edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
12. Tourism Minister—Estimates AdviceHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of TourismTourism Minister—Estimates Advice12. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): The statements I've made and the actions I've taken regarding the tourism portfolio I stand by but I do not stand by the comments I made to the member in select committee last week and I hope the member has accepted my apology.Hon Jacqui Dean: How did he prepare for the Estimates examination of his tourism portfolio?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As any Minister does. Through the experience of being the Minister you actually learn quite a lot about the portfolio. The opening address I gave was substantive. I gave a number of substantive answers to the questions that were in scope. Those questions that were out of scope I don't think they should expect substantive answers.Hon Jacqui Dean: Has he seen any reports describing his performance and inability to answer questions as vacant" "complacent" and "the worst performance of any Minister ever"?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I believe those came from a member of her own party and like I say where the questions were in scope of the tourism portfolio I gave substantive answers. Where those questions were out of scope they shouldn't expect substantive answers.Hon Jacqui Dean: Would the Minister support being recalled to the select committee to answer questions?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I read the transcript of the Estimates today and I was actually really proud of the answers I gave.Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister didn't answer my question. I asked him whether he would support being recalled to the select committee to answer questions.SPEAKER: And I probably should have—I was I think being a bit kind to the member. I probably should have ruled it out because whether or not he is recalled is actually not a matter for him; it's a matter for the committee.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: were the questions at the select committee spoken of somewhat akin and similar to the questions being asked in the House today?SPEAKER: Order! The member has no responsibility for either set of questions."
11. Budget 2018—Police FundingCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceBudget 2018—Police Funding11. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Can he confirm he sought operational funding of $515.3 million over 4 years to deliver his preferred model of 1800 new police in 3 years and alternatively sought $346.4 million over 4 years to deliver them in 4 years; if so why did Budget 2018 only appropriate $298.8 million in operational funding?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes no and Budget 2018 is the first of three this term.Chris Bishop: Why doesn't he just admit to the House and New Zealand that his 1800 new police are funded over five years not three given his own draft Cabinet papers make that clear as well as the appropriations in the Budget?Hon STUART NASH: Because that would be a lie.Chris Bishop: Does he agree that in order to reach an additional 1800 new police an extra 1000 officers will be needed because of police attrition and why does the Cabinet paper he prepared not take account of attrition when calculating the extra 1800 cops?Hon STUART NASH: Yes I do and yes it does.Chris Bishop: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the extra 1800 police: I want to make it very clear I want to make it very clear we have the money assigned to it."; and if so why is he now saying he will have to go back to Cabinet to get more money to deliver on his promises?Hon STUART NASH: The way the Budget works is Mr Grant Robertson has given me enough money to deliver this year. He has also assured me if I go back next year he will top me up and the following year he will also top me up.Chris Bishop: Why did the Prime Minister say the cost of the extra 1800 sworn police was $40 million when the actual cost is well over 10 times that amount?Hon STUART NASH: I didn't hear the Prime Minister say that at all."
10. NCEA—Review and ConsultationJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EducationNCEA—Review and Consultation10. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What opportunities do New Zealanders have to give their views on how NCEA can better prepare students for life after school?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I recently released as part of the national education conversation a discussion document on the review of the NCEA. We want to ensure that we are helping students leave school with qualifications that truly reflect their abilities and prepare them for a rapidly changing world. New Zealanders have the opportunity to provide their thoughts on the six big opportunities identified on the future of the NCEA via online surveys and submission forms. They can also attend workshops being held around the country over the next two months.Jo Luxton: How can younger New Zealanders take part and share their views on the future of the NCEA?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We believe it's very important that young New Zealanders whose futures are at stake have the opportunity to have their say on the future of the NCEA. New Zealanders between the ages of five and 20 can share their vision on the future of education by participating in the Make Your Mark competition. Students can participate in a variety of ways in conveying their vision for the future of education: artworks creative storytelling leading a workshop research papers and media projects. There are grants scholarships laptops and other prizes up for grabs. We want to hear how the NCEA can better support our young people in preparing them for further study work and life. Jo Luxton: Why is the coalition Government looking at updating the NCEA as part of the national education conversation?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The NCEA is a trusted and respected qualification internationally but employers are telling us that students are coming out of school not always with the right skills and we need more flexibility in what they are being taught. We also need to see less assessment and a greater focus on learning. The NCEA was introduced in 2002. It's now time to have a look at it and to see what we can do better to support young New Zealanders' pathways that reflect their learning needs and their strengths.
