edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
6. Earthquake Kaikōura—Health ServicesDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of HealthEarthquake Kaikōura—Health Services6. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: What health support and assistance has the Government made available for those affected by last year's Kaikōura earthquake?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The Government is committed to ensuring that the people of Kaikōura and Marlborough receive the support that they need. On 9 December last year I announced a $3.76 million support package following the November earthquakes. Just over 3500 residents in Kaikōura and Hurunui have so far accessed the free general practice visits made available after the quake. Four hundred people in other communities including Marlborough Ward Seddon and Kekerengu have received free GP visits many of which have been accessed through 19 outreach clinics that have been held throughout the region.Dr Shane Reti: What additional mental health services have been provided following the earthquake and what has been the uptake of these programmes? Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We know from the Canterbury earthquakes that people can feel stressed and anxious for a long time after the event. That is why the $3.76 million package that was announced provides for a range of extra mental health clinical staff. So far Canterbury District Health Board specialist mental health teams have made just over 300 appointments including visits with children and families and the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board has delivered over 145 free mental health care packages which include extended GP visits and counselling sessions. Finally work continues on expanding the successful All Right? campaign which was developed in response to the Canterbury earthquakes into the Marlborough region.
Lee Melissa; Tisch LindsayMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you so much for the opportunity to take a call on the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill. As a new member of the Health Committee I would like to first of all start by commending the work that the committee has done. It does important work and I am only just sorry that I have not been part of the deliberations on this very important bill but I am here to support the third reading of this bill. This bill will help support the needs of people with severe substance addiction and significantly impaired capacity to decide on treatment to get better and to get the help that they actually require. Having actually had the experience of intervening on a friend who was impaired by drugs and who was very suicidal and almost homicidal although that was many years ago I can say it is quite a stressful thing for friends and family who are involved with people who have a drug addiction. I also have seen friends' families break apart as a result of the meth addiction of their children. As a parent of a teenager you always wonder whether drugs are going to be around them and you are always frightened for your children. So it is important for all of us as New Zealanders to support the vulnerable in our community and a key way of doing this is reaching out and ensuring that those who have had long-term and high-risk dependency on substance abuse can be cared for appropriately rather than receive the stigma and punitive punishment that they can actually endure currently. I agree with some of the comments that were made in this House earlier. As other members have said the bill originated as part of an extensive work undertaken by the Law Commission in 2010 and it will make significant and workable steps towards getting treatment for tough alcohol drug and other substance abuse issues. The bill will repeal and replace the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act of 1966 which is very outdated. So without wanting to waste the time of this House I commend this bill which is really fantastic. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Denise Roche—5 minutes.
Lotu-Iiga SamHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): It is an honour to speak in this the second reading of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. It is a good bill contrary to the comments of the last speaker David Cunliffe because this bill is about promoting free trade which we know members opposite are opposed to. This bill is about competitive markets both in New Zealand and overseas and this bill is also about protecting our local industries while also promoting the interests of our local consumers.We know that the anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime—they are legitimate tools and a legitimate regime under World Trade Organization rules. What those rules promote is they facilitate free honest and fair trade. It is about our domestic industries having the confidence that this Government and any Government can protect against unfair prices. But it also must be balanced against what would otherwise be increasing costs to consumers who have higher prices to pay for goods and services that are imported into New Zealand.So it is not easy and that is why we have introduced the public interest test. We have got to balance those lower prices—the more choices that consumers have; the new quality goods that are imported into this country—with the effect that they have on those industries. This bill also clarifies the rate and the amount of duty that are determined. It inserts a purpose clause. It renames the bill. It is a good bill. That is why it has been brought to this House and that is why this side supports free trade free commerce and free enterprise.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): The Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill enables New Zealand to apply anti-dumping and countervailing duties in accordance with the World Trade Organization agreement.This is one of those international obligations that New Zealand has which are to be ratified from time to time. The bill introduces a test to the anti-dumping regime that will better balance consumer interests with those of the manufacturers threatened by unfairly priced imports. By introducing a public interest test the regime can now consider whether consumers are benefiting from lower prices more choice availability and quality and whether this outweighs the effect on the industry. The Government wants to ensure that New Zealand has a competitive market where consumers get the best value for money. I commend this bill to the House.
