edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate again the opportunity to speak on this bill the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill. The speaker who just resumed her seat Karen Chhour said the people that we work for". I'd like to know who the Opposition actually listens to. In regards to income insurance Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions have been consulted. Business New Zealand represents all businesses across the country and the union also represents the working people. I just want to know: who do they work for? We on this side of the House listen to people and we work for the people. We listen to the people that we work for.This bill is short it's simple and it's straightforward. This bill does a lot of things but one thing that I like and Jan Logie just touched on is the Crown's responsibility and commitment to Treaty of Waitangi principles by requiring ACC to engage with Māori and to be purposeful in developing a scheme that will contribute to improving Māori economic and labour market outcomes. This is good but also does recognise the need to listen to workers and employers when designing the scheme by requiring ACC to engage with representatives of workers and employers. This is very important. In the last two years the pandemic has taught us a lot of things but one of the things that it taught us is to actually value our workers who through no fault of their own lose their jobs across this country.So this bill is a good bill. I'd like to thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. I commend this bill to the House."
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Kia ora Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take another call about this. I think it's—maybe it's the teacher in me but it's great to take an opportunity to correct a bit of misunderstanding. It sounds like somebody hasn't done their homework. Not only is it obvious that they haven't read the bill but there are people who maybe might not have even read the title of the bill Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill.There's nothing sneaky about this. Obviously there are people on the other side of the House who are so out of touch with business that they are unaware that this conversation has been going on for years. Like I say when we've heard earlier today about the fantastic responses to things like the earthquakes and to COVID what this bill does—and it is timely—is it helps us to prepare not just to react but to prepare for shocks personal shocks like illness that has been referred to earlier regional shocks sectoral shocks and global shocks. This helps us to prepare.When I say us" I mean workers and I mean businesses. So out of touch on the other side of the House they have no understanding how important it is that we collectively support businesses in such situations. We are really really clear that it is important especially in a tight job market that we can have space to ensure that we have skills retained rehabilitated or progress education. Because we need to make sure that our human resource in our economy is well looked after that we can ensure productive capacity is where it should be. This is progressive. It is thoughtful. This bill is enabling the development of this collaboratively. I commend this bill to the House."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well this piece of legislation itself the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill is a very short and quite simple and straightforward bill. It doesn't put in place a social income insurance scheme or it doesn't indicate that the Government has already made a decision about putting in place a social insurance scheme. What it does do is it ensures that we're in a position to set up a social insurance scheme if that decision is made by allowing ACC to engage in the work to develop the scheme. What we know is that over 100000 people a year in New Zealand lose their job through no fault of their own. A scheme such as this if it was to come into place would provide some assurance some room to breathe some time to think for people should they lose their job and find themselves in that situation. Simon Watts talked about how it would only be relatively used by up to 50000 people per annum. That is the nature of insurance. We pay house insurance we pay contents insurance. We may never use it but it is there should we need it should we find ourselves in the position. So this bill—simple short quite straightforward—simply allows us to begin the process of putting into place the preparatory work required should this social insurance scheme come into place. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Has there ever been a worse time for a Government to try and cook up another new tax and disguise it as a levy to punish every worker and every business in this country? Has there ever been a worse time when people are struggling under a cost of living crisis when people are struggling with increased interest rates hurting their mortgages putting their rent up? Has there ever been a worse time when inflation is running at a 30-year high and businesses are struggling to recover from COVID? And has there ever been a worse time when a Government is addicted to spending not only today's money but tomorrow's to cook up this way in which to punish every worker and every business in this country?If there was anyone left out in New Zealand that had any doubt about how out of touch this Government is the Minister would have removed that doubt in her opening speech when she said Now is the time."—"Now is the time." which were the exact words from her speech. Now is the time to cook up another way to take 1.39 percent off every worker and every business! Now is not the time. The National Party knows that. The National Party opposes this bill."
