edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. To Part 1 clause 6 Section 13 amended (Protection of forestry officers)"—it repeals section 13(2). My question here is: throughout the progress of this bill we talked about trust and empowerment of the sector. This one if I recall correctly gives the Minister the ability to delegate powers outside of what would be a forest officer if you will or a forestry authority.I wondered in this very brief question—it's about whether or not the Minister had considered maintaining or retaining that power in order to be able to perhaps delegate that authority to a forestry body another group that might look towards as the Minister put it future regulations that will put in place a system that will allow the export of forestry logs offshore to be in a system that is led designed by the sector itself.So just a very brief question to the Minister—just to repeat myself—whether or not the Minister considered whether or not he would retain that authority to be able to delegate that to somebody who isn't a forestry officer or a forestry authority perhaps to a sector or to a body of a forestry sector in order for them to be able to possess those powers and whether or not the Minister considered keeping it."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Maybe the Minister just has to counterfactual to the previous member's remarks. You could elucidate or illuminate or all of the above for the members of this committee what the counterfactual looks like in the absence of a registration system given that there are local bylaws as you would be cognisant of sir I am sure that a polluter pays and if there are issues in and around slash or bad practice those that are affording those poor practices in a regional community would otherwise be caught by council bylaws. Do you have thoughts on that sir?
Kuriger BarbaraCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members when we rose for the dinner break the House was in committee and is in committee on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill and we were on the debate on Part 1. I will take some calls but I was watching before the dinner break and I do want to make it very clear that it's a very narrow bill and there's been a number of calls that have gone quite wide of the bill so I expect people to—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order Madam Chair. I think it's appropriate given that observation to note that we are doing all stages under urgency and there's not many opportunities to have a wide-ranging debate on a bill or an examination that would be akin to a select committee examination except for this committee. So I would ask—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I accept that Dr Webb. All I'm saying is that we can have a wide-ranging debate on this bill. Some of the things I heard were actually not part of the bill. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Fair point. Thank you Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.
McClay Todd; Pugh MaureenHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): Whilst there's a very short amount of time I thought I'd address some of these comments and of course we're back after the dinner break. Firstly to most colleagues the legislation is very very narrow. So in as far as the emissions trading scheme is concerned or environmental standards or what people can do in forest health and safety it's outside the scope of this legislation and it is governed with many other parts of legislation and that doesn't change. In fact I think we'll see over the next three years in this House us having conversations about how we strengthen requirements on the environment in the way we plant trees and certainly health and safety but doing so in such a way that doesn't add additional burden.In as far as the retrospective nature of saying any dispute would be dismissed there aren't any disputes we're aware of at the moment. But more broadly when we say Do we need this regulation?" Well the member's right that the cost is about $500 per year but that's the cost to run the system of registration on the part of the Government it's not the cost to those who have entered into it or the obligation the cost that they have on a daily basis to collect information report and do other things. That's just the cost that we take off them to run the system. We're giving that money back because we won't have a system but actually that's not the cost to the sector. The actual cost is the things that the legislation imposed upon them and requires them to do.I would say the New Zealand Institute of Forestry wasn't in the space that they are today when the legislation first went through. They have a regulatory system they set up themselves. They are being very very responsible. It is growing. Indeed there are examples that I've been made aware of where they go and help people where there has been a dispute between a trader or somebody that has been registered or not registered even though they may not be a member and they've gone to work that out with them because actually they and many other parts of the sector have stepped up and are showing greater responsibility for themselves and actually we've got to find ways to work with them.With that in mind I can stop here and can go into greater detail but again in many of the areas that members have raised questions they fall outside of the scope of the legislation of what we're changing. They are important and therefore the requirements that are in place from the forestry sector to meet those obligations don't alter at all as a result of the repeal of this legislation.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the time has come to suspend for the dinner break. We will resume again at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7 p.m."