Pugh Maureen; Tisch LindsayMAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand tonight in support of the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill in its second reading. Thanks to the work and the effective contribution from all members of the Justice and Electoral Committee the review of the 2014 elections reached unanimous support across the parties. This is evident in the contributions in the House tonight with all parties supporting this bill.In its report to the select committee the Electoral Commission did note its concern at the decline of voter turnout. Voter engagement is the key to a healthy democracy so it is vital that political parties can choose the most appropriate means of reaching the voting public whether it be print radio TV social media or signage. This bill does go some way to addressing this by allowing flexibility to political parties in how they engage and communicate with the voting public.This bill provides an adjustment to better fit in today's modern and digitally connected world. It modernises the rules around advertising at election time by removing the requirement for opening and closing addresses and for those to be broadcast. It also removes the requirement for Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand to provide time for them. This is a very good bill. It is well supported across the House and I have pleasure in commending it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members this debate has concluded. There will be two questions put on this legislation. So the question is that the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.
Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Just to pick up where my colleague Metiria Turei left off before me we welcome the general endorsement—pretty much across all parties—for the amendments to the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill. The aim is to implement the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee report on the general election of 2014. Indeed the two bills include something like 12 out of the 28 recommendations made—those that are feasible to implement before the 2017 election.As we have said we regard this as a natural progression in updating the electoral laws of our country. It gives us an opportunity to meet the challenges of the 21st century digital age and to make sure that the election is undertaken with due efficiency greater fairness and transparency perhaps.I think it is also important in this respect to recall the point that the Hon David Parker was making earlier to the effect that we should all carry some concern now that democracy is in danger of being degraded all around the world and perhaps including in this country with a decline in enrolment and the imperfection of rolls for whatever reason whether it is because people own fewer houses and are more itinerant or for whatever reason and for that matter use social media at times. So we do have to be careful about how we proceed and this legislation goes some way towards rectifying that.The amendments to the two Acts will prove very useful in 2017. The bill amending the Broadcasting Act does a variety of things: it removes the requirement to have an opening and closing address and it gives more flexibility in the use of funds to that effect; it encourages greater use of the internet; it updates laws on the return of expenditure limits; and it removes the requirement to submit returns on all the broadcasting programmes during the election. The amendments to the Electoral Act will address the issue of interference in advance voting and gives greater clarity in that respect. They will update the law on former MPs voting in Parliament which is remarkably obsolete. There are a number of other recommendations as well—as I said 12 altogether. We find them all to be sound and constructive. The Green Party is pleased to support the bills.
