edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. District Health Boards—Resourcing and StaffingHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of HealthDistrict Health Boards—Resourcing and Staffing2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What is the total amount in efficiencies that district health boards have made in 2015/16?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The figure for 2015/16 has not yet been finalised but we have set a very clear expectation that there will be around 1 percent in savings as in every other year. That is not unlike the automatic efficiency dividend that was required of district health boards (DHBs) before 2008. Hon Annette King: Is it acceptable to him for DHBs to make the efficiencies that he has demanded by requiring doctors to work up to 12 days without a break and with seven back-to-back night shifts because DHBs cannot afford additional staff?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well as the member will know there are ongoing discussions between DHBs and the doctors' unions about their working conditions and this is nothing new; it has been going on for years and years. But overall doctors' conditions have improved over the years. I can tell her that from personal experience.Hon Annette King: What is his reaction to overworked doctors reporting 1162 adverse effects on patients because they were tired and 275 admitting that they had fallen asleep at the wheel on the way home because DHBs cannot afford to ensure safe staffing levels?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well obviously they are still forming part of their negotiation strategy and as I said DHBs and the doctors' unions are currently in discussions around these very matters.Hon Annette King: Does he disregard nurses when they said just a week ago that staffing levels and working hours do not meet the best and safest standard of care that patients should expect?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. I meet and speak with nurses regularly and they were very happy with the negotiations and the settlement that they achieved last year which was enabled through very constructive discussion on both sides.Hon Annette King: Does he think that Capital and Coast DHB which has been required to make $148 million in efficiencies since 2011-12 could have made better use of that money on primary mental health services which it is now cutting to meet his demands?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to check the facts around that but it is providing an excellent service for people in the Capital and Coast catchment area. Obviously there is some financial pressure there but the good news is that the $60 million deficit that it did have under Labour has now been reduced to $10 million and we expect that to continue to come down. At the same time there are more operations there are more appointments and there are more doctors and nurses servicing that DHB.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe. It is a pleasure to speak to the Māori Purposes Bill. Often we have bills in front of the House that are fixing something that is fundamentally broken or fundamentally wrong; this is not one of them. The Wī Pere Trust is successful. There are 460 beneficiaries and $66 million in net assets. This is a successful trust. But what it wants to do is to be more successful and it wants to move through into a modern world. What this bill does is it allows the Wī Pere Trust to do that. It allows it to adopt a more commercial model and to achieve greater economic autonomy. How does it do this? Well it replaces the trustees with an incorporated trust board with a body corporate status and limited liability. The trust is able to acquire and to hold land. It removes ministerial involvement from the governance arm and it allows the trust to maintain its own register of beneficiaries. The Māori Affairs Committee suggested several recommendations: first of all that the Māori Land Court not the High Court be the court to determine lineal descent from Wī Pere; secondly that there should be disclosure of trust board members' conflicts of interest; and thirdly a review of the new constitution that is being formed under this bill in 5 years' time. This bill is also futureproofing for legislation in progress. Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is likely to require only consequential amendments to this the Māori Purposes Bill. Together this legislation will improve both the outlook and the benefit for Māori and the Wī Pere Trust with this bill can embrace its new autonomy. This is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.
Mallard Trevor; Paraone PitaMĀORI PURPOSES BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 18 August.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering this bill Pita Paraone was speaking and he has 3 minutes and 30 seconds remaining.PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I had not realised I had that long but never mind. This is democracy and I want to thank the House for this opportunity. The last time this bill was before the House I expressed the view of New Zealand First at that time and we are still of the same view that we would have difficulty supporting this bill particularly around the position it has in regard to the Māori Land Court and the pending legislation that is gaining points of discussion amongst the Māori World and that is Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Our concern was the removal of the role that the Māori Land Court would play and also our concern about the possibility of a number of the beneficiaries not being able to exercise their democratic right as beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust. I understand that the Labour member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti the honourable Meka Whaitiri has an amendment that will address one of the concerns that New Zealand First has. I just want to signal to this House at this time that we would be supporting that amendment. Again we see this is as part of the overall influence of some people described as the Browntable" on the future administration of Māori land entities. The Wī Pere Trust as part of its $66 million asset value has a number of Māori land titles included in its assets. So I just wanted to signal that. Tēnā koe."