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. There's been a lot of emotion this morning. I think it's because the National Party realise they have been backed into a corner here and they have a choice. They have a choice today to actually support 2.1 million workers. That's actually what this is today. They can heckle all they like but the reality is that in about two minutes' time we're going to vote on this bill and they're going to vote no. This bill supports 2.1 million workers and they're going to vote no.They've been talking about the average worker and they know that the average wage in this country is less than $70000 but they keep saying it's higher. People can draw their own conclusions as to why they do that knowing that it's not true. The facts are that a worker on the average wage will benefit from this package. But I wonder why they keep using average over median. Because when you're looking at average wages they could increase the wages of every single CEO in the country the people they want to give tax cuts to and the average wage will go up. But the rest of New Zealanders don't benefit. That's why the average wage is a poor measure.The median wage when you have the same number of workers above that line as you have below is significantly lower—2.1 million workers. Between this payment and the winter energy payment four out of five workers will be receiving assistance from this Government over winter.Here's something for people to reflect on: the National Party voted against the winter energy payment and they refused to answer a question as to whether they will scrap it if they were to win the election. The National Party is about to vote no for this out of spite. They are in their minds letting the good be the enemy of the perfect because they are so puritan to think that only tax cuts are the answer. But tax cuts won't help those that need it. Even Chris Luxon admits that. When he was asked what the highest earners will do if they got a tax cut he would say They would probably save it." How is that targeted for those that are hurting under a cost of living issue? It's not. It's looking after the big end of town. That's what they care about. They have a chance to prove me wrong but I guarantee you right now they won't."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): This will be a lot better I assure you. This bill is short-term measures for a long-term problem a cost of living band-aid on what is becoming a rapidly growing wound for Kiwi households. Hard-working Kiwis are going backwards under this Labour Government. A reactive response a tactical response is what we've seen in this bill. As Kiwis go into Christmas this year they go into Christmas with a lack of certainty and a lack of trust and confidence in a Government who doesn't have their backs.The ANZ quoted yesterday Inflation isn't just a global problem that New Zealand is importing; it's a domestic issue too."—completely in contrast to what we've heard from the other side. I tell you what let's take a look at the front page of the Dominion Post today which I'm holding up now. I think this personifies the reality and the attitude of Kiwis to this Budget. We have a finance Minister who is absolutely addicted to spending and that page summarises how much of a flop this Budget is.Labour's spending addiction means this country's books are going backwards—a bill that is part of an unprecedented $6.5 billion of new spending of which this bill makes up $814 million. The squeezed middle in this country are paying the price for a Labour Government's lack of fiscal discipline and mismanagement. If you're the average wage earner in this country on $72000 under this what we heard yesterday you get nothing under Labour.Total Government borrowings are now over $200 billion. Debt is increasing at 41 percent of GDP and the average Kiwi family is paying $150 extra a week on living costs so $27 a week for three months is a short-term sugar hit. It is not going to be anything of substance. New Zealanders need a sustainable long-term plan. Under National National would fight inflation. Under National's tax plan someone on the average income of $72000 per annum would be better off by $860 a year. Under Labour they get nothing. A National Government which I am proudly part of led by Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis will deliver to New Zealanders and provide meaningful long-term relief for a crippling impact of a cost of living crisis and more importantly deliver an aspirational future for this country."
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It is always an honour and a privilege to speak in this House especially today. And can I acknowledge the Minister of Finance. Yesterday he gave us a balanced balanced Budget. He said The investments we are making in this Budget build on the progress [we've] made in Budget 2021." And may I remind this House what the goal of the Budget is: securing our future. One we are continuing to keep New Zealand safe from COVID-19. Two we're accelerating the recovery from the rebuild and impacts of COVID-19. Three we are laying the foundations for the future including addressing key issues such climate change change housing affordability and child poverty. Yesterday I heard the leader of the National Party say "The bureaucrats—they're getting thousands of bureaucrats." The wage subsidy last year—we had the historic payment to businesses by those public servants. If it weren't for those public servants the payments would not reach the businesses so they can pay their workers. The wage the subsidy the winter energy payment—the average wage in the Papakura electorate is $56000; $27 at Countdown Papakura today would get you the following: one loaf of bread one butter two litre milk one kilogram of rice a dozen eggs a block of cheese a can of tuna. What can you get for $2 if the National Party had their tax cuts? A $2 toilet paper—the cheapest toilet paper is $2. People when we're talking about real people we're talking about averages. Unfortunately Pacific people always end up at the bottom and I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Prime Minister in that as well. I've ran out of time because it's a quick call but I want to acknowledge this side of the House—when we're talking about people we know what those people are eating every day because we speak with them we talk with them. And when we're talking about average people we are talking about mums and dads next door to us. I end this by saying I commend this bill to the House. Malo."