Foster-Bell Paul; Borrows ChesterPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Following on and in some degree I hope refuting that display of political baboonery and bottom-bearing we have witnessed tonight—it must be election year Mr O'Rourke in that you are putting on your very best Donald Trump performance. I want to speak on these cognatically related bills the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill by focusing on some of the substance of the bills rather than politicking over it.But first let me say that I want to refute a point that the member made. I disagree that everything on television is rubbish. I think actually we are living in a golden age of televisual entertainment. It may not be on the valve-powered steam-operated set that the member has but certainly I took the opportunity over the Christmas break to enjoy The Crown the wonderful $100 million TV epic about our Sovereign and her early life. Mr O'Rourke's opinion on the media reminds me a little bit of some of those relict dowagers in The Crown—those last vestiges of the Victorian age.I think very few people sit down and enjoy the opening and closing broadcasts on a free-to-air TV station like they might have done back in the 1950s and 1960s enjoying those with popcorn and perhaps getting friends around to watch what the political parties are offering. I think the reality is that most Kiwis are consuming their media in a very different way so this is very apt and appropriate legislation to modernise that part of the election advertising process so I want to commend the Minister of Justice for the very sensible stance she has taken on this.The one particular aspect I want to touch on—and it will be a quick reflection because I only just rejoined the Justice and Electoral Committee last week; I was not on the committee through the hearings process—is the 10-metre buffer zone during advance voting. I will not name the party but at the last election there was certainly in Wellington Central one party that was within 10 metres of an advance voting booth. It was separated by a vertical separation—Chris Bishop: Oh name the party.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: No I will not name the party; there is no need to bring it into it. Needless to say there was a Green-hued sign on a floor immediately above a voting booth. The ruling was that because it was a 30-metre walk up some stairs to get around to the balcony to actually physically go to that election promotion site for that party it was sufficiently far away. I think it is very important when this is being interpreted that that should be 10 metres as the crow flies rather than a 10-metre walk or ride from the site because it is very important that we have clean fair elections in this country. This is a very good set of bills and I commend them to the House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Kennedy Graham—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I think that these two related bills are a really good symbol of the parliamentary process working to the benefit of New Zealanders. There was obviously an election in 2014. The Justice and Electoral Committee undertook a review of that election and made a number of recommendations from that review. The Minister has then picked up a number of those recommendations and put them into legislation brought them back to the select committee and now we are debating them at a second reading. I think it is a really good process one that will mean that over time we will be able to fine-tune and enhance the democratic process within New Zealand. Particularly I want to draw attention to the broadcasting aspect of these two bills. With the advent over recent times where we have the world of Netflix and Lightbox and MY SKY and with all the younger people—particularly obviously the member Denis O'Rourke who will probably tweet this on his Instachat" afterwards or something—Clare Curran: Instagram!JONO NAYLOR: I know it is.Metiria Turei: "Instachat"!JONO NAYLOR: I know it is. It was supposed to be a joke but clearly it was not very funny. But there are fewer people now who even bother having an aerial on their house so tying opening addresses into television is something of a foregone era. So bringing it into a more modern context where we can allow some flexibility for political parties just makes a great deal of sense.The content of the broad amendment legislation is again just bringing in some sensible things. We have seen pretty much agreement around the House this evening on this. The committee was faced with all sorts of quite technical issues like deciding what is the minimum distance that someone can campaign from an advance voting booth. There was a lot of discussion about that—what happens if a candidate parks their car next to it or otherwise. I think we have arrived at a pretty sensible place but we are able to send a clear signal that actually trying to influence voters on their way into the voting booth whether it is on polling day or at the advance voting booths is not acceptable.The other aspect that in conclusion I just want to talk about is the very practical idea that advance vote counting can begin at 9 a.m. on election day. Waiting until 2 o'clock I think is not going to benefit anybody else. For those of us who have sat through election night—if you are winning it seems to take for ever until you find out whether you have won and if you are losing it is death by a thousand cuts. So being able to get those results out a little quicker will I think make everybody's lives a whole lot better.It is good legislation. I am sure we will have some robust discussion in the Committee stage and I look forward to seeing these recommendations put into practice so that we can have a better more enhanced election this year in 2017."
Taxation (Business Tax Exchange of Information and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third Reading
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): It seems that the two major parties are not too far away from each other in agreeing with much of the Taxation (Business Tax Exchange of Information and Remedial Matters) Bill which is always quite interesting. A lot of people do not understand that there is often agreement across the House on a lot of legislation. It might just be to the degree. Mr Robertson has pointed this out particularly around the anti - money-laundering and counterfeiting financing reforms which he says are not coming soon enough. Then of course we had Mr Nash who was complaining about the workload of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and wanted to do less. I think we have probably got a pretty good balance. As Mr Robertson said we will see that anti - money-laundering legislation come through later in the year.Turning to this particular bill at its third reading as we have seen across the House already there are three major parts to it. Once again I am going to focus on the small business part and the AIM" the accounting income method of calculating provisional tax. It is good to see that there is some experience among the Opposition in calculating and experiencing the payment of provisional tax. It is a difficult tax to calculate and estimate. It is not so much that people lobby us; it is just that we on this side have our own experience of doing it. We do not necessarily need to be told by our constituents what should or should not happen; a lot of people over here actually run and continue to run small businesses.Again we agree that the pay-as-you-go option that is available to taxpayers—small-business people—is a good thing because small businesses need to continue to be supported. We talk about employment and we talk about supporting workers. We can only support workers if we support the employers. The employers are the ones who employ the employees. If we are not going to look after the employers we are going to have problems in supporting employees in the workforce.This is a very good sensible piece of legislation around the accounting income method. There are two other points that relate to this bill. The first is compliance with an international agreement—the G20 Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information which has been mentioned. We also have the recommendations of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes with the registration of foreign trusts by local trustees. The local trustees must disclose information about foreign trusts that they are aware of. If they do not those trusts will not be exempt from the current tax-free status that they enjoy being foreign trusts. It is a fine piece of legislation. I commend it to the House."