8. Internal Affairs Department—SmartStart WebsiteMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal AffairsInternal Affairs Department—SmartStart Website8. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What services has the Department of Internal Affairs provided to assist new parents?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): The Department of Internal Affairs has developed and supports a website called SmartStart and as of 28 February this year there've been nearly 300000 visitors to the site. They are able to access information about support services both during their pregnancy and after the birth of their child and while this is a good start we would like more people to access the service so that they can get information about local support for themselves for their children and also about possible financial support.Mark Patterson: How does the site help expectant parents and parents of newborns?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The website provides expectant parents information such as lead maternity providers and family services in their area and once the baby is born parents are able to register their birth online and then share that digital birth record with other agencies which in just one instance can save $33 for a family when they're sharing that information with the Ministry of Social Development. Currently 95 percent of the parents who access this site are sharing information with the Inland Revenue Department and this is important because in the Government's new Families Package all families with babies born after 1 July are entitled to receive $60 a week for the child's first year and those in a particular income bracket will get more support for the next two years. If their baby was due on or after 1 July but they had a premature baby they may also be eligible and so we'd like them to go to the SmartStart site and sign up so that we can make sure that they get the support from this Government that we have provided for their children to add to their children's well-being.
5. Housing New Zealand—Review of Meth Contamination StandardsVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHousing New Zealand—Review of Meth Contamination Standards5. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Why did he commission a review by the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman into meth contamination standards?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I have been sceptical of the methamphetamine contamination panic for several years and on 7 December it was reported that a Housing New Zealand tenant Robert Erueti had been evicted based on a minuscule meth reading even though it was known that he was not a meth user himself. The former Government spent $44000 putting Mr Erueti into motels for over a year as a result. I apologised to Mr Erueti and we found him a home and that same day I met with Sir Peter Gluckman and then sent him a letter commissioning this review. Virginia Andersen: Why did he apologise to the people evicted and blacklisted from State houses based on the flawed meth standard?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This Government is not to blame for what happened before we took office but we are responsible for fixing the problem and we are accountable to the people who were treated unfairly. Even though we didn't create this problem I felt it was still important that the public see that this Government is willing to front up admit when things have gone wrong and fix it for the future.Virginia Andersen: What actions is the Government now going to take in light of Sir Peter Gluckman's report?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: First Housing New Zealand has changed its policy and adopted the standard recommended by the Gluckman report. Secondly Minister Kris Faafoi has commissioned a review of Standards New Zealand's process used in the setting of standard NZS 1805. Third I've commissioned a comprehensive report from Housing New Zealand on the whole sorry saga and I will release that report publicly. Marama Davidson: Given Housing New Zealand knew concerns were being raised about these standards as far back as 2016 what steps is the Minister taking to ensure compensation for tenants who were forced to pay for meth tests and forced out of their homes?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I've commissioned a comprehensive report which will include a case by case account of every property that was meth-tested and all of the consequences that followed. I want to know who knew what when in the chronology of policy development both from the Ministry of Health Housing New Zealand and the Government of the day. When we've got the facts on the table then we can decide what the appropriate course of action is.