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to rise and I am delighted to speak in this third reading. For 81 percent of New Zealanders 2.1 million people the average wage is 68K—$68000 roughly. I don't know where they got their figures from; probably the same place that $4 billion fiscal hole was from.Basically I looked at what this means for everyday New Zealanders. Basically what I did was I calculated my income when I was pre here in Parliament. I was on roughly around $70000. So I looked at that $70000 and I still kind of spend like I'm still on that salary. So I looked at the cost of what I would be getting for the $116 per month for the three months. And for those of you who are concerned that IRD does not have your bank account number we urge you to be in touch. Just go online and give them your bank account number. Some people don't like to give the IRD their bank account number but that's OK. If you want this you'll do so.So there were 14 items that I could purchase for $104: white rice cheese 8 litres of milk bread 10 kilos of potatoes 4 kilos of frozen drum sticks royal gala apples mixed vegetables spread tea bags coffee sugar pasta silver beet fruit jam and crunchy peanut butter. I still had $10 left over was going to whip down to The Warehouse and buy their $10 can of Milo for the kids. So I also looked and I have 65 litres in my vehicle and I could get 40 litres of fuel. I actually put $60 a week into my vehicle for fuel so that's going to help tremendously. The other thing: I pay $60 a week on power. So this is two weeks out of four weeks of power paid for me. So when we hear all of these wonderful things about how terrible it is actually real Kiwis are going to have more in their pocket. It's going to help us to manage this short-term issue and I'm really pleased and delighted to commend it to the House.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): ACT and National members in this House are right that yesterday's Budget was a difficult one to prepare in volatile and uncertain times around the world and with inflation this week in the UK spiking to 9 percent. It was a difficult thing to do and I commend the finance Minister for his balanced approach that responds to the pressures that people are feeling. This bill establishes the payments that will go directly to middle income earners to help with the cost of living pressures that are hitting people hard right now. That's the difference—that's the difference when you have a Labour Government that sees the need of working people and responds immediately. That's the difference when the Government sees a crisis of COVID coming from a global pandemic and responds to keep people secure. That is what you have when you have a Labour Government that keeps people secure in their health and secure economically and financially. I thank the finance Minister for his work on this Budget.There is one thing that hasn't been well canvassed in this House and I want to speak to it. That is the fact that the payments that this bill enables will be paid to almost all students. Labour has always been the party of students. We have ensured fair access to tertiary education. We are the party that introduced interest-free student loans. We are the party that stands with students to access tertiary education that is fair and available through the country.Students are a group that has been hit hard by rising living costs while studying as rent transport and food payments are a very large proportion of their costs. Students also are often precariously employed and don't have stable incomes. There is no application needed for these payments to go to students. They will go directly to their bank accounts because they have IRD numbers.There are also other things in the Budget for students which makes students a huge winner in this Budget. They are things like easier access to first-home grants which is something we haven't had before for this age group. There's the small-business loan scheme which means that students starting out as business owners and entrepreneurs will have a huge boost to the way they can begin businesses when they don't have homes to borrow against which has been the way that small-business owners have had access to capital in the past. This Government has also introduced the Community Connect scheme which will provide half-price transport for everyone who holds a Community Services Card which will be most students.So these payments in this bill will be a big boost for students and I am proud of that. I'm proud to stand with a Labour Government that responds to need where we see it and sticks true to our values. I commend this bill.