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. My question for the Minister of Forestry is probably relatively short. I see that under Part 1 clause 10 of New Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1AA of the Forests Act 1949 says that in respect of commercial disputes parties to a dispute don't have to continue to comply with the dispute resolution procedure. It seems a little odd. It may be—and the Minister no doubt can take advice on this—that there are no disputes because it's new so in fact it's just a kind of belt and braces approach. But if parties have entered into a dispute resolution procedure on a set of rules that both parties know and have been imposed it seems very unusual just as a basic principle but also having an element of retrospectivity—that something has started and in fact you're now retrospectively changing it because you've got into a set of rules.So it is a very short question but it's kind of a natural justice question about when you enter into a dispute resolution arrangement and then you legislate to change the rights that have crystallised. That's a concern to me because the rights of the parties to have a particular process seem to have kind of fallen into place and those rights now exist—because it does say parties to an existing dispute do not need to comply". Now the fact is the rules about the dispute resolution process will have benefits and burdens and one party will like them and the other party won't like them. So I'm very interested to hear from the Minister whether there are any disputes and if so has he taken advice on that retrospectivity point—if there is. If there's none then I don't think we even need the clause and it's not an issue."
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask the Minister some questions about this piece of legislation. I guess really how he is going to ensure that there is a kind of respectable cowboy-free log trade in relation to specifically Part 1 which amends the Forests Act 1949? Obviously a lot has changed in New Zealand since 1949 but this piece of legislation remains on our statute books. I just did a quick google and I think Sid Holland was the Prime Minister in 1949 and I imagine that the forestry trade was also possibly flourishing at that time but with not the same level of workplace regulations or rules to keep people safe as we had then. So this particular part—and I appreciate there are other parts that amend different pieces of legislation but this is a Forests Act 1949. And so if the Minister could just kind of let us know how we can be assured with the repeal of this legislation of a continued professional practice in relation to forestry and trade in logs.I also want to emphasise a question by my colleague Peeni Henare which was also touched on by my colleague Ginny Andersen as well. Professionalism does entail even though this is not the purpose of this bill a level of care for the community that the forestry is being undertaken on the land the environmental concerns the workers' safety. The original Act that this amendment to the Forests Act repeals was allegedly going to increase professionalism and get rid of cowboys so how are we assured with the repeal of this code of ethics in this part—specifically in clause 4—that that will occur? That's all.
Henare PeeniPart 1 Amendments to Forests Act 1949Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. As we look towards Part 1 it might be really good just to elaborate for the members across the Chamber what are the parts that are being repealed here is which is the code of ethics. A code of ethics is really important and if you look at the short list of the code of ethics that is there one will see professional responsibility" "responsibility to clients" "professional work standards by registered forestry adviser" and "maintaining professional competency". I think these are all things we'd all look towards in the sector especially in a sector such as forestry which is important to our people.The Minister the Hon Todd McClay in the first and second readings of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill talked about some of the safeguards. I think when we think about the code of ethics and what is happening here with its repeal there are going to be some assurances sought not just from the Minister—because I appreciate the Minister is the Minister of the sector. But the sector itself will need to make sure that they do act ethically and that they do engage the sector broadly and don't take it upon themselves alone in some of the organised bodies to make the decisions on behalf of others who might not get to be fully represented there.The question I have for the Minister with respect to Part 1 about those safeguards which he did refer to in his speech—things that will give this side of the House assurance that those codes of ethics in particular with trade can be upheld; or a code of ethics can be upheld given that we are repealing in this particular bill. I wonder—and I'm going to take just a small licence here—if that might also extend to some of the other matters that were raised through the speeches by my colleagues in the first and second reading of the bill about making sure that there is a good code of ethics right across the sector. I think if we're going to do it we want to make sure that we can have it right for exporters. We want to give confidence to the whole sector as the international markets look toward New Zealand for the exporting of timber.That's my first question for the Minister and I appreciate he's got the advisers there and he's writing some notes. So I'm going to shift to my second question and that is with respect to the forestry practice standards. Work safety is paramount for our party. We want to know that forestry practice standards with respect to trade will continue—same thing: to look towards the safeguards for the sector so the forestry practice standards—the practical application of what would be a code of ethics. So those sort of go hand in hand and I'll leave those as my first two opening salvos for the Minister as we go through this bill."