4. Superannuation—Disclosure of CircumstancesDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterSuperannuation—Disclosure of Circumstances4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she agree with the statement made by the Ministry of Social Development that The Ministry works hard to protect the integrity of the welfare system to ensure it remains fair for all New Zealanders which can include prosecution where clear evidence of fraud exists"?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.David Seymour: Would an example of such fraud be signing multiple false declarations that one's living arrangements had not changed in respect to receiving superannuation when in fact they had?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That statement verges on and it is subject to the sub judice rule. Just because he doesn't understand the law it's no reason for him to think he's going to challenge it in this House and besides which it's based on a lie. David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister saying that so long as somebody takes court proceedings they can get away with it for ever?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can handle it. SPEAKER: Well I have no—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He's about to get it. SPEAKER: I have no doubt the right honourable gentleman can but it's not an area of the Prime Minister's responsibility. David Seymour: Is the message that it is OK to make false statements and claim too much on one's superannuation so long as you have the connections to get away with it? SPEAKER: Order! That's also not a matter of the Prime Minister's responsibility. David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely the Prime Minister has responsibility for what is the largest-spending department in his Government. SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member has been making reference to matters which are sub judice. He knows that they are. He is asking the Prime Minister to comment on them and I'm not going to allow it. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee I hope you're not going to relitigate this ruling that I've just made because—Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. SPEAKER: —it's been very clear. Hon Gerry Brownlee: But it would be quite reasonable to ask a question about which bit of the Hansard record will show any mention of a case currently sub judice. SPEAKER: And none will and we all know what the member was referring to."
2. Families Package—Impact and FundingDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceFamilies Package—Impact and Funding2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government's Families Package assist low- and middle-income families; if so how?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes. Low and middle income families can look forward to a significant boost to their incomes through the targeted assistance provided by this Government's Families Package much of which will come into effect on 1 July. Among other things the package will increase Working for Families tax credits and raise the abatement threshold introduce a Best Start payment to assist families during the critical early years of a child's life and increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks. When the package is fully rolled out in 2021 385000 families with children will be better off by an average of $75 a week.Dr Deborah Russell: What specific examples can the Minister provide of the impact the Families Package will have on Kiwi families?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Families all around the country experiencing a range of living circumstances can expect further assistance come 1 July. From that date forward a couple living in the Selwyn electorate with a four-year-old and a newborn on a single income of $55000 will be better off by $129 a week than they are now. A sole parent with a newborn living in Wellington not in work who receives sole parent support will be better off by $112 a week through the winter months and $80 a week better off for the rest of the year. I would encourage all middle and low income families to be on the lookout for that date 1 July when paying the bills will get easier.Dr Deborah Russell: How will the Government fund the changes made through the Families Package?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: By reversing the previous Government's poorly targeted tax cuts—which would have disproportionately benefited the wealthy—which will save around $8.36 billion over the next four years. The investment we're making through the Families Package is estimated to be around $5.5 million over the same period. This means we can afford to provide significant assistance to children and families with further money left over to invest in critical public services such as health housing and education.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): My apologies Mr Bayly. Thank you Mr Chair.Rt Hon David Carter: You've waited all night for thisLAWRENCE YULE: Yes I have waited all night in the depths of winter. I want to acknowledge the Hon Stuart Nash for the way in which he's answered the questions on this Part 1 of the bill. I imagine this might be the last speech of the evening so in this I'm going talk about actually the fact that this is a bill that had a genesis with the Hon Judith Collins. It's been through a process it's been through a select committee process and—as a new person to Parliament and as a new person to this—it's actually a pretty complicated bill.It is projected to produce $270 million of extra revenue and there are lots of rorts that have been going on around interest rates valuations costs and all the rest of it.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): After listening to the Hon Amy Adams I was not convinced in any way shape or form there needs to be an amendment but after listening to the former revenue Minister Michael Woodhouse he does make a good point. My personal view is that it is clear. However in order to avoid any doubt whatsoever—because if doubt exists in the mind of the former revenue Minister then I'll take that on board—what I will propose is an amendment to clause 36(4) new section GC 13(6). So after and I quote—you may want to follow this—notifies the taxpayer that"—so this is in new section GC 13(6)—I will insert "a tax audit or investigation has commenced and"—Andrew Bayly: "And applies"?Hon Michael Woodhouse: That would be perfectly appropriate.Hon STUART NASH: —no—and then "this subsection applies". Will that satisfy the former Minister of Revenue?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Absolutely.Hon STUART NASH: So I do thank the former Minister of Revenue because he makes the point much clearer than his colleague and as a consequence of that I will table that amendment. Thank you very much."