Coleman JonathanHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.
Thursday 9 February 2017 - Volume 720
11. Pay Equity—Care and Support Workers' Case and Government ResponseJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of HealthPay Equity—Care and Support Workers' Case and Government Response11. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Health: When will the Government make an offer to settle Kristine Bartlett and other care and support workers' equal pay case?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Since June 2015 negotiations have been under way between the Crown unions and providers. The negotiations are continuing and I expect to receive an update on progress shortly. Any settlement would benefit 50000 care and support workers across the country so watch this space. Jan Logie: Is it acceptable that the women who on the request of the Government put aside their legal claims for equal pay to negotiate directly with the Minister are still waiting for an offer over 15 months later?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I said negotiations are under way and I am not commenting any further. It would be pretty silly to do so. Jan Logie: Is the Minister really telling this House that he thinks over 15 months is an acceptable time frame for a pay negotiation? Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member would not know what has happened in those negotiations and I am not going to comment on them further because it is a negotiation. Jan Logie: Has he chosen to let these tens of thousands of low-paid working women continue to struggle to make ends meet so he can get an election-year announcement?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No.
10. Fuel Market—Financial Performance StudyBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesFuel Market—Financial Performance Study10. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is she doing to ensure drivers aren't paying too much at the pump?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Today I announced a market study into fuel prices and returns to determine how fair petrol and diesel prices are at the pump. The market study will be undertaken by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) with cooperation from the industry. I want to know that fuel prices are reasonable and that motorists are getting a fair deal and I am concerned that this might not be the case.Barbara Kuriger: What is she doing to ensure the industry works with the Government to make the study a success?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I spoke to the industry yesterday about this and I can assure the House that the advantage of a fuel market financial performance study is that it can be done reasonably quickly and it will help to build a more informed picture of the overall performance of the fuel market. However it will require the industry to cooperate. Having spoken to and written to the fuel companies this week I have been assured by each of them that they will work with MBIE and that they will provide the required information. We are consulting on the terms of reference and they will be released once they have been finalised.
7. Health Services—First Specialists AssessmentsSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—First Specialists Assessments7. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm the number of patients benefiting from first specialist assessments has risen from 404511 a year in 2008 to 552423 a year in 2016 and that this is an increase of 147912 more patients now being seen?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes indeed. This new data shows a huge 36 percent increase in the number of patients who are now receiving a hospital specialist assessment each year. That is due to the hard work of health professionals and the extra $4.3 billion invested in the health system under National.Simon O'Connor: Can the Minister confirm that this positive increase in specialist assessment has included a big increase in the number of patients benefiting from ophthalmology assessment?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Once again yes. In 2008 41468 patients had ophthalmology first specialist assessments and in 2016 57004 patients had ophthalmology assessments. That is an increase of 15500 patients or 37 percent more than under the previous Government.Hon Annette King: How confident is he that the figures he has provided of nearly 60000 New Zealanders being refused a first specialist assessment are in fact robust figures and are not considerably higher?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would be much more confident of those figures than anyone in the Labour Party would be of their position on the Labour Party list. Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think there was anything political in my question. I will repeat it if you like and you can hear it.Mr SPEAKER: No—no need. No need to repeat it. The question asked—[Interruption] Order! The question asked how confident the Minister is in the particular figures of people who are refused first assessment and he said obviously that he was reasonably confident. He added something that was certainly unnecessary but—Hon Annette King: Well did he say reasonably confident"? Did he say that bit? Mr SPEAKER: He said he was more confident than he would be in some other figures—[Interruption] It was enough to address the question."