Pugh Maureen; Smith StuartIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Forests Act 1949" and the ScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8 "Amendments to Forests Act 1949" and the Schedule.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?Ricardo Menéndez March: Objection.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Tuesday 5 March 2024 - Volume 774
Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 5
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 5 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will now come to the vote on the Schedule where there is no debate. The question is that the Schedule stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 4 to not limit the court from using any document prepared for another purpose for the purposes of section 27 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 4 creating an exception for reports costing less than $2000 and prepared by approved persons be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 4 creating an exception where the offender was under the age of 18 years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 4 excluding where the report provides information relating to the relationship between the victim of the offending and the offender be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 4 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Clause 4 agreed to.
Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 4
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Duncan Webb's tabled amendment inserting new clause 3A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.
Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee—New Clause 3A
Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
VoteClause 3 Principal Act CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to clause 3. This is the debate on clause 3 the Principal Act". The question is that clause 3 stand part. No one's going to take a call?A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 3 agreed to."
Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 2 is ruled out of order as referring to an indeterminate in length and not providing sufficient certainty.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being a serious amendment.The Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being a serious amendment.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.
Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): In the absence of any other speakers I will go to the question. The question is that the motion be amended by adding the words but not on Saturdays despite any Standing Order to the contrary."A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 March 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside of the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Legal Services Amendment Bill."
Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Transport and Infrastructure Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): No there's a—I think you may be anticipating another process.ARENA WILLIAMS: Oh yep.
Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.
10. Question No. 10—RMA ReformHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA ReformQuestion No. 10—RMA Reform10. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the statement made by the President of the Resource Management Law Association who said about the Government's proposed approach to fast-track consenting that There are likely to be high risks of judicial review if a decision-making process lacks transparency and results in poor environmental outcomes"; if not why not?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Broadly yes. But the statement presupposes that the decision-making process will lack transparency when our intention is that it be very transparent and also presupposes that it will result in poor environmental outcomes when our intention is that it result in good environmental outcomes.Hon James Shaw: What advice has he requested or received on any potential litigation risk from the proposed settings including judicial review risk in Waitangi Tribunal claims?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well legal advice that Ministers receive is as the member knows privileged.Hon James Shaw: How does he justify the proposal to have ministerial decision-making over complex environmental matters rather than having final decisions sitting with independent hearing panels who are able to robustly consider all the evidence?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The bill hasn't been presented to Parliament yet. As the member will well know it's part of the Government's 100-day plan of action and I think we're up to day 97 so the member does not have long to wait.Hon James Shaw: Did that address the question?SPEAKER: Well I think in so much as it can. He said the bill is not introduced to Parliament yet.Hon James Shaw: Will the proposed new legislation override the environmental protections contained in many of New Zealand's key pieces of environmental legislation including the Conservation Act the Wildlife Act the Reserves Act and the exclusive economic zone Act?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The fast-tracked consenting regime will allow Ministers to refer projects to panels to make conditions upon which those projects will take place in accordance with the variety of statutes that the member has mentioned.Hon James Shaw: Will the approximately 100 projects included in the listed pathway include projects for which consents have previously been declined or referred for reconsideration due to environmental risk including the Te Kūhā coal mine and the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining project?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well maybe. The member will just have to wait until he sees the bill."