Faafoi Kris; Rurawhe AdrianHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): I move That the question be now put. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith.
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much. Just to very quickly answer the right honourable member a binding ruling is actually binding only on the commissioner; it is not binding on the taxpayer. As mentioned the taxpayer can ignore the binding ruling at their own peril but it is not binding. An advance pricing agreement (APA) is actually a type of binding ruling. Again it's not binding but an APA is factually based and it's undertaken with full taxpayer cooperation. So again like a binding ruling a taxpayer will go to the commissioner. If they have concerns about their tax position or if they have a question about their tax liabilities or the tax position the commissioner will issue a binding ruling. The taxpayer can then determine whether they take the commissioner's advice or not. The commissioner of course can then not change their advice but the taxpayer can seek other advice. So it's binding only on the commissioner.In terms of the four years versus seven years I completely agree with you: it would be unfair for inland revenue (IR) to draw out investigations simply because it felt like it. I'm being a little bit glib here but what I do mean is that I very much believe that IR undertakes investigations in a timely manner and it does so because it is actually in the best interests of IR as well as the taxpayer itself. The reason for the four-year / seven-year split? I'm the first to admit that if they've started an investigation within four years and they've got another three years to complete it that is a long time to complete an investigation. But the reason it is the seven-year deadline is because this is complex—this really is complex. Often you're not only dealing with an organisation or a multinational subsidiary based in this country but also dealing with complex tax legislation and maybe a group head office in their home country and that could be anywhere from the Bahamas to goodness knows where.So I do not think that IR will use seven years as a target—i.e. let's draw them all out for seven years—but that is there just to ensure that they can undertake these complex tax investigations and fulfil obligations and conclude them in a timely manner. But like you I would be very disappointed if IR drew them out just because they could and I have absolutely never seen any evidence that that is the way IR actually undertakes investigations or that that is the IR's attitude towards investigations.
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much. There are two points that I would like to address and very briefly. First of all it was a question asked by Andrew Bayly and I didn't address this and I do apologise. Mr Bayly asked if we were ahead of the pack and if in fact we are ahead of the pack does this create a disincentive for large multinationals to invest or do business in New Zealand? But I would argue—no I wouldn't argue; the point is we're not ahead of the pack. We're actually doing what is our fair share in meeting our global obligations. As mentioned we have worked very closely with the OECD. We're rolling out legislation that meets our obligations and I believe it would actually do more harm to our global reputation if in fact we were seen as a laggard as opposed to just meeting our obligations in a good judicious way.The reason I say that is as we all know New Zealand is ranked No. 1 in the world in terms of transparency by Transparency International. I think if we were seen as a soft touch or if we were seen as not complying with our global obligations around profit shifting and base erosion then it could do more harm than good. So I am very comfortable and in fact I think everyone—the select committee and the previous Minister of Revenue Judith Collins—is very comfortable with the way that this is progressing. My understanding is this will not provide a disincentive in any way shape or form for any multinational to do business in New Zealand. In fact the only ones that may have a concern—and it certainly hasn't been signalled to me at all or I understand the select committee at all—are those who would look to use the old rules to avoid paying tax. Of course this is what this whole bill is about to ensure that we close down the loopholes that stop multinationals from paying tax.To the Hon Amy Adams there is actually no legal concept of an investigation. What I would say—and what was agreed at select committee what is in the bill—is that an investigation can start within a four-year time period but must be completed within that seven-year time period. This is what was agreed at the select committee it is what is in the bill and so nothing has changed in that respect. So what actually is the case is IRD can start an investigation within that four-year period. In fact if you look at—not you Mr Assistant Chair. If members understand tax rules four years tends to be a general rule of thumb for tax. If you want to claim tax back you've got to do it within four years for example so it's a standard sort of time frame. However as has been alluded to by a number of members this is a complex piece of legislation and the law in itself was complex and by the very nature of the law and the mischief it's seeking to address often the investigation will take a length of time but it has to be completed within seven years. So Hon Amy Adams nothing has changed from what was agreed to or discussed at select committee. That is my understanding it was my understanding when the bill was introduced and that certainly hasn't changed and the officials have informed me that in fact that is still the case. Thank you very much.