2. Economic Outlook—Reports Forecast and Housing MarketALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of FinanceEconomic Outlook—Reports Forecast and Housing Market2. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What is the outlook for the New Zealand economy over the next 3 years?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank's Monetary Policy Statement released this morning highlights a strongly positive outlook for the economy over the next 3 years. The bank noted in particular New Zealand's positive outlook for growth relative to other advanced economies and noted the recent strengthening of growth to an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the most recent quarter expecting that to continue at around this level for the next 2 years and to continue strongly over the forecast period at around the 3 percent mark. Alastair Scott: What else does the Reserve Bank say about New Zealand's growth?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The bank noted that the growth has been driven by a wide range of service industries including construction low interest rates a recovery in dairy prices strong population growth and increased household spending. In addition the bank highlights strong employment growth in the last year as demonstrated by the number of people employed reaching 2.5 million for the first time and New Zealand's employment rates and participation rates reaching all-time highs of 66.9 percent and 70.5 percent respectively in the last quarter.Alastair Scott: What is the outlook for the housing market?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Today's statement notes that although annual house price inflation remains high by historical standards it has slowed recently due to increasing interest rates and the tightening of loan-to-value ratios with nationwide monthly inflation averaging 0.1 percent over the last 5 months compared with 2.1 percent in the 5 months prior. The bank also highlights the strength of the construction industry driven by strong residential investment and notes an expected increase in residential building in Auckland once appeals that the Unitary Plan is currently working through are through. This is further supported by today's Statistics New Zealand building consents release which shows the total number of homes consented in the year was just under 30000 up 10 percent from 2015 and the most for a calendar year since 2004 with Auckland consents up 7 percent on 2015.Alastair Scott: What risks are there to this economic outlook?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank identifies that international factors are the key risks to the economy. Although the Reserve Bank notes an improved global outlook resulting from more positive business and consumer sentiment in other developed countries and recovery in commodity prices rising geopolitical uncertainty may impact on the outlook in this country. In particular the bank cites uncertainty resulting from the new US administration the upcoming euro-area elections and Brexit as potential risks.
Kuriger Barbara; Carter DavidSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEBARBARA KURIGER (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to adjourn.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.
Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.
Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 14 February the Government will look to complete the debate on the Prime Minister's statement the third reading of the Taxation (Business Tax Exchange of Information and Remedial Matters) Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday 15 February will be a members' day subject to completion of the debate on the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday.
Tuesday 7 February 2017 - Volume 720
Members Sworn
EventMEMBERS SWORNMr Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Michael Wood who then took his seat in the House.