9. Question No. 9—TransportDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 9—Transport9. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about transport investment in New Zealand?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yesterday the Prime Minister and I released the draft Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport announcing that we're delivering on our campaign and coalition commitments to reintroduce the successful roads of national significance programme with 15 projects across the country to enable people and freight to move around quickly and safely.Grant McCallum: What does the Government policy statement mean for Northlanders?Hon SIMEON BROWN: The draft GPS brings great news for the people of Northland who have been faced with cancelled projects and a growing infrastructure deficit. Our coalition Government prioritises a range of priority roads of national significance including an alternative to the Brynderwyns as part of our coalition agreement with New Zealand First the Whangārei to Port Marsden Highway and Warkworth to Wellsford.Tom Rutherford: What does the Government policy statement mean for the people of the Bay of Plenty?Hon SIMEON BROWN: The roads of national significance are some of New Zealand's most essential State highway corridors. They boost productivity and improve safety. We've listed two significant priorities in the Bay of Plenty including Tauriko West State Highway 29 and Takitimu Northern Link stage 2 which was scaled back and delayed by the prior Government. Katie Nimon: What does the Government policy statement mean for the people of Napier?Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government has also listed the Hawke's Bay Expressway as another road of national significance increasing resilience in the Hawke's Bay. This critical priority was especially highlighted during the recent cyclone where the two-lane road was one of the only roads available for people to use. Four-laning it will make a huge difference for the people of the Hawke's Bay.Hon Chris Bishop: What does this announcement mean for the good people of Wellington and the Hutt Valley?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Great news for the good people of Wellington and the Hutt Valley. After years of delay we are prioritising the second Mount Vic tunnel and as the member will be very pleased Pētone to Grenada is on track.James Meager: What does the Government policy statement mean for Cantabrians?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Great news for Cantabrians: we've listed the Woodend bypass. I acknowledge Mr Doocey the local member of Parliament who's advocated for that road targeting one of the most dangerous stretches of road in New Zealand. We've also prioritised the second Ashburton bridge as a road of regional significance. While the previous Government talked a big game about transport we're actually going to get on and deliver.
7. Question No. 7—AgricultureJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of AgricultureQuestion No. 7—Agriculture7. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What update if any can he provide on the coalition Government's commitment to wool?Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Let me be very clear: this Government is committed to bringing back New Zealand wool. New Zealand was quite literally built off the sheep's back. New Zealand is still a world leader in quality wool. We're the largest exporter of strong wool accounting for 20 percent of strong wool traded globally. However the value of New Zealand wool exports has shrunk from $750 million in 2004 to an estimated $390 million in 2024—a dire situation where it literally costs more to shear a sheep than the income received. We acknowledge the need for revival for both the prosperity of our rural communities and our farmers and to achieve the wider Government objective of doubling the value of our exports.Jamie Arbuckle: What policies has the Government committed to?Hon MARK PATTERSON: As part of the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement we have committed that we will back our farmers our primary sector and regional New Zealand. We will direct Government agencies to preference the use of woollen fibres over artificial fibres in Government buildings. Where practical and appropriate we'll back the sustainable natural product. No longer will rural schools be forced against their will to put in synthetic carpets. This initiative has garnered widespread support notably Greg Smith CEO of Bremworth carpets who says—and I quote—This has the potential to be one of the most significant changes in the wool industry since synthetic fibres were introduced two decades ago."Jamie Arbuckle: What other incentives can the wool industry look forward to?Hon MARK PATTERSON: Other initiatives that the wool industry can look forward to is that we are absolutely committed to working with farmers at the farm gate in their rural communities not like the last Government from Wellington ivory towers—SPEAKER: No that's not—no no talk about your Government and your programme.Hon MARK PATTERSON: Not from Wellington ivory towers. The Minister of Agriculture has announced a woolshed tour commencing in April where we'll be engaging with farmers from Northland to Southland to outline the opportunities and to seek their feedback. I've been travelling across New Zealand engaging with industry and I'm incredibly excited at some of the innovation that's going on within the manufacturing sector. I'm aware that to date farmers have not been well informed. Since the disestablishment of the Wool Board the sector has lacked cohesive leadership. A national roadshow will be occurring across the next three months that will help to shape our thinking of how we revitalise this critical rural industry."