Ministerial Statements — Mycoplasma Bovis—Government Response
Points of Order — Kermadec/Rangitāhua Ocean Sanctuary Bill—Leave to Introduce
Visitors — Kenya—Select Committee on Members' Services and Facilities
Obituary — John Baldwin Munro QSO
Seymour DavidQuestion No. 4 to MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A point of order David Seymour.DAVID SEYMOUR: That's surprising. I would like to raise a matter and ask you to reflect on it and perhaps make a ruling because I think it's quite important. It is in regards to the events of question No. 4 earlier today. SPEAKER: Well the member will resume his seat. Members are aware that points of order are to be taken at the time. It's a longstanding Speaker's ruling. It is Speaker's ruling 23 I think and the member should know that. If the member has an issue that he thinks needs to be drawn to my attention—if he wants me to go back and look at something or do something similar to that he's welcome to take it up with me after question time in my office. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: I just want to make sure that the member's not going to relitigate that because if the member is going to relitigate it I will regard that very seriously.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well the point I wish to make is that sometimes there are ongoing issues that do require the House's attention and I think we should be able to raise them in this open forum not simply in your office.SPEAKER: Well I'm very pleased that that's what the member thinks.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Mr Speaker thank you. I'll just take a brief opportunity to thank all parties in the House for their support—the coalition partners in particular. This is a huge amount of commitment and funding from taxpayers to this movement—the reason being that this affects 65 percent of our export earnings. The livestock sector is significant. We are doing our very best to support them through a difficult challenge. We can give them an assurance that regarding the National Animal Identification and Tracing system the 38 recommendations that came from an independent review are being looked at. Each and every one of them will be implemented—23 of them without legislation—as quickly as we can and then we will be back to the House to bring in the other ones.Can I just say in summary this is a time for cooperation and honesty across the farming sector. We will not beat this without the support of farmers and they will not beat it without supporting one another. So we want some honesty in terms of tracing so that we can track and trace every possible infected animal. We want some cooperation among farmers to help one another when some will come under huge pressure emotionally and we want someone to reach out and help them. Together we can do this and we can eradicate this disease.
Smith Nick; Mallard TrevorPOINTS OF ORDERKermadec/Rangitāhua Ocean Sanctuary Bill—Leave to IntroduceHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the Kermadec/Rangitāhua Ocean Sanctuary Bill in my name to be introduced and set down for first reading as members' order of the day No. 1.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is. It will not be set down.
Mallard TrevorVISITORSKenya—Select Committee on Members' Services and FacilitiesSPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome delegates from the Select Committee on Members' Services and Facilities from the Kenyan House of Representatives led by Vice-Chairperson Ms Catherine Wanjiku Waruguru who are present in the gallery.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 12 JUNE 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.OBITUARIESJohn Baldwin Munro QSOSPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 4 June 2018 of John Baldwin Munro QSO who represented the electorate of Invercargill from 1972 to 1975. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Thursday 5 July 2018 - Volume 730
12. Justice System—Transitional HousingHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of CorrectionsJustice System—Transitional HousingHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to have this question held over as an additional question until Minister Davis is able to answer.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is. Does the member want to proceed?12. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: Yes in the context they were made and taken.Hon David Bennett: When he said that rather than looking to build large-scale prisons we want to look at alternative options like transitional housing" what criteria makes an inmate eligible for transitional housing?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is yet to be determined.Hon David Bennett: What extra security arrangements made to their placements will be put in place to ensure the public are kept safe?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is yet to be determined.Hon David Bennett: Will any category three offenders be eligible for transitional housing?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in answer to the second supplementary question the member raised the Government is yet to determine the criteria for access to the housing."