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSECHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): In light of the enormous progress the Government has made on its legislative agenda this week I seek leave for the House to rise early for the week.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Roche DeniseDENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call for the Greens on this bill. I am a quitter. I quit regularly. I remember the first cigarette I had. I was around about 10 years old. Every every every every time the Government has moved to make smoking more difficult I have welcomed it. Tobacco kills—we know this. That is why we support this legislation for standardised packaging. I know that it has taken a long time to get to this last reading and that this bill was originally introduced in 2013 but we welcome its passage because half the people who smoke will die from it. It costs our country enormous amounts of money to deal with people who are suffering the effects of smoking and that is not counting the people we lose along the way and their potential.I was raised at a time when smoking was normalised. It was advertised as a glamourous type of occupation. That glamour was used to attract and hook new customers. The tobacco industry has to attract new customers—of course it does because half of those customers die. So I am a quitter—I keep quitting. Over 40 years I have quit many many times and over 40 years I have gone back to smoking so I am living proof of the comments that my colleague Kevin Hague made about behavioural change not necessarily happening from simple measures but being an ongoing task. It is an ongoing task for the Government to continue to put measures in place that protect our citizens from smoking because the tobacco industry needs more customers. Our job is to protect our citizens from dying and that means we need to reduce the number of customers that the tobacco industry hooks.As a quitter I welcome every move the Government has made to discourage young people from picking it up and becoming smokers and I welcome every move that discourages current smokers and encourages them to quit. I remember the Smoke-free Environments Act being introduced in 1990 and the start towards a smoke-free Aotearoa New Zealand. I remember the banishment of cigarette advertising from the sports arena and that was a major thing as well. I remember and I support the introduction of graphic images and messages stating the reality of what happens to a smoker's body and having those images on the cigarette packets—I absolutely support that. I supported and I continue to support the fact that retailers cannot show cigarettes for sale in their shops. I support every single price hike we have ever had that takes smoking out of the reach of affordability for young people and acts as a further discouragement for people like myself.I am a quitter but I remember that my mum used to smoke Matinée Kings. It was glamorous—it had yellow packaging—and she felt glamorous when she smoked her 25 cigarettes a day and she died at 64. I also want to reference the cigarettes that my sister smokes: Holiday. It is self-evident what the message is there from the brand and brand is important. That is why I personally support this legislation. The Greens support the legislation for standardised packaging because we want a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025. Thank you.
Dean JacquiJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is good to see that most of the parties around this House want to do something to reduce the incidence of smoking. I was very distressed to hear Barbara Stewart's speech because she seems to be proposing—in fact the member just said—that New Zealand First does not support measures that are intended to reduce the incidence of smoking. Surely I did not hear right. Surely I did not hear that New Zealand First does not support measures to reduce the incidence of smoking. Do we not know that smoking is highly addictive? Do we not know that almost all smokers take it up at a young age—9-year-olds 10-year-olds 11-year-olds? Do we not know that a high proportion of young people who take up smoking go on to become lifelong smokers suffering then not only the expense but the deteriorating health issues serious disease and in many cases premature death? Do we not know that? Is that not a fact? Do we not want therefore around this House to do everything we can to prevent youngsters from taking up this highly addictive and expensive habit? And why does this whole House not support this bill which does exactly that? The last remaining avenue that this House has—well at the moment; we might think of something else—is to shut down the advertising of this product. Plain packaging achieves that. I simply do not accept the argument put forward by Barbara Stewart of New Zealand First that it does not matter whether there are branded packets of cigarettes lying around for young people to see and that they are going to stuff them into other boxes—like really? Are people really going to stuff cigarettes into other boxes? Come on! That argument does not hold water. What we need to hold on to in this House is that any measure that gets us closer to the goal of being smoke-free in New Zealand by 2025 should be supported should be strongly supported and should be supported by this whole House as it is by this Government. Thank you.