Trade (Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
O'Connor Simon; Tisch LindsaySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): How does one follow a speech like that?Fletcher Tabuteau: Exactly.SIMON O'CONNOR: Indeed. We will give it a crack. I am very pleased to take a call on this second reading of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. Like other members on both sides of the House I want to acknowledge the new Minister the Hon Jacqui Dean. I have had the pleasure of working with her in a number of fields but most recently on the Health Committee. It gives me great confidence as she takes over this role and brings herself up to speed as she is clearly doing in this area and in others that the Commerce Committee is looking through.A number of members have touched on an array of themes which I do not intend to overly repeat. I think someone earlier used the word robust"—that is certainly how the committee has approached this. There has been free and frank discussion and I think both sides both Government and Opposition have drawn their lines fairly clearly. On this side we see this as a positive step in that the existing legislation does not allow a public interest test to exist. It is an opportunity if you will for—well there is that old adage that the law is made for the man and not the other way around. So this is an opportunity for the Minister man or woman to be able to look with good advice through the likes of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials to see whether there are actually benefits to the consumer that outweigh the benefit if you will of continuing a duty. One only thinks of the construction industry. It fact it was a report from the construction industry that has been the catalyst for this legislation.One way I look at this is again simply as an ability for us to review—humanise if you will—the decisions made and not just have it as a simple process instead of laws that absolutely lock the situations in. I think that in itself becomes well expressed as further expressions in the bill demonstrate that in the times of natural disasters that again the Minister can intervene and say: "Look those duties have to lapse. It is in the greater good the public good that they prevail." So again lines are clearly drawn. It is interesting to hear the debate. I know there is going to be plenty more of it in this and other stages. I commend the bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Mojo Mathers—5 minutes."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill in this its second reading. The Government seeks to ensure that New Zealand has a competitive market that consumers are getting best value for money and that includes a balance to ensure that we are also not unduly placing pressures on local businesses which of course employ good hard-working Kiwi workers. So this is a bill that had the changes that at least this side of the select committee—the Government side of the committee—had agreed to. If those changes recommended by officials had been adopted the bill would indeed have addressed just that and there is still an opportunity in the Committee of the whole House for the Minister to introduce some Supplementary Order Papers which I am sure we will be happy to support.Listening to Opposition members' anguish about—and rail against—this bill this evening it strikes me as a little odd. We had Dr Clark talk about arbitrary decisions by Ministers when of course he also mentioned that the public interest test has eight factors that get assessed to determine whether there might or might not be a public interest in suspending or terminating duties if a case of dumping is determined. To term that as arbitrary ministerial power just suggests that perhaps alternative facts have made their way into this House which is unfortunate but I would be happy to build a wall around Dr Clark and I am sure the rest of New Zealand would pay for it quite happily.Then we had Ms Curran talking about the deleterious effect of this on New Zealand exports. That is really quite interesting because of course the anti-dumping and countervailing duties are actually all about imports into New Zealand so it is quite interesting that she spent most of her speech talking about exports out of New Zealand.Another point she also made was about how this was going to add enormous cost because of course there is this new step of doing a public interest test. What she failed to mention and possibly understand is that the default position remains that if there is a complaint about potential dumping the investigation is undertaken. It is the default position that dumping is wrong and that the Government will take action against those found in an investigation to have been undertaking such activities. It is only after that investigation and that default position is undertaken that the decision is then made as to whether there should or should not be a public interest test applied to this case.It does not have to be applied in every instance. The default position is that dumping is wrong and in most cases where it is found the decision may well be that we are not going to undertake a public interest test; we will simply put in the measures we have against dumping. Unfortunately the members opposite do not seem to understand that and had they understood it perhaps they would have found it in their hearts to support these very sensible measures. I commend this bill to the House.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I have already spoken tonight Mr Assistant Speaker but I just want to acknowledge you in the Chair. It is good to see you back looking refreshed from a great holiday.Of course we are talking about the Charities Amendment Bill at its third reading tonight and before I start I just want to acknowledge the Hon Jo Goodhew for the good work that she did in bringing this bill to the House and steering it through the Committee. She has done a great job and I just want to take a moment to reflect on that. But of course we have now got the Hon Alfred Ngaro overseeing it and I think Mr Alfred Ngaro looks absolutely splendiferous tonight almost regal. It shows how fast-working he is to be able to be here on the first day of Parliament in 2017 pushing through the third reading of this bill and I just want to congratulate him on his fast-moving actions to date. I am sure we will see much more coming to the fore.Of course charities and volunteers—tūao I have just learnt from my