minister capacity funding is about ensuring that these independent economic development agencies are working optimally for their region in a time when regional economic development is foremost in this Government's thoughts and actions. This funding will ensure regional organisations already at full capacity with their business as usual—having worked long and hard in this space completely unsupported by the members opposite—are now able to accelerate key projects through the PGF that would otherwise not see the light of day while just as importantly they will at the same time improve their long-term capabilities and expertise in driving regional economic growth.Hon Grant Robertson: How would the Minister assess the performance of the under-secretary in making this announcement?FLETCHER TABUTEAU: On behalf of the Minister I think at the time he was modest and reserved.
9. Question No. 9—Climate ChangeTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Climate ChangeQuestion No. 9—Climate Change9. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Climate Change: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Yes.Todd Muller: Does he stand by his statement made on 4 March during an interview on Q+A that when it comes to the application of GE technology in New Zealand he—and I quote—will be led by the science on it."?Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes.Todd Muller: Does he agree with the former Prime Minister's chief scientist Sir Peter Gluckman who said—and I quote—"I'll go as far as to say that I cannot see a way that agriculture in New Zealand will be sustainable over the long run in the face of environmental change and consumer preferences without using gene editing."?Hon JAMES SHAW: No.Todd Muller: Does he agree with the then Prime Minister's chief scientist Sir Peter Gluckman who also said at the time—and I quote—"There is no way that we will get a reduction in methane production and I can see no way that we will see an economic advantage for farmers as we shift to more plant-based foods without using gene editing."?Hon JAMES SHAW: No.Todd Muller: When he said he would be—and I quote—"led by the science" did he mean all science or just the science that fits his political narrative?Hon JAMES SHAW: If the member looks at the previous supplementary questions he'll see that what Sir Peter Gluckman was saying is that he didn't see any other ways than GE to achieve those outcomes. I do see other ways.Todd Muller: What are the other ways of addressing agriculture emission reduction that he thinks the chief scientist has not captured in his assessment?Hon JAMES SHAW: I can't comment on what the former Chief Science Advisor included in his assessment but if the member's interested I would advise him to read the report of the Biological Emissions Reference Group that the previous Government set up. It took a number of years looking at a range of options for how agricultural emissions could be reduced and found that actually with a high degree of confidence agriculture would be able to reduce emissions by at least 10 percent by 2030 and found with a similarly high degree of confidence that it would be able to reduce it by at least 30 percent by 2050. Todd Muller: A final supplementary: does he consider climate change to be a sufficiently serious global issue that all science and innovations including GE need to be considered or does he just think it is a pick and choose menu? Hon JAMES SHAW: Well I think that policy makers always have options in front of them about what choices to make but I certainly do believe that climate change is not just the greatest challenge of our time but potentially the greatest challenge of all time."
8. Question No. 8—PoliceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 8—Police8. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen in relation to police's response to the 15 March terror attack?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I'm sure I speak on behalf of most of this House and our country when I say that we are extremely proud and indebted to the women and men of the New Zealand Police service who have served our country with the utmost integrity and kindness since 15 March. I have seen many reports and letters and hundreds of social media comments that pay tribute to these brave compassionate and dedicated women and men of our police service. Under the firm and unwavering leadership of Commissioner Mike Bush 1072 additional police personnel have been employed to assist with the response. This includes for example 137 staff from the Wellington region and 71 from the eastern district. Police are also taking a holistic approach to reassurance activities at places of worship across New Zealand with mosques a priority location. Police have so far made 953 visits to places of worship with 19 sites having 24/7 scene guards and we thank the police for their service.Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen around the support New Zealand Police has received from other agencies and first responders?Hon STUART NASH: The aftermath of the 15 March terror attacks has seen a highly coordinated all-of-Government response to ensure police efforts are optimised and victims are supported. This includes agencies that have set up offices on the ground specifically to address victims and their families' immediate needs and these include ACC Immigration New Zealand the Office of Ethnic Communities and others. In terms of first responders almost 40 firefighters and personnel from Fire and Emergency New Zealand helped in the communication centre. St John deployed 50 staff to triage treat and transport dozens of patients whose injuries ranged from minor through to those with critical gunshot wounds. And a special mention must go to the Defence Force who deployed 553 personnel 13 aircraft and armoured mobility assets to assist in the response.Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen around the international assistance police have received in response to the 15 March terror attacks?Hon STUART NASH: New Zealand Police are extremely grateful for the offers of support they have received from their international partners. The FBI and the Australian Federal Police have been on the ground supporting police's investigations and response. The national remembrance service in Christchurch and other national services held around New Zealand required significant New Zealand Police security support. Approximately 900 police staff were involved in the operation alongside New Zealand Defence Force personnel. In response to a request from Commissioner Bush the Australian Federal Police also provided a significant contingent that assisted with specialist tactical support. We thank the international policing community for their support.