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to also be standing here and taking a call on this Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill in its third reading. It is a historic day as Minister Lotu-Iiga mentioned at the start of the reading. I would also like to acknowledge Dame Tariana Turia. Although I did not work with her in this Parliament I know it is a very special time for her knowing that this bill is going through. I would also like to acknowledge the work of previous Health Committees. The Health Committee is a good committee to be part of and it is good to be standing here today doing this. We have heard a lot about people being young and impressionable and the previous speaker Iain Lees-Galloway spoke about the language and calling cigarettes slim" and "mild" and all of those sorts of things. We have been shown the packaging today and if you look at the likes of some of the language that is likely to be on them in the future—talking about toxic chemicals talking about damaging your body's cells talking about breaking down your immune system and looking at some of these pretty ugly pictures that are going to be on this standardised packaging—I think it is really important for our young people to be seeing that on a regular basis. It is that space repetition and if you are constantly engaged in language or are looking at graphics of something that looks very very bad then it is going to ultimately—hopefully—put people off. So it is really important that these messages and these pictures get across. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and health loss in New Zealand. We have heard that up to 5000 people die prematurely every year. It is avoidable. It is something that we can save not only for our health system but we could actually save lives. I am sure that every family in this country who has lost somebody to lung cancer or some other form of cancer could identify with this. Not only that there are also people who currently are living with emphysema and with some diseases that are really really not nice to live with. The day that we get to smoke-free Aotearoa 2025 will not be a day too soon. It is still a wee way away yet but I think we have to work together collectively and we have to make a really big effort to make that happen. I also would like to say that the only term that we are using is "standardised". We have made it pretty clear that it is not the word "plain". The reasons that we have used "standardised" have been well explained today. Thank you."
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Family violence sex abuse and elder abuse are three of the most dastardly crimes that I can think of. I think anything that we can do to deal with a crime with the partial protection of a victim and even with the rehabilitation of an offender has got to be positive. It was Alfred Ngaro earlier who said that this bill is not the answer to the problem; it is a piece of the answer—and I am quite sure it is.I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that have been made. I have to agree with Kelvin Davis: I think that the issue around having a public register for this is that it would just be far too dangerous in my view for the victims of this crime—and it would preclude in many ways I think a satisfactory resolution or satisfactory opportunity to rehabilitate sexual offenders. Whatever we think of these people we have to give them an opportunity to rehabilitate in our communities and to lead a life as normal as possible. So I certainly support the fact that this register is not public. I think that it is common sense in many ways. I also just wanted to very briefly refer to some comments that David Clendon made earlier on. He thought that this was a very expensive way of dealing with this issue and that we could do a lot more with that money. I think whatever we do in public policy around this type of offending is always going to cost us a lot of money. As I said myself earlier I think that when picking up the bits of it and making it all work we do not know what is going to be effective sometimes when we put these bits of legislation in place. But collectively they all play a part in it. I certainly—with what experience I have in this field—support this bill. I think it is a very useful piece of legislation and I think it will play a part in what can only be considered to be one of the worst types of crime I think people could commit against a human being. I support this bill as it becomes law. Thank you.
Pugh Maureen; Tisch LindsayMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand to speak in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill today in its third reading. I would like to begin by acknowledging the work of the Hon Anne Tolley and the Social Services Committee on this bill.This bill provides for the establishment of New Zealand's first child sex offender register and its purpose is to give authorities another tool for preventing reoffending—with the ultimate aim of course of keeping our children safe. Currently offenders can disappear back into communities when they finish a sentence or an order. This bill will allow for the ability to create a centralised inter-agency information database available only to a dedicated unit of police and corrections staff—and only this unit will have unrestricted access to the information contained on that register.This register will not be made public and there are really good reasons for that. Offenders have families as well and they deserve to have their privacy protected. A public register would also increase the risk of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands and the consequences of that would be that we would drive offenders underground and authorities would then lose the ability to manage and assess their risk. Of course keeping the names confined to this register also helps protect the victims and their privacy I believe is completely non-negotiable.Cabinet has dedicated $35.5 million to the ICT for the implementation of this register over the next 10 years and I understand that work on this ICT work is already under way in preparation for populating the register. At the end of the first year of implementation there will be approximately 568 names on that register. This is a fabulous tool for the team to be able to monitor and protect our community with.This bill also ensures that the legislation balances the rights of the offenders with the absolute rights of the victims and the children to be kept safe. By having a repository for the information on convicted child sex offenders authorities can keep track of these offenders be alert to any changes in their circumstances and thereby assess whether any action is required. This bill is a sensible way of giving authorities another tool for keeping communities safe and I take pleasure in commending it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.