Coffey TamatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Yeah history is important. We must remember history and let's remember that when 2020 came around and the National Party put out their alternative Budget they had a $4 billion fiscal hole in it—a $4 billion fiscal hole—and when it was pointed out to them they didn't do anything about it. So everything that they have stood up and said today you should regard with a grain of salt because National are out of touch they don't get the numbers right and over on this side of the House we do. That is why we need to be celebrating this cost of living payment. But it's not just a payment it's a package. It's an absolute package. I want to give props where they are absolutely due. That is to the Minister of Finance Grant Robertson for doing that; that is to our Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern for actually putting this package together and listening to the voices of New Zealanders because it was the voices of New Zealanders and we know it. That's right—we've got 65 MPs on this side of the House that go back home into our communities after we've left this building and they tell us about the cost of living crisis. We see it in our families we see it in the people that we represent and for that reason we've brought this package to the House. The cost of living payment is going to cost us $814 million but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the kind of funding that we put out there into the community but this is absolutely going to help those in our communities: a $350 payment and let us not undervalue that. A $350 payment is a lot of money especially when it's going not to households but to actual individuals. That's the difference here and that's going to make the difference for 2.1 million people who are not getting the winter energy payment already. And let's not overlook that as well: the winter energy payment is already going to over a million New Zealanders out there supporting them. But let's not see that in isolation because on 1 April we actually brought in a raft of changes which made things better for our superannuitants for our students for those people that get Working for Families tax credits. We are absolutely making a difference to the cost of living for everyday New Zealanders. That side of the room they are out of touch. Check out their social media. Last night they put out social media talking about our package talking about what they would do and talking about the average Kiwi income being $72000. Hon Member: It is.TAMATI COFFEY: I've got news for that member: back home in Rotorua we aren't as lucky to get $72000 every single year like the rich mates of the people on that side of the room. Back home our average median income is a mere $28500. The average personal income back home in Rotorua for the average Kiwi is $28500. They will not be served well by the National Party and their proposed tax package on that side of the House. They will under this bill and I'm pleased to support it to this House.
Salesa Jenny; Rurawhe AdrianHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill and reports it without amendment. Mr Speaker I move that the report be adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Overnight we've learnt that people in America have seen our Budget before we did. Newspapers had access to the content of our Budget which inextricably can't be explained by Treasury yet. But it would actually augur something that is in consistency with this bill which is just rushed rushed rushed. And we at the ACT Party who were the first to actually expose the cost of living crisis—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Ha ha!DAMIEN SMITH: Well actually it—and that's right Mr Goldsmith and then you took on the crusade—would identify that at a dollar per day over the next year. Is that really going to solve the cost of living crisis in New Zealand? I don't think so. And I think the polls will still show that after this reaction to this payment it won't stop here. Come October more will be needed. Unbudgeted aid that hasn't been allocated yet will have to be discussed. Inflation is not going away. Monetary policy next week would show that the cost of living will increase further through mortgage interest rates. But getting back to the bill. The cost of a Labour vote has been defined as $350. The tax per person in this country has gone up from $15825 to—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! Can the member come back to the debate that we're having right now which is on title and commencement?DAMIEN SMITH: Yeah it's relevant—because the title of this bill with regards to the office that has described it is actually going to tell Kiwis that the cost of living payments bill is going to solve their problems. And it's not. So we at the ACT Party want to make it very clear today before we go into the weekend that this is a bill that's described as something that's not going to help and it's not going to actually define what the problem is. Thank you.