11. Tertiary Institutions—Financial PositionJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of EducationTertiary Institutions—Financial Position11. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action if any has he taken to address challenges in the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday I announced that the Tertiary Education Commission will be consulting on the option to appoint a commissioner to Unitec and dissolve its council. This is not an action that has been taken lightly. Unitec is in extreme financial difficulty and needs urgent assistance. They have an estimated shortfall this year of nearly $20 million and another next year of nearly $30 million despite the sale of their land. This is on top of the Government's cash bailout of $8.5 million in February for Tai Poutini Polytechnic and a write-off of $24.9 million in debt owed by them.Jamie Strange: What other institutes of technology and polytechnics are currently facing financial challenges?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In 2016/17 New Zealand saw a considerable deterioration in the finances of our institutes of technology and polytechnics. The latest data shows at the end of 2017 the Manukau Institute of Technology made a $7 million deficit the Whitireia Community Polytechnic made a deficit of $8.4 million Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology made a deficit of $10 million Western Institute of Technology made a deficit of $3.6 million and the Northland polytech made a deficit of $3.3 million to name some of the larger ones.Jamie Strange: What broader actions is the Government taking to address sustainability issues in the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government's taking this incredibly seriously. As I indicated Unitec is not the only institution in the sector that faces financial difficulties and in fact some quite serious financial difficulties. While some polytechnics have remained financially and educationally strong most have struggled to adjust to the falling student numbers that occurred over recent years. These challenges are pressing and do threaten the viability of the system as a whole. We know that the institutes of technology and polytech network is vital for providing quality vocational education and training for our communities and in particular for supporting regional economic development. I have asked the Tertiary Education Commission to work with the sector to identify ways to address the immediate issues and to put all of our institutes of technology on a more viable footing in the longer term.
8. KiwiBuild—Eligibility and DemandANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentKiwiBuild—Eligibility and Demand8. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Who will be able to enter the ballot to purchase a KiwiBuild home?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): With the first KiwiBuild homes on track to be completed shortly and many more in the pipeline yesterday I announced the KiwiBuild unit has opened its doors and invited potential KiwiBuild homebuyers to express their interest. I also announced the criteria these potential buyers will have to meet. They'll have to be first-home buyers or second-chancers; New Zealand citizens permanent residents or those who ordinarily reside in New Zealand; intend to own and live in the home for at least three years; have an income below $120000 for sole purchasers and $180000 for couples. All eligible buyers will have an equal chance to own a KiwiBuild home at cost price through a ballot system.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why has the Government set the criteria it has?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: KiwiBuild is about restoring the opportunity of homeownership to Kiwi families. We've aimed to strike a balance. We've excluded the very well-off while ensuring that families who a decade ago would have realistically expected to own their own home but have been locked out by the huge increase in house prices that happened in Auckland and Queenstown over the last nine years—we want those people to have a chance to own their own home.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why has the Government set the income limits at $120000 for an individual and $180000 for a couple?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: A generation of young New Zealanders who have good jobs are priced out of homeownership. It's a sign of just how bad it's got for those families that in places like Auckland couples with good jobs like two teachers with five years' experience earning let's say $160000 a year are locked out of homeownership. In fact since 2007 the greatest fall in homeownership has been for families earning between $80000 and $180000.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What is the Government doing to support families who may not be able to afford to buy their own home?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We understand that there are a lot of people who would love to have a crack at homeownership but simply cannot afford to take on a mortgage. That's why we're working on a shared equity scheme that will give them that chance. We're also implementing reforms that will make life better for renters and we're building thousands of extra State houses.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What interest has there been in purchasing a KiwiBuild home?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I said that the KiwiBuild unit was opening their doors but in fact Kiwis have smashed the door down. Over 19000—Hon Dr David Clark: How many?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —over 19000—New Zealanders have registered their interest in the last 24 hours. This just shows how many young New Zealanders are desperate for a chance at homeownership and as KiwiBuild ramps up we look forward to seeing these families buy and move into their own homes.