Motions — Misuse of Drugs Act 1975—Approval of Order
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking this call to support the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill in its third reading. When this bill came before the House it was called the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill and now it is called the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill. Often we say: What's in a name?". For the Opposition the name of this bill was important and yes as a result of that we have changed the name of this bill and I want to thank the member Jacinda Ardern for her contribution. I also want to thank all submitters for their contributions. I also want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Anne Tolley for this very very thoughtful bill because this bill is focused on the safety of our young people. Sex offending against children is a serious crime we all agree. It does a huge amount of damage to our society and we want to do things to stop the damage that is happening in society because of these criminal activities. As we have heard from other members this bill is going to be a tool that will help us reduce offending and reoffending by child sex offenders. This register is not going to be publicly available as is now very very clear from the name of this bill. The objective of this bill is not naming and shaming as the New Zealand First Party wanted. The objective of this bill is the safety of children. Naming and shaming in my view is a very very short-sighted objective because we need to look at the wider picture. We need to think about people related to offenders; we need to think about long-term consequences of making their information publicly available. We need to look at the wider picture and that is why we think that this register should not be publicly available. On the other hand information on the register will be available to third parties if it is felt necessary. It does cover that bit—without the unwanted consequences of making it publicly available. We have heard about the funding that will go into setting up this register. Budget 2016 allocates $8.2 million for the development of this register and also goes towards the operational cost—and yes there will be ongoing costs but the safety of children is important to us. This National Government is very responsibly managing its finances and so we have choices and we can invest in things such as improving public safety. Thank you. It is a great bill. I commend this bill to the House."
Dunne PeterMOTIONSMisuse of Drugs Act 1975—Approval of OrderHon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): I move That pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply—25B-NBOMe 25C-NBOMe and 251-NBOMe) Order 2016 made under section 4 of that Act.Motion agreed to.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): It is an interesting question. Quite clearly the Government is here to advance the interests of the nation; the Opposition members are here simply to amuse themselves.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the Leader of the House can indicate whether the Government intends to make further progress on any of the other omnibus bills on the Order Paper; if so would he be willing to indicate which ones so that we can get the amendments drafted up in advance?
Carter David; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTMr SPEAKER: I call the Acting Prime Minister.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Very kind of you Mr Speaker. You will be giving yourself one of your own prizes shortly. When the House resumes on Tuesday 13 September the Government will look to complete the first reading of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill and the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill and to progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper.
Tuesday 6 September 2016 (continued on Wednesday 7 September 2016) - Volume 716
Housing Legislation Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a third time.