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to join my colleague Gerry Brownlee to look at the title and commencement of this bill because you'd ask yourself with the Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill made up on the hoof what took it so long. What we do know when we read the limited paperwork that is on the Table this morning is this bill was only thought about a couple of weeks ago. This Government has been dragged kicking and screaming into the cost of living crisis. They wouldn't even admit it and now here we have a policy—in fact the total expenditure of $800 million sits outside the Budget of $6 billion. That's how much this bill is made off the hoof.I just want to quote some figures from Stuff NZ this morning. They called it the cost of living reality check. Renters—the cost increase for them has been $52.75 a week for a couple bearing in mind the uplift from this bill is only $54 so it cancels itself out whereas for a homeowner they'll get $54 a couple under this bill—the cost pressures increase has been $134.25.So here we have a Government that's put a bill up but let's not forget if we're talking about commencement it doesn't start till 1 August. Why doesn't it start till 1 August? Well they've made it up off the hoof and they're not ready to implement it yet. Even in the Minister's own words they still don't have 200000 people who are entitled to this; they don't have their bank details. That's 10 percent. Then they still need to employ 750 full-time equivalents and we know under this Government that won't be a ceiling; that will be a minimum—so a thousand new bureaucrats on top of the 10000 increase they have already employed.And this Government's got form in this space. Let's not forget the legislation we had to bring before the House around the road-user charges with the reduction of the excise tax—poorly thought-through legislation and here we have a bill that doesn't have the right title and we would argue the commencement's too late but of course this Government is too late into the cost of living crisis. They would not accept it they would not call it a crisis and now they are giving a bare minimum as my colleague Gerry Brownlee said—a squirrel up a tree—to say Hey we're doing something." But when you drill down in the figures this does not cover the true cost for struggling Kiwis. And let's not forget the average Kiwi wage at $72000 will not qualify for the $350."
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): This bill as it lies on the Table is referred to as the Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill. It should be called the Cost of Living (Look at the Squirrel Running up the Tree) Bill" because that's basically what it asks New Zealanders to do. Why do I say that? Well to qualify an income can't go over $70000.Kieran McAnulty: Point of order Madam Chair. The member is extremely experienced. He knows that he can't use debates on this clause to criticise the content of the bill and proposing that a bill be called "a squirrel going up a tree" I would argue is exactly that.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Speaking to the point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): It is myself who is able to rule things in or out of order. I would allow the member to continue.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you Madam Chair. As I was saying the bill should be called the "Cost of Living (Look at the Squirrel Running up the Tree) Bill" because that is what it asks New Zealanders effectively to do. Seventy-thousand dollars is the threshold—for someone earning—to get this payment. Let's look at that $70000. That person will be paying $14000 in tax leaving them with a $56000 income and slightly less when you take off ACC and anything else that the Government might like to throw on as a result of this particular bout of urgency. But of that $56000 $4000 has already been lost in purchasing power through the current inflation rate—$4000 out of an annual income through last year's inflation rate—and we're being asked to support a bill that apparently is going to make up for that by giving people $350. It is an absolute misleading of people in New Zealand. I don't begrudge anybody getting the money—they need it—but it is just inappropriate to call it a cost of living payment when it goes nowhere near that cost of living and when Government policy riddled throughout this Budget is robbing people because of the high inflation rates we have at the present time. Four thousand dollars for that $70000 earner is lost in purchasing power and the Government wants to deny it's happening."
Salesa JennyTHURSDAY 19 MAY 2022(continued on Friday 20 May 2022)TAXATION (COST OF LIVING PAYMENTS) BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Good morning members as we recognise Pink Shirt Day today.Members the committee is resumed for further consideration of the Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill. I remind members that they're able to participate remotely. If you're on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you'd like to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I'll advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment.Finally it'd be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during the call.Members before we move to consideration of clauses 1 and 2 last night during the votes of closure Part 1 and Part 1 stand part the votes were recorded incorrectly. The correct vote on both votes was 67 votes in favour 42 votes against and 10 votes in abstention.Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 and 2 which is the debate on the title and commencement."
Wednesday 11 May 2022 (continued on Thursday 12 May 2022) - Volume 759
Special Debates — Climate Change Response Act 2022 — Emissions Budgets
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That this House express its support for the following proposed domestic emissions budgets which set out the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that will be permitted in each emissions budget period as a net amount of carbon dioxide equivalent and are to be notified under the Climate Change Response Act 2002: 290 megatonnes (million tonnes) carbon dioxide equivalent in the first emissions budget period 2022-25; 305 megatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in the second emissions budget period 2026-30; and 240 megatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in the third emissions budget period 2031-35.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the House take note of the report of the Environment Committee on the Inquiry into the Natural and Built Environments Bill.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Report noted.