colleague Peeni Henare—play an incredibly important part in our communities. I think the work that they do actually underpins a lot of the communities we all live in and enjoy and I think that point just cannot be overstated enough. So the importance of this bill that we are talking about tonight is really just about securing that and making sure that charities operate efficiently and effectively.I think we have all heard before the three key parts of this bill but the main one is to make sure that officers of charities are proper persons to be involved in charities—and also in terms of people making applications to make sure that they do make an application and complete it within 20 working days of any receipts or answers required because often they do not respond and therefore charities' applications have to be declined formally. This is a way of just dealing with that and expediting that process.I think it is a great bill. It is not comprehensive in terms of having lots of different sections but it is a good piece of legislation and one we should all be supporting. Thank you and I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Charities Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I take this opportunity to welcome you back to the Speaker's Chair Mr Deputy Speaker and my colleagues to this 2017 year. It is great to be back in the House for what will surely be another great year under this National-led Government. It was an inspiration to be in the House to witness the delivery of the Prime Minister's statement to Parliament this afternoon. It was inspiring it was motivational and it gave New Zealanders confidence that the country is in very good hands. It is ably led and our future is secure. What the Prime Minister also articulated very well is that there is no Opposition that can be taken with any measure of seriousness. We are talking tonight about volunteers and during my time as a mayor without doubt the highlight of every year was to be able to accompany the local volunteer group to the TrustPower Community Awards an annual event that celebrates the contribution that volunteers make across this country. It is always inspiring and always very humbling to see the contribution that volunteers make. I will always remember with some fondness the comparison made one time at one of these events when volunteers were compared to Viagra. They start with small concepts they rise to the challenges and they usually always deliver the goods. But another inspiring comment was that volunteers are not paid because they are worthless; it is because they are priceless. Never a truer word was spoken.Tonight I stand in support of the Charities Amendment Bill in its third reading which is sponsored by the very Hon Alfred Ngaro one of our four new Ministers. This bill amends three sections of the Charities Act 2005 and it provides greater clarity around the registration application process. It will also deliver to the public a lot more confidence and trust in charities by strengthening the protection against the risk of financial mismanagement. It is my pleasure to commend this bill.
Borrows ChesterMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order but it is done now is it not. A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Sue Moroney.
Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that it was remiss of me not to mention Jacqui Dean's appointment as a Minister and I apologise to her for missing her out—also big congratulations on her new appointment.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the affirmative on this Charities Amendment Bill in its third reading. I might just note that if the entire contents of that previous speech were to be uploaded and placed into the bill it might be three times as long and yet would have no greater substantial meaning. The bill does make three small changes. They are technical in nature which is part of the way it was able to get processed the way it was but they improve the coherence of the parent Act the Charities Act 2005 and in doing so they will help to improve the public's trust and confidence in our charities. The bill seeks to make compliance easier and faster for both the charities and the regulator and importantly it provides greater clarity around the registration application process. Those three changes are first to provide that a person cannot be an officer of a charitable entity if they have been convicted of a tax evasion or similar offence under the Tax Administration Act 1994 and secondly to provide that an application for registration as a charitable entity can be treated as withdrawn if an applicant does not respond to a request for information in a reasonable time frame. The reasonable time frame chosen was 20 days. That is consistent with many Acts of Parliament—about 175 of them—but in doing so and in placing that time frame around it the clause does provide for extensions of time not dissimilar to those that also apply under the Official Information Act. The third important although not substantially large change is the insertion of new clause 12A which amends section 60 of the principal Act and that is in the area of the High Court's ability to make interim orders against the statutory decision maker pending determination of an appeal. There was a typo in the original Act in that it referred to the chief executive" when it should really have referred to the "Board" because the chief executive is not imbued with the authority to have made those decisions. So it was a small but necessary change that actually makes the Act workable and also a bit more understandable. As previous speakers have noted there was an item of contention. In fact it was not unanimously considered contentious but it was an item of contention in the original bill and that was around the appeals process and which authority could have an appeal made against it—whether it was only the board or whether it was the board and the chief executive. We were not all in agreement on that but ultimately given the nature under which the parent Statutes Amendment Bill was introduced into the House and the provisions of a statutes amendment bill this bill also required unanimous support to get it through the select committee and in fact through these remaining stages. So it was left out but overall in the context of what we were able to achieve I think we have presented back a bill worthy of this Parliament's attention and worthy of passing into law so I commend it to the House."