VoteJONO NAYLOR (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 2 be agreed to: replace this clause with the following new clause:2 Commencement(1) Part 1 comes into force on 15 September 2016.(2) Part 2 comes into force on 15 December 2016.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Clause 2 agreed to.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wanted to move Supplementary Order Paper 212 dividing the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well it is too late.Phil Twyford: Is it? OK. I missed my moment.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You missed your moment yes. And I did wait.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Housing Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteMELISSA LEE (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question now be put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to insert new Part 8 be agreed to. Part 8Amendment to Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 199211 Principal ActThis part amends the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy matters Act 1992.12 New Section 72AAfter section 72 insert:72AIncome-related rent placesThe joint Ministers must ensure sufficient funding is available for income-related rent places in HNZ housing that in any year where the amount of social housing stock is insufficient to meet the demand for social housing would enable the Corporation to increase its supply of HNZ housing by 1000 per year.13 New Part 8AAfter section 98 insert:Part 8AEmergency Housing and Homelessness98A Interpretation of terms used in this partIn this Part unless the context otherwise requires—homeless means a situation where a person meets the definition of homelessness set out in Statistics New Zealand's New Zealand Definition of Homelessness.emergency housing means any premises that are let for occupation by any person as a place of residence for persons who are homeless (whether or not the premises are owned by the provider or by any other person).98B Joint Ministers must ensure sufficient places for emergency housingThe joint Ministers have responsibility for ensuring that all people who are homeless have the ability to access accommodation and the services they need.The joint Ministers must ensure the number of funded places available in emergency housing each year is not less than 8000.The joint Ministers must ensure any places funded for emergency housing are for places which are warm dry and safe.98C Plan to end homelessnessThe joint Ministers must within 12 months of the commencement of this section table before the House of Representatives a plan to end homelessness.In the development of the plan under subsection (1) the Minister must:Consider whether the official definition of homelessness needs updating and recommend accordingly.Assess the evidence on the current scale of homelessness whether it is changing and how and what the causes of that change might be.Evaluate possible policy responses to homelessness including international best practice and recommend accordingly.Consider how homelessness is experienced by different groups in society and evaluate policy responses that respond to that experience. For example Māori experience of homelessness and Māori-led initiatives to respond.Hear public submissions and expert evidence particularly from those directly affected by homelessness and their advocates.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.
VoteKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 46New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to:insert the following new part:Part 7Amendment to Housing Corporation Act 197411Principal ActThis Part amends the Housing Corporation Act 1974.12Section 40 amended (Distribution of profits)Replace section 40 with:40Profits to give effect to Corporation's functions(1)The Corporation's surplus must be used for those functions under section 18(2) that increase the supply and affordability of housing.(2) In subsection (1) surplus means surplus capital and any operating net surplus after any provision the Minister thinks proper has been made for any matters that in the Minister's opinion (reached in the light of the Corporation's statement of performance expectations and annual financial statements) are necessary for the efficient and effective conduct of the Corporation's operations.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.
VoteJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes this has been well canvassed. I will put the question.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Julie Anne Genter to the proposed amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to insert new Part 6 be agreed to:in clause 12 after new section 46C(2)(a) insert:(ab)a prohibition on the use of rules in district or unitary plans to require any number of car parking; andin clause 12 new section 46C(2)(b) after corridors and networks" insert " taking into account the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker be agreed to:insert the following new part:Part 6Amendment to Resource Management Act 199111 Principal ActThis Part amends the Resource Management Act 1991.12 New Section 46CAfter section 46B insert:46CNational policy statement on Urban Growth(1) The Minister must within 6 months of the commencement of this section prepare a proposed national policy statement on urban growth in accordance with the requirements under section 45 and 46.(2) The proposed national policy statement on urban growth must contain:(a) A prohibition on the use of urban growth boundaries within a regional or district plan where official statistics predict there will be population growth; and(b) A requirement for local authorities to undertake detailed spatial planning which sets aside areas of special value and sets out future infrastructure corridors and networks as an alternative to urban boundaries; and(c) A comprehensive list of local government and central government infrastructure costs which should be taken into account when making subdivision decisions under this Act; and(d) A standard formula for local authorities to use to measure the marginal cost of urban growth; and(e) A standard formula for local authorities to use to calculate the cost of inefficient utilisation of existing infrastructure; and(f) Rules to ensure that the costs of infrastructure are appropriately internalised for new developments.(3) After preparing the proposed national policy statement on urban growth under subsection (1) the Minister will initiate the consideration process set out in sections 47 to 52 for implementation of the national policy statement."A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7 p.m."