Special Debates — Inquiry on the Natural and Built Environments Bill — Report of the Environment Committee
New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Speaker. As a Wellingtonian proud of this great city's heritage I was reminded as people were speaking of those once spoken words by the late Alan Martin of L V Martin an appliance store here who said It's the putting right that counts." and so that's what we're doing with this bill. We're making sure now that it is possible to put things right in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.We've heard today from my colleagues but I did want to acknowledge Ministers Parker and Faafoi for their work the Privileges Committee and of course those submitters who have come in. It sounds like from the previous speaker that there was certainly a high calibre of thought and input into this bill.I wanted to reinforce a few things and that is what we haven't had up until this point a mechanism that allows the executive to properly and publicly consider the existing legislation in light of the court's finding. This bill seeks to put that right.In terms of what else the bill can do and as the Minister noted when he opened the Privileges Committee has done an excellent job in considering the bill and hearing submissions and changes that have been coming out and provided us with an even better piece of legislation including those aforementioned time frames for the Government's response. I'm not going to repeat that but I do want to just finish by talking about some practical effects of this and that is that there will be a clear process and mechanism for this House and the Government to respond in terms of a declaration of inconsistency and what that leads to and really a transparent right and proper opportunity for consideration to be given to the issues raised by the New Zealand public so they can be confident that this House is taking those issues seriously. I commend the bill to the House."
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (remote): Talofa lava Madam Speaker and thank you for the call. It is a real privilege to be able to take a short call on this particular bill. It's also a privilege for me to actually sub into the Privileges Committee for the hearing of evidence and consideration of this bill so I'd like to actually at this point acknowledge all the submitters. I can comfortably say I think in the room at the time that we were hearing the evidence we had the who's who of constitutional and public law here in New Zealand to submit on this bill including as the previous member Golriz Ghahraman has said the architects of the first New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Sir Ken Keith. We also had renowned academics Claudia Geiringer Andrew Geddis and Dr Dean Knight from Victoria University. So there were plenty of fans both sitting with the public and also with some of us who were around the select committee table.So as already covered by previous members this bill does respond to the Supreme Court's decision in Attorney-General v Taylor. Basically the Supreme Court determined that the senior courts have the power to issue declarations of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but actually there was no mechanism which ensured that executive or the House gives serious public reconsideration to the legislation in light of that judicial comment. This bill is really important because it now provides a process for that reconsideration to occur and the committee of the whole House stage of this bill will be really important for all members of the House to be able to take part to both ask those questions of the Minister but also we need to think ahead for what the process will be. Because one of the key considerations that the Privileges Committee considered was whether any of the parliamentary process should be specified in statute. The Privileges Committee concluded that it shouldn't be. We concluded that the House has exclusive cognisance over how its proceedings are conducted and this exclusive right to control its own operations is one of the House's privileges. So I'd like to conclude my short contribution by just encouraging members at the committee of the whole House stage of this bill to be active in participation. This bill is really important it also gives us an opportunity to really set the process for future declarations of inconsistency. So I'd like to commend this bill to the House.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well as my colleague Chris Penk from the Regulations Review Committee spoke about he mentioned what other democracies are doing in this space and he mentioned the United States. I think last week a few of us felt a shiver down our spines as we received texts about a leaked document suggesting that a 40-year-old precedent of Roe v Wade was soon to be overturned. Democracy shares strong common values of representation accountable leadership and rights-based architectures but each is forged in its own crucible. It's often only where these balance of fundamental rights are tested that the unique aspects of each distinct democratic architecture—with all its nuances and all its history—are questioned and then we find those echoed through front-page news stories. And really fundamental to the alchemy that happens in the constitutional crucible for each distinct democracy are two questions. Firstly where our collective imagination will agree the lines of decision making between the three limbs of Government that colleagues have spoken to—so the executive the legislature and the judiciary. Secondly the process that should govern tensions between those lines. I think that in the bustle of the legislative agenda it would be easy to see this bill as routine but it's not. It holds really earthy democratic significance. It concerns the second of the two questions—how to manage the tensions between our limbs of Government. Paul Rishworth talks in an article that he wrote for Britomart Chambers about the idea of a declaration of inconsistency essentially being a bridge between judicial