7. Question No. 7—RevenueANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 7—Revenue7. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Revenue: Has he requested or undertaken any assessment of the business valuation and compliance costs that would result from the capital gains tax proposed by the Tax Working Group?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Yes.Andrew Bayly: What does he believe it would cost to value a business given independent appraisal reports of the value of companies subject to takeover offers normally cost in excess of $100000?Hon STUART NASH: I'm not a business valuer.Andrew Bayly: Does he think it's reasonable that small-business owners should have to bear the cost of valuing their businesses costing thousands of dollars each if the Government introduces a capital gains tax?Hon STUART NASH: A purely and highly hypothetical question.Andrew Bayly: Why does he believe that it's purely hypothetical given that the Tax Working Group recommendations would require the 500000-plus businesses in New Zealand to be valued and the consequential significant uncertainty that has already been created for the thousands of owners of those businesses?Hon STUART NASH: It's hypothetical because the Government has made absolutely no decisions on any of the recommendations from the Tax Working Group's report.Andrew Bayly: How would he ensure the integrity of the tax system given there are three valuation methodologies commonly used to value businesses and any one of them could be used to justify a value of a business?Hon STUART NASH: No decisions have been made whatsoever but I take the integrity of the tax system as one of my major roles as the Minister of Revenue and I will absolutely ensure the integrity of the tax system but I would say once again no decisions have been made on any of the recommendations in the Tax Working Group's report.
6. Question No. 6—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What feedback has he seen on the proposals for the Reform of Vocational Education?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): We've received a wide range of feedback on the proposals for the Reform of Vocational Education including some very positive feedback from some of our institutes of technology and polytechnics. For example the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki or WITT have acknowledged that there is a consensus around a need for change and that the pitfalls of the present competitive landscape for polytechnics and the bad incentives it had created do need to be addressed. The majority—the vast majority—of New Zealand's 16 institutes of technology and polytechnics recognise that there is a need for change and they are positively backing the process.Jan Tinetti: What other feedback has he seen on the opportunities that the proposals create for industry and providers?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To name two from the primary sector industry where we've had a lot of feedback Horticulture New Zealand has said that the reforms link what training is required directly to industry needs and that there should be no cliff-face at the end of secondary school where students are left wondering what to do how to train for it and who will employ them. Dairy New Zealand have said that the current model has not been working efficiently for dairy and that off-the-job training and on-the-job training should be provided in a complementary rather than a competitive way. That is something the Government is committed to.Jan Tinetti: What other feedback has he seen from business and employers on the proposals?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I've received a lot of feedback from employers including from the New Zealand Aged Care Association who have announced their support for the Government's approach to the reform of vocational education and training in saying that there is a clear and urgent need for the Government's planned reforms which are a step in the right direction. We've had a lot of feedback from small businesses around the country who in particular have said that they would like to see more consistency and training in a much more streamlined and integrated training system. This of course is the last week for industry employers providers and the public to get their submissions in on the proposals and I encourage people to have their say on them so that the Government can take all of the feedback into consideration as we make further decisions.Dr Shane Reti: What feedback has the Minister had from the Skills Active industry training organisation?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't believe their submission has yet been lodged with those who are conducting it. I have met with them personally. They have pointed out that there are significant aspects of the proposals that they strongly support and they have also pointed out that there are some parts of the proposals that they do not support.
5. Question No. 5—AgricultureHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of AgricultureQuestion No. 5—Agriculture5. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: Yes in the context in which they were made. Hon Nathan Guy: What advice has he received that justifies his statement on Rural Exchange recently in reference to the Tax Working Group report and I quote It probably won't affect the vast majority of farmers."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That was a surmise on my part but I reiterate for the benefit of the member that the Government has no new tax policy. It has commissioned an independent working group to look at matters in relation to the tax system and decisions have yet to be made on that independent working group's recommendations. Hon Nathan Guy: When he said on Radio New Zealand and I quote "Farming for capital gains is flawed and is something that needs to be looked at." does he therefore support a capital gains tax?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister no. I stand by the statement that was made because there's been ample research and commentary recording that many New Zealand farmers have farmed on the basis of the rising value of their land as opposed to necessarily running their farming business as a business. And in fact many and successive Governments have been working very hard with the rural communities to make sure that farming is run as a business.Hon Nathan Guy: What advice has the Ministry for Primary Industries provided to him regarding the impact on rural communities of a capital gains tax and environmental taxes proposed in the Tax Working Group report?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister none because as I said before the Government has no new tax policy. It has received the report of an independent tax working group which has made some recommendations. Those recommendations are under consideration and when and until such time as a decision is made nothing has changed. Hon Nathan Guy: Is he therefore saying that he or his officials haven't been consulted regarding an imminent Cabinet paper to do with the Tax Working Group report and recommendations?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister no. I'm saying what I said before which is that the Government has not changed its tax policy. It has received the recommendations of an independent tax working group. It is considering those recommendations and when and until such time as a decision is made nothing has changed."