4. Question No. 4—Prime MinisterHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Acting Prime MinisterQuestion No. 4—Prime Minister4. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements about educational achievement in schools?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes in the context in which they were delivered.Hon Marama Davidson: Has he seen evidence from the recent Programme for International Student Assessment study which shows dropping achievement can be explained by the number of students coming to school hungry?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most certainly we're aware of that report. It is a misnomer. The reasons why there is so much massive failure at school is to do with truancy and a whole lot of other reasons—for an education system that began in 1877 making school attendance compulsory. If you start there you might start getting the education system fixed up.Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to findings that achievement for students in food poverty is up to four years behind their peers who never miss a meal?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again the report that that member would have been aware of commissioned by that former Government and reported on in 2023 under sections 24 and 25 does not find any such outcome in the way that member mistakenly is implying.Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept findings in the recent independent evaluation of the school lunches programme that it contributes to happier and healthier students which is likely to result in better school outcomes?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It was a report that also said that there was improving [nutrition] intake particularly for those 7.3 percent of ākonga with least access to sufficient food at home". It went on to say "However the evaluations have found no impact on attendance" and with respect to Māori "who make up around 48 percent of students receiving the programme [they] have not benefited on most metrics such as school functioning (e.g. paying attention in class) health and mental wellbeing (with mental wellbeing worse off for those in the programme)." Now those are the screaming facts that Māori want to know about.Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to improving student wellbeing and school achievement by keeping the healthy school lunches programme beyond 2025 and expanding it in the future to more learners struggling with food poverty?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well that member will be aware that the very programme itself had a finality about it and that's the issue we're talking about right now that Mr Seymour is addressing. Mr Seymour is addressing whether we're getting value for money or as we're told by so many teachers at our schools there is such massive waste. And our job is to ensure that when we make available programmes like that they do work. So a very sensible rational evaluation needs to be done now rather than a screaming reaction that says that every cent spent is spent well. And it's not the case at all. Go and ask the teachers go and ask real Māori who know down in the schools what's going on. Ask somebody who's been in a classroom not somebody who's forgotten what it's like."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Crown accounts?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well this morning Treasury released the Government's financial statements for the seven months ending 31 January 2024. These show that core Crown tax revenue was $800 million below what was forecast in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) in December. Core Crown expenses were also lower than forecast in the HYEFU by a billion dollars. The OBEGAL deficit—the operating balance before gains and losses—was $400 million higher than forecast. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why did tax revenue come in below forecast?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Lower than expected tax revenue is consistent with the economy being weaker than forecast in the half-year update. Since the half-year update GDP results indicate that New Zealand's economic slow-down occurred earlier and more deeply than previously thought. As a result the economy will almost certainly be in a weaker position this year than was anticipated before Christmas and this has a direct flow-on to tax revenue. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What explains the lower OBEGAL result?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The fact that the OBEGAL deficit was $400 million worse than forecast was driven by two factors: one is the core Crown results I've just mentioned and the other is due to State-owned enterprises (SOE) which are outside the core Crown. The SOE results include a write-down of the Cook Strait ferry project. This follows the Government's decision to decline KiwiRail's request for significant additional funding to address cost escalations in that blow-out project. Dr Vanessa Weenink: How has core Crown expenditure changed over time? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Core Crown expenditure is forecast to be $140 billion over this financial year. That's a lot of money so I went back and I looked at what Government spending was in previous years and to my horror I found that since 2018 Government spending has increased by a total of 73 percent. That is a 73 percent increase over only six years. Once again this shows the financial mismanagement of the previous Government. SPEAKER: I'll just come back to the member the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: it's Standing Order 390(1) or (2) that I'd be relying on. I was thinking of the Standing Orders from 2017. I'm just perhaps a little behind the times from the latest publication but none the less the point was right.
Meager James; Kuriger BarbaraJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Kia ora Madam Speaker. The implication from members opposite is that if they were approached by an offender who asked them for help they'd say Yes but only for a fee." That is shameful. Reports remain; use them well; do it for free.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Ginny Andersen—[Interruption] Just a moment—I'm calling the Hon Ginny Andersen thank you."
Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Look in a sense I'm surprised we even have to legislate for something essentially as small as this. This is a very simple bill. What I'm hearing from the Opposition is that it's as though these reports will not exist anymore. Of course they'll exist—it is simply who is going to present the reports. Actually I would say that it is much more valuable for the judge to get a report from people—the whānau the friends; the people who know the offender rather than somebody who needs to be paid for it. Remember these paid-for reports did not exist until 2017 and then only barely. So we are still going to have access to those reports; it is merely that they are not going to be paid for. I commend this bill to the House.