authority and parliamentary supremacy. And he says With declarations Courts can express their conclusions in a formal way with the gravitas that a considered judicial opinion implies but it lies with Parliament to choose whether and how to respond." So this bill essentially acts as that bridge to close the gap creating a pathway between a declaration itself and active consideration by Parliament of that declaration while still maintaining Parliament's ultimate supremacy in terms of lawmaking. It does that as colleagues have spoken to by requiring the Attorney-General to notify Parliament when these declarations are made but also requiring a Government response within six months. As much as this increases the presence within our conversations of key judicial reflections to my mind it's also confirmation of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty as essentially the locus of power within our system. This is a significant step in our story of democracy and I commend this bill to the House."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. A real pleasure to speak on this bill. As I think Mr Woodhouse and others have noted it's a really fascinating bill that gets the brain cells working about the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament and that we have to be very very careful indeed as to how we tinker with that relationship particularly through legislation. The thrust of this bill is that when the courts say that there is an inconsistency in legislation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it's appropriate for it to be taken very seriously indeed not only by Parliament but also by Government. The Attorney-General has a role to bring it to the attention of Parliament but most importantly what the Privileges Committee—and I was very privileged to sit on that committee—said is No we need more. We actually need a substantive response from Government." So the committee suggested to this House that it adopt certain rules so that a select committee consider these questions.I just note as an aside that these questions are very important and I know that there's litigation in train in respect of the voting age to make it 16 and that is going on I think to the Supreme Court. Look if that is a declaration in that respect that is absolutely something we need to look at very closely. A select committee is a great vehicle to do that. The Government can then respond on the select committee advice to this House in the last statement which are all in the Standing Orders—because legislation isn't really the appropriate place but proposed Standing Orders to have a debate in this House to explain and expand on why the position has been taken and whether it should be adjusted by some part of the Government's programme whatever Government that might be. So I think real improvements on a very well-advised select committee but another part of the kind of constitutional jostling that goes on between Parliament and the judiciary. But I do think the constitution the flexible constitution that we have here in New Zealand is much the better for it. Kia ora Madam Speaker."
Tuesday 10 May 2022 - Volume 759
Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 1 stand part. All those in favour say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. A party vote has been called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote. [Interruptions]Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Point of order Madam Chairperson. There is a prescribed way of voting in this House and I hope that's going to be taken into account in the vote count.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you for pointing that out the Hon David Parker.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Nicola Grigg's tabled amendments to Schedule 2 new Schedule 1AB to replace items 1 and 2 with new items 1 and 2(c) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Scott Simpson's tabled amendment to Schedule 2 new Schedule 1AB to replace item 14 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Stuart Smith's tabled amendment to Schedule 2 new Schedule 1AB to replace item 16 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 3 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule 3 agreed to.
Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 77 Noes 43.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Scott Simpson's tabled amendment to Schedule 1 new Schedule 1AA to replace clause 3(4) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Scott Simpson's tabled amendment to Schedule 1 new Schedule 1AA to replace clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Joseph Mooney's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 17A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Nicola Grigg's tabled amendment to delete clause 21A(3) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 77 Noes 43.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
VoteThe question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Nicola Grigg's tabled amendment to clause 8 to replace new section 11(3)(aa) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Barbara Kuriger's tabled amendment to clause 8 to replace new section 11(3)(b) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Scott Simpson's tabled amendments to clause 8 to replace new section 12(3) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Retail Payment System Bill — In Committee—Part 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 3 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 agreed to.
Retail Payment System Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Retail Payment System Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members this debate is interrupted. I will resume the Chair after dinner at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Plant Variety Rights Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Plant Variety Rights Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 108 Noes 12.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare this House in committee.