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tuarua tēnā koe. Gong xi fa cai. Happy Year of the Rooster to you Mr Deputy Speaker and indeed to all of our community of Chinese New Zealanders who will be celebrating this occasion. May your year be prosperous.In commenting on and speaking to this Charities Amendment Bill in this third reading debate I want to acknowledge the new Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector the Hon Alfred Ngaro. He is a very highly respected colleague of ours on this side of the House. But I also acknowledge the previous Minister the Hon Jo Goodhew who did the formative work on these provisions which will hopefully be passed through and come to fruition this evening.On the bill we debated in this House prior to this bill there was a lot of discussion around corruption. I want to point to a clause in this bill. There are only three clauses but there is one clause in this bill that prohibits people who have been convicted of an offence like tax evasion or other offences similar to that under the Tax Administration Act 1994 from holding the position of an officer of a charitable entity. I think it is this sort of measure that helps cement New Zealand's reputation as a country that actively combats corruption. It is this sort of measure that helps us achieve our rightfully earned position as the No. 1 least corrupt Public Service in the world as we were recently rated by the independent organisation Transparency International and I am proud to be a member of its local New Zealand branch.It was wonderful to see us alongside Denmark rated as the least corrupt countries in the world. It is these sorts of measures that help to stamp out corruption. So obviously having someone who has been convicted of tax evasion and having that person involved with an entity that is raising perhaps considerable sums of money from the public who give freely to that organisation and to have that money misused is obviously a negative thing and would be corrupt. This small measure will help to stamp that out.Similarly beyond having moneys misused I think if we look around the world we also have organisations that benefit from significant funding streams that are used not just for an illegal purpose but actually sometimes in support of very serious crimes such as terrorism. So I think having greater scrutiny on the charities and the officers who are in charge of them is a positive thing in cementing our reputation as an uncorrupt country. This bill is to be commended and I do so now.
Borrows ChesterCHARITIES AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 6 December 2016.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members the last time we debated this bill Poto Williams had the call. She has 5 minutes remaining to speak.
Taxation (Business Tax Exchange of Information and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to rise in support of the Taxation (Business Tax Exchange of Information and Remedial Matters) Bill. I was quite pleasantly surprised in fact to hear Mr Coates talk in favour of small businesses. He even talked about cash flows which are of course the lifeblood of and essential to small business. Now all we need to do is convince the rest of his party to support small businesses by supporting free-trade agreements for example. I was really pleased that you kicked off on the right foot but you sort of deviated and ended up in a plane crash unfortunately.I am going to focus on the accrual income method relating to provisional tax because again as Mr Coates said it is all about cash flow. I was a bit disappointed not to hear much about this part of the bill from the Opposition members. Perhaps it is because they do not understand provisional tax and how difficult it has been in the past. I mean provisional tax is difficult to manage. You have got to estimate it. I will give a simple example.Tracey Martin: We know how it works.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well why did you not talk about it? If you know how it works why did you not talk about it? Why did you not support it?Tracey Martin: It's not my bill. I didn't get a call.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Why did your colleagues not—Tracey Martin: We know how it works. Don't treat us like ninnies!ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well I need to explain it to some of the Labour members at least. If a small business has a good year and pays the appropriate tax almost automatically they are obliged to pay a similar amount in the following year by way of provisional tax. Now of course if that small business has a bad year whether as a result of a weather event a market event or a foreign exchange event they have trouble paying their provisional tax. This accrual method allows that business to pay as it goes which is important. As Mr Coates says it is all about cash flow. That is the key to it.It is important that we support small businesses—small and medium sized enterprises—because these are the guys who employ people. These employers are taking on an extra employee every day. They are taking the risk of taking on another employee. So we have to support the employers if we wish more employees to be in the system. This bill reduces compliance costs it reduces red tape it reduces bureaucracy and it allows small businesses to manage their cash flows more effectively and for that reason I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett PaulaHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister): I move That this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.