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill. Let me be clear—I've heard a lot of discussion tonight; let me be clear one more time: this makes no changes to section 27 of the Sentencing Act. Those provisions are still available for offenders to make submissions to the court. That was what it was intended to do. What we are simply removing is the funding for reports often written by people with no connection to those offenders. I commend this bill to the House.
Goldsmith Paul; Kuriger BarbaraThird ReadingHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move that the Legal Services Amendment Bill—sorry. Firstly I present a legislative statement on the Legal Services Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a third time.In line with the Government's commitment to restoring law and order and improving the quality of Government spending this bill puts an end to the Government funding of section 27 reports. It's clear that in recent years the use of section 27 reports has evolved beyond what was intended when the legislation was first introduced. The result is a report-writing industry funded by taxpayers. The legal aid funding for section 27 reports has increased from approximately $40000 in 2017 to more than $7 million in the past financial year and this cannot be justified.The bill amends the Legal Services Act to prevent the commissioner from being able to approve claims for payment or costs relating to reports or statements made by a person called on under section 27 of the Sentencing Act. However importantly the bill does not change any other aspect of the Legal Services Act. Offenders will still be able to call a person they choose to provide background information to the court under section 27. This information can for example be provided by a family member or a friend in person or in writing without any cost. The court will still be able to take such information provided under section 27 into account at sentencing.Putting an end to the current funding arrangement for section 27 reports will mean that savings can be used to improve support for the victims of crime. We will monitor the impacts of the law change closely to inform decisions in that regard. The Government is focused on delivering on our wider law and order policies with the ultimate goal of improving public confidence in the justice system. This short bill is being progressed under urgency through all stages so that we can deliver on the commitments we were elected to do. I would like to thank MPs for their support of this important bill. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed.
Kuriger Barbara; Pugh MaureenHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Legal Services Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well thank you Madam Chair. Just in terms of the question around the use of 2024 I don't understand the point the member is making. So perhaps—it is 2024; that is the year we're in and so that's the year that we're referring to.Hon Rachel Brooking: It's in bold.Camilla Belich: Why's it in bold?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Why is it in bold? That is a mystery to which there is no clear answer.In terms of the second point that the member was making the point is that there's two steps in the process in the 14-day period: first the commissioner gives approval to incur a disbursement. So if that happens then after the 14 days when the bill comes in the commissioner can approve defer or decline the payment. So the payments could continue past the 14 days if in this period the grant for disbursement is approved and that is the transitional period.The other question was raised about the communications plan. The Ministry of Justice of course has a very comprehensive communications plan in place that will roll out the moment this bill is passed so that lawyers are made aware—everybody's made aware—at the earliest possibility that it has passed and that there is a 14-day period in which they can seek to have a grant for disbursement if they're currently in the system.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a short contribution to make on what is quite a technical part of the bill; these last transitional provisions in this new schedule inserted as a result of clause 5. So my questions are to the Minister of Justice: this bill is obviously passing through under urgency and we're early in the year and there's a specific drafting mechanism which is included in new Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1AA which bolds the year 2024". That is only as far as I'm aware used in bills in the House; it's not something that appears in legislation once it's passed. If the Minister could enlighten us as to why it's bolded when it's obviously—because of the Minister's decision—going to be passed this year? Does the Minister in fact think that there could be some delay at some stage or introduce further amendments?Hon Rachel Brooking: It sounds like Tim van de Molen wants a call.CAMILLA BELICH: It does sound like it.Tim van de Molen: Is the member happy with the size of the font?CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah it's quite interesting Mr van de Molen seems to have quite a lot to say on this bill but hasn't managed to take a call.Tim van de Molen: I did.CAMILLA BELICH: Well not in the hour and a half since I've been in the Chamber. As you'll be aware the relevance to the question is a job for the Chair which we have a very competent one in place Mr van de Molen.Anyway my second question which is also on technical matter is: in new Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1AA in clause 7 which has two subclauses(1) and (2)—in subclause (2) of clause 7 there is a provision for essentially claims that have been put before the commissioner but they haven't yet been approved or deferred or declined so it's only relevant for a very short period of time as I understand it as I read it. I'm happy to be corrected by the Minister and I hope he does have the opportunity to respond to these questions. In that small two-week period—because there is a two-week period prior to commencement but after the Act receives its Royal assent—subclause (2) of clause 7 of this provision allows the commissioner to approve and decline which I understand. So obviously if the law is not yet enacted the spending can still be approved—that's totally logical. It can also be declined—that is within the Commissioner's discretion. But what does happen when it's deferred? Surely it cannot in good faith and good conscience be deferred because if it is deferred and the Act does then commence during that period of deferral then the claim would automatically not be able to be fulfilled because the law would have come into place. So why is "defer" there? And if "defer" is there is there some requirement for that deferral to be resolved prior to the commencement of this bill? So I would like an answer for that please if the Minister wouldn't mind."
Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee— New Clause 4B
Pugh MaureenNew clause 4B CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment inserting new clause 4B proposing an amendment to the Sentencing Act 2002 is ruled out of order as proposing a substantive amendment to another Act which would change the bill into an omnibus bill. The Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment inserting new clause 4B inserting a new section 116A into the principal Act is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of this bill.
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I move That debate on this question now close.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you. Just wanted to respond to the questions around urgency. Of course most of the legislation in the justice space that the Government's going to be introducing will be going through the full select committee process such as the gangs legislation coming up and the firearms changes and that's appropriate that they should be considered.But ultimately it is the majority of the Parliament that passes the legislation and that member is part of a party that was part of the Government in the previous term with a clear majority that passed a whole lot of things against the wishes of a whole lot of people. That's just how the system works and if you do it to the extent that the majority of New Zealanders aren't happy with the direction that you've taken you get thrown out. That's how our system works and so that's called democratic accountability.So in terms of getting this legislation through it's worth noting that the change whereby legal aid was used to fund these reports was not the subject of consultation or legislation or any democratic process—it just happened through a change of process. We are unwinding that and we think it's a straightforward change that should be made swiftly and that is why we're doing it in this way.
van de Molen TimTIM van de MOLEN (National—Waikato): I move That debate on this question now close.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh come on. No.
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): I have a quite simple and specific question for the Minister. There's a repeated pattern in the House that we find from the Government and we heard it from the Minister this evening which uses the argument that because they won an election on it therefore the legislation is good and solid. Now I do not believe that the Minister seriously thinks that is a legitimate justice argument for this piece of legislation because it utterly speaks to the tyranny of the majority. When we know as the Minister has articulated that Māori are more likely to be the victims of crime and when we know that there are shameful statistics about the disproportionate and the unjust treatment of Māori in our justice system such that we have prisons that have disproportionate representation of Māori it would be very concerning that decisions that impacted the rightful justice applied to citizens that were not in the majority would be made simply by the dictate of the majority.So I just wanted to get clear from the Minister that when he makes that argument he is not seriously suggesting that this House should accept that as a credible argument for a piece of justice legislation. Justice by definition must be outside the rule of the majority; that's why we have a bill of rights. That's why we have a justice system that says all of us are entitled to basic precepts of care and a right to a voice and a right to be heard—habeas corpus the likes he knows well. I'm sure the Minister would welcome the opportunity to correct the misperception that may have been created by the suggestion that the majority can dictate how our justice system works and particularly in a context of a Government that is so willing to articulate the overriding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi; so willing to say that it is prepared to take potentially to a referendum the question of whether we should uphold a constitutional commitment made in the founding of our country in 1840. That surely is something that the Minister would be concerned to clarify for the purpose of the House and the public that they are not suggesting that the majority can decide this.I'm concerned to hear the response to Hon Willie Jackson when he said there was no consultation with iwi and there was none with justice experts. So you have not consulted with iwi; you have not consulted with justice experts. Are you saying that only by dint of the fact you campaigned and won an election you are going to change this law to make it less just in the opinion of this side of the House certainly?
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move That debate on this question now close.
Weenink VanessaDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move That debate on this question now close.
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move That debate on this question now close.