VoteJOANNE HAYES (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to: add the following new part:Part 4Amendments to Income Tax Act 200711 Principal ActThis Part amends the Income Tax Act 2007.12 Section CB 6A Amended (Disposal within 2 years: bright-line test for residential land)(1) In the heading to section CB 6A replace 2" with "5".(2) In the chapeau to section CB 6A "Disposal within 2 years" to section CB 6A replace "2" with "5".(3) In section CB 6A(1) replace "2" with "5".(4) In section CB 6A(2) replace "2" with "5".(5) In section CB 6A(3) replace "2" with "5".(6) In section CB 6A(4) replace "2" with "5".13 Section CB 16A Amended (Main home exclusion for disposal within 2 years)In the heading to section CB 16A replace "2" with "5".14 Section DB 18A Amended (Ring-fenced allocations: disposal of residential land within 2 years)(1) In the heading to section DB 18A replace "2" with "5".(2) In section DB 18A(1) replace "2 years" with "5 years".15 Section DB 18AB Amended (Deduction cap: disposal of residential land within 2 years to associated persons)(1) In the heading to section DB 18AB replace "2" with "5".(2) In section DB 18AB(1)(a) replace "2" with "5".16 Section FB 3A Amended (Residential Land)In section FB 3A(1) replace "2" with "5".17 Section FC 9 Amended (Residential land transferred to executor administrator or beneficiary on death of person)In section FC 9(2) replace "2" with "5".18 Section FO 10 Amended (When property passes on resident's restricted amalgamation)In section FO 10(1) replace "2" with "5".19 Section FO 17 Amended (Land)(1) In section FO 17(1)(b) replace both instances of "2" with "5".(2) In section FO 17(3) replace both instances of "2" with "5".20 Section GB 52 Amended (Arrangements involving residential land: companies' shares)In section GB 52(1)(a) replace both instances of "2" with "5".21 Section GB 53 Amended (Arrangements involving residential land: trusts)In section GB 53(1)(c) replace "2" with "5".22 Section YA 1 Amended (Definitions)(1) In the definition of "bright-line date" in section YA 1 replace both instances of "2" with "5".(2) In the definition of "date of acquisition" in section YA 1 replace both instances of "2" with "5".(3) In paragraph (c) of the definition of "settlement" in section YA 1 replace "2" with "5".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 12New Zealand First 12.Amendment not agreed to."
VoteMAUREEN PUGH (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Chris Hipkins to the proposed amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to add new Part 3 be agreed to:insert in new section 50T(1) in clause 12 new" after "10000". A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Megan Woods to the proposed amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to add new Part 3 be agreed to:in new clause 12 new Part 5B new section 50T(1) insert in after "buyers" "but not later than 1 March 2017". A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to:to add the following new part:Part 3Amendment to Housing Corporation Act 197411 Principal ActThis Part amends the Housing Corporation Act 1974.12 New Part 5BAfter section 50S insert:Part 5BAffordable Housing Development50T Minister of Housing must ensure affordable housing built(1)The Minister of Housing must prepare a plan in consultation with the Corporation for the delivery of 10000 affordable houses per year for first home buyers.(2)Within six months of the completion of the plan required under subsection (1) the Minister must present a copy of the approved plan to the House of Representatives.(3)The Minister of Housing must ensure that all targets set out within the plan are met and report to the House of Representatives annually on its progress.50U Corporation to manage affordable housing development (1)The Corporation will be responsible for managing the development of affordable housing under the plan under section 50T(1).(2)In implementing the affordable housing development the Corporation must:(a)Ensure that the houses completed are affordable;(b)Ensure that the houses are sold to first home buyers and are not used for speculation;(c)Ensure all houses built meet all legal standards required and are warm dry and safe; and (d)Work with private sector builders to ensure houses are built to a high quality using the latest construction methods.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to."
VoteMAUREEN PUGH (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 10 be agreed to: insert after new section 15(3) the following subclause:(4)Subsections (2) and (3) and this subsection are repealed on 15 September 2026.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Amendment agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The question now is that Metiria Turei's amendment deleting clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 is out of order—sorry. This is a statement not a question. Metiria Turei's amendment deleting clause 10 set out in Supplementary Order Paper 211 is out of order as inconsistent with the previous decisions of the Committee.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 10 be agreed to:in chapeau of section 15(2) replace if" with "as part of or immediately following the development of State housing land or erection of dwellings and".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kelvin Davis to clause 10 be agreed to:insert in section 15(3) after "any" in the second place it appears "current or future".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Part 2 as amended agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Metiria Turei to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 4A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 93New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 28Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Part 1 agreed to.