5. Government Financial Position—ReportsDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceGovernment Financial Position—Reports5. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the strength of the Government's finances?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury today released the Government's financial statements for the 11 months to 31 May 2018. They show the coalition Government is sticking to our commitment to run the books sustainably and responsibly with surpluses and keeping expenses under control. Core Crown tax revenue was in line with forecasts at $73.5 billion while expenses of $73.018 billion were 0.6 percent below forecast. Treasury said there was some variance within the sources of revenue and expenditure due to timing issues which are set to reverse out in June putting the accounts back in line with Budget forecasts.Dr Deborah Russell: What do these results mean for the Government's surplus?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The monthly variation of expenses contributed to the operating balance before gains and losses being a surplus of $5.228 billion in the 11 months which was $447 million—or 9.3 percent—above the Budget forecast. Before anyone gets too excited as with revenue and expenses much of this variance is likely to reverse out next month. But I would like to note one comment from the head Government accountant who said that Source deductions are likely to remain above forecast to the end of the year." Some members might desire an interpretation of that and the best explanation came this morning from one of New Zealand's leading business journalists with his headline that "Booming employment market gives Crown accounts another boost". In other words the labour market is stronger than Treasury expected in May.Dr Deborah Russell: Why is the Government taking the approach it is to fiscal management?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have committed to responsible management of the Government's books. We understand that it is important to run sustainable surpluses in the good times so that we have money set aside for any rainy day. We also have a responsibility to future generations. That's why this Government's economic plan includes not only responsible fiscal management but forward-looking growth-friendly policies that the IMF liked so much this week such as the R & D tax incentive the Provincial Growth Fund significant investment in education and training the Green Investment Fund and our record investment in land transport infrastructure that we announced this week."
3. Provincial Growth Fund—BenefitsJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentProvincial Growth Fund—Benefits3. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What reports has he seen regarding the Provincial Growth Fund?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: On behalf of the Minister I have seen an International Monetary Fund (IMF) Article IV report which says amongst other things that the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) is making our economy productive stable and inclusive that it will relieve pressure on major urban areas by encouraging movement of population into the regions and furthermore should ensure project selection that helps regions to benefit from income gains more in line with the major urban centres.Jenny Marcroft: What challenges did the IMF report highlight?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That's a superb question. Could I just say that it highlighted something that we were aware of as a new Government: significant shortfalls in infrastructure investment—to be precise 0.3 percent of GDP per year. It pointed out how dangerous that was for the economy and of course it's got credibility because it was part-written by Grant Johnston of the IMF nowadays but formerly John Key's economic adviser.Jenny Marcroft: How can the PGF help to meet these challenges?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My colleague Shane Jones the champion of the regions is well aware of those challenges. The Government unlike the last one is not prepared to stand idly by while productivity stagnates and infrastructure falls into disrepair. Can I just say that the Provincial Growth Fund so far has invested in high-tech high-value industries such as clean energy food innovation and value-added wood processing—to name just a few.
McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): The House has made marvellous progress this week and I understand it is the view of all parties in this House that there is an appetite to rise early. I therefore seek leave for the House to rise and I wish all members a safe and happy recess.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is requested for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.The House adjourned at 5.16 p.m.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'm very pleased to take a call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill at its third reading. This bill was what should have been a short stroll but ended up being somewhat more of a marathon—Simeon Brown: A maritime marathon.ERICA STANFORD: A maritime marathon—that's right Mr Simeon Brown. The fact is that in essence this really should have been a very short truncated process because it was just a simple fix-up. It was a drafting error as happens with lots of these large complex pieces of legislation. But despite this I think it was at the first reading the second reading and the committee stage the Minister for the Environment Mr Parker decided to gain some political point scoring over this and did get up a few times and try and make what really was an anthill into a huge hill trying to apportion blame as Mr Simpson said earlier to say that this was an example of a wider problem with the original legislation which it really wasn't.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I recognise that the member is new but a third reading speech is as the committee has accepted it to be not the debate on the second reading.ERICA STANFORD: Yes sir. Thank you for your guidance. Basically I want to take only a short call on this. As I said it is simply a short fix-up remedying what was a drafting error in the original legislation. It really should have been done as part of a statutes amendment bill; it wasn't. However here we are at the third reading and I want to thank the Environment Committee which I sat on for all their hard work. It was in the end a very short truncated process despite many people from the Government getting up and saying in their speeches that it should have had a full process. But never mind; we won't go into that.So here we are at the third reading. It was a simple drafting error that needed a full select committee process according to the Government but then didn't have one. But it probably did need one given that we have a Supplementary Order Paper. I am glad that the marathon is finally over and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a third time.