3. Question No. 3—FinanceTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yesterday ANZ released its Commodity Price Index showing that this year's upward trend in prices has continued through March. The ANZ world commodity price index pushed up by 1.4 percent in the month on the back of strong prices across sectors. Dairy prices gained 2.5 percent; meat and fibre prices 1.1 percent; and forestry prices lifted 0.4 percent. The stable exchange rate meant that the New Zealand dollar index also rose by 1.4 percent. ANZ said it expects further price rises for the major export sectors in the coming months. This is indeed encouraging news for Kiwi exporters and growth in our regions.Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the impact of commodity prices on economic confidence?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday Rabobank released its Rural Confidence Survey for quarter one 2019 which showed that confidence among Kiwi farmers lifted on the back of rising commodity prices. The number of farmers expecting agricultural economic conditions to improve in the coming 12 months rose to 16 percent. The survey also found farmers' expectations for their own farm's performance was also up this quarter lifting to a net plus 11 percent expecting business to improve over the next 12 months. It is important to acknowledge that for some farmers their confidence is lower than the historical average. Sheep and beef farmers for instance have said that this is due to factors such as Brexit and a slowing Chinese economy. The Government is working hard to ensure stability and certainty for exporters and has signed regulatory agreements with the UK and is continuing to negotiate further free-trade agreements to diversify export opportunities. Tamati Coffey: What other reports has he seen on New Zealand's economic performance?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to the Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) the manufacturing sector expanded at a faster rate in February than in January. The seasonally adjusted PMI for February was 53.7 percent; a PMI reading above 50 indicates that manufacturing is generally expanding. This was up 0.7 points from January and the second-highest expansion level for the last nine months. BNZ senior economist Doug Steel said that The positive messages around production in the PMI gave confidence that the industry retains impetus". It is pleasing to see yet more real data showing the solid fundamentals underpinning the New Zealand economy."
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I'm taking this call to support this bill which we have already heard about. It's actually making small changes but changes that are really important and will actually positively impact a number of families. So the number of families that will be impacted through this may be just in the hundreds but it's about making the ACC scheme fair. It's about meeting people's expectations. It's important that we make sure that the ACC scheme extends to those who accompany individuals that go overseas on employment as long as their remuneration is considered to be derived from New Zealand for New Zealand's income tax purposes.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'd describe that as a rather grudging and snippy contribution from the member on the other side of the House Tim Macindoe who couldn't quite work out whether it was a minor and technical bill or whether it was a great contribution from the former Government.I have a couple of comments to make on the third reading of this the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. It's great to actually have it at third reading. I'm sure the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is very pleased about that. He described it as being about the boundaries rather than the core and that's a good description but I don't want to diminish the importance of it. While the changes being proposed here are about the boundaries they will make a substantive impact particularly on the surviving spouses or partners who have been forced to choose between New Zealand's superannuation and the ACC survivor's payments which was discriminatory on the basis of age.This bill really does respond to that which was a declaration by the Human Rights Review Tribunal and I think that is a really significant and substantive change that is being made in this bill. While it might not have impacted on massive numbers of people it is a matter of principle as is addressing cover for spouses partners and dependants of the New Zealand workers posted overseas because that is an important fix to ensure that the people with dependants aren't disadvantaged when they work overseas or their companies by maintaining long cover arrangements. We understand from agencies with staff overseas such as Immigration New Zealand and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that this is a pressing problem.Ultimately these changes—and there are some other minor changes that the Minister mentioned—make our world-famous important accident compensation scheme kinder to several groups who miss out on entitlements. That is a really big deal. In every opportunity we get everybody in this House should say that the ACC—our accident compensation scheme—is something that New Zealanders should be immensely proud of. Nearly one in three Kiwis made an ACC claim in 2016-17 and most received excellent treatment and rehabilitation. This is an important scheme. This is a bill which is about the boundaries rather than the core but it doesn't diminish the important principles behind it so I commend the bill to the House.