Borrows ChesterSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSUrgency—ReflectionsMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As has become a recent tradition it remains for the Speaker to bestow some awards. For the most articulate closure motion—Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. For the most informative analytical speech—the first speech by David Seymour last night. The most good-natured protagonist was Phil Twyford. The least offensive speaker taking the most flak was Parmjeet Parmar. And the bloke having the most fun was Denis O'Rourke.The House adjourned at 10.54 p.m. (Wednesday)
Pugh Maureen; Borrows ChesterMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is with great pleasure that I stand in support of this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill which is finally in its third reading. I would like to give credit to the Hon Dr Nick Smith. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has recognised what is needed to ensure that we maintain momentum for building houses for the thousands and thousands of Kiwis to realise their dream of owning their own home. He understands the whole picture he analysed all of the issues and he found practical and workable solutions. We are now building three times as many houses in Auckland and twice as many nationally compared with when National first came into office. This bill is another tool for National's comprehensive housing plan and it will deliver even more houses for New Zealanders. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Louisa Wall.
Parmar Parmjeet; Borrows ChesterDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It is a pleasure to take this call to support the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill in its third reading. On this side we know that housing affordability and availability can be addressed by increasing the supply. We do not want special housing areas (SHAs) that are already listed to lapse because that would create a big lag and we do not want to create a big lag in the housing supply. As the National list MP based in Mt Roskill my interest is in Auckland and just in Auckland 154 SHAs have been established. Denis O'Rourke the member who spoke before me counted the number of houses that have been built in the last 3 years but it is not just about the number of houses that are completed. We have to look at the full picture. It is about the creation of sections it is about planning and resource consents and it is about the infrastructure that goes with building houses. So we need to look at the full picture and I would like to give some numbers here. Yes on 30 June 1342 homes had been completed. There were 2208 building consents approved and 6731 resource consents for sections approved. So we need to look at the full picture. Since we started this legislation I have heard about affordability from the Opposition so I would like to actually give some examples to clarify affordability. Let us go to the 1980s. Let us go to the late 1980s and pick a house that was $300000. The interest rate in the late 1980s was 19 to 20 percent and if one person borrowed for 30 years the weekly payment for that person came to $1100. Yes the weekly payment came to $1100. If I bring you back to this time—2016—interest rates are around 4.1 to 4.2 percent. If we pick a house that is $1 million—yes we pick a house that is $1 million; we have heard this value a lot in this discussion—and if one borrows for 30 years the weekly payment comes to $1121. So for a $300000 value house it was $1100 and now for a $1 million house it is $1121. On that house of $300000 people were paying $1.4 million in interest—$1.4 million. On this house of $1 million people are paying $750000 on interest. So you can see where the savings are. It is because of the great policies of this National Government that interest rates are low. Affordability takes into account lots of factors—lots of factors. It is not just the income and not just the house price but interest rates too. On this side we are committed to ensuring that there is a supply of houses and that houses are affordable. It is a great bill. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Marama Davidson.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): As tempting as it is to talk about the all the things that have been moved and have not passed over the last 17 hours I just want to bring the focus back to talking about what is in the bill that is now before us at its third reading and what it set out to achieve. What this bill will do is it will actually bring into alignment the special housing areas with the Auckland Unitary Plan which is about to come into force; it will ensure that more houses will be able to be built in parts of New Zealand that need more houses; and it will tidy up some language to remove some ambiguity around the language to do with the Public Works Act. It has actually been a pretty simple bill. It has been made a little bit more complicated along the way by some of the conversations that have gone on here over the last couple of days. But I am looking forward to seeing more houses built I am looking forward to seeing the alignment with the Auckland Unitary Plan and I am looking forward to seeing this bill finally pass this evening. Thank you.