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green Party): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker; thank you. On behalf of the Green Party I am pleased to support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill—. Like other speakers I will be brief because Jenny Marcroft made the comment that in terms of seabed mining the petition to the Māori Affairs Committee and some of the advice that came through on this bill was that the seabed mining applications which a decision-making committee had decided as part of the Environmental Protection Authority's (EPA's) functions under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (EEZ Act) had averaged approximately $2 million. And so what this bill does as others have noted is ensure that the applicant for the marine consent under the EEZ Act pays the cost of a board of inquiry hearing. We now have boards of inquiry under the EEZ Act as happens under the Resource Management Act rather than decision-making panels for notified marine consent applications. And the fact that applicants pay the cost of the decision-making panel means of course that the Crown doesn't have to pay that cost and that is because the applicant is seeking to use a public common-property resource a public space in the exclusive economic zone and it's appropriate that applicants actually pay for the costs of processing those applications—that it's not borne by the wider public. So this is a technical fix-up. It's a small perfectly formed bill. It's the work of a Minister who's actively engaged in ensuring that the legislation in the environment space works well. I thank the work of the Environment Committee in bringing it back to the House and officials. The Green Party supports the bill.
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill.Look this very small technical amendment has been significantly traversed. In fact when it was first raised as an issue I think both sides of the House very quickly saw that this was just simply a quick tidy-up to ensure the intent of the legislation when it was passed last year which was—to repeat—that if there was a board of inquiry the costs associated with the board of inquiry assessing the benefits or otherwise of a marine consent needed to be borne by the applicant—very simple. It aligns with the other particular Acts and regimes that we have in place.As you know we suggested that this could be done very quickly as part of a statutes amendment bill. Indeed we were prepared to deal with it all in one hit. Ultimately the Government decided that we should take it to a very truncated select committee process. We did that with limited feedback from potential participants—all in favour. Then we got as noted this rather late but valuable observation from the Law Commission who essentially signalled that there was an opportunity for further clarification. The Minister for the Environment— through Supplementary Order Paper 48 has done that. Again I'm not going to traverse that. It's highly technical but it does provide absolute clarity with respect to the application of this regime.It's not a huge cost—total exposure to the Crown is perceived to be $1.6 million—but we need to treat these approaches in a consistent way. When it became clear that there was a potential opportunity for a private benefactor who was putting through a marine consent to not have to bear the cost of that board of inquiry then clearly we needed to move. We've done that. It has no negative perspective from any speaker; we're all in favour of it. We're in the third reading and I think it's time for us to move on support this and get on to some more substantive matters in front of the House. I support this bill.
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on the third reading of this the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. It's a pleasure to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. As has been mentioned throughout the passage of this bill through the House this is a very narrow scope this bill—a bit of a housekeeping legislation as we tidy up a small technical fault a minor fault in the original Act. So I won't take a very long call—a short call on this just pointing out our support of this bill and to ensure that it is safely through the House.We do note that before this amendment was put before the House there was one submission to apply for a marine consent which has resulted in the Crown taking the cost of the board of inquiry. So with the swift passing of this bill there will be no future costs to the Crown relating to a board of inquiry and that's a very good thing. So New Zealand First does support the tenor of if it is for private gain then the private organisation should incur that cost. I'd just like to note that New Zealand First and in fact this Government values our marine environment and is committed to genuinely sustainable approaches to the management of our seas and our sea life. I'd just like to note that yesterday in another committee—the Māori Affairs Committee—we were lucky enough to have a group of children from Pātea who have their own issue that they have had in their rohe around seabed mining. They brought to us this wonderful array of beautiful kai moana and the Environment Committee have actually said We would like them to come and bring their kai moana into the Environment Committee." But back to the bill I note that our Government certainly values our marine environment and will genuinely look towards sustainable approaches to the management of our seas and our sea life and on that I commend this bill to the House."