edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
O'Connor Greg; Rurawhe AdrianGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): In 2008 we had a global financial crisis which took all our attention around monetary issues. Before that time Reserve Bank Governors and central bankers were really not that well known—they certainly weren't the rock stars they've become today. Essentially the world looked at what had happened when the derivative market collapsed with the house of cards effect around the world and so at a meeting in Switzerland the powers that be essentially pointed to their reserve bank governance and said Save us." And as a result monetary policy which in the past was ever-present but not seen as the panacea became just that. So things like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill which we're looking at now and Reserve Bank Governors all of a sudden were given a power and a remit that they really hadn't had previously. So that's why when we come to looking at a Reserve Bank bill like we're looking at today it becomes so essential.A little history lesson: many won't realise that the Reserve Bank used to be a Government department and we had a Prime Minister—a well-known Prime Minister Rob Muldoon—who essentially took over the running of the Reserve Bank and set all the policy directly. It wasn't even policy; it was orders—and as a result the country nearly went broke. So that's why we have a Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which must be constantly updated because as a result of the reliance on central bankers now to keep the monetary flow going we have to have good regulation behind it. And that's essentially what this bill is about and why it's essential that we do take it through its various parts and get it through select committee and the committee of the whole House to make sure it is what it needs to be because this is a very important piece of legislation in ensuring the financial stability of New Zealand. For that matter I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee—five minutes."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. There were some great things that came out of 1989 and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was one of them. So was When the Cat's Away. Now When the Cat's Away remains a great band and great music; the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act however has not aged quite as well.Hon Michael Woodhouse: That's not what the Minister's statement says!Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The member over there still is standing up with 1989 thinking with a single-target Reserve Bank.Now the independence of the Reserve Bank was the huge leap forward made and we all know that New Zealand was ahead of the world in that. Our economists are still regarded as world leading in terms of identifying inflation targeting as a robust and effective economic tool. But times do move on and whilst that was a great innovation then it doesn't mean there are not still better ways to do it—still better ways to manage money supply and to supervise our financial institutions in a way which is good for the New Zealand economy—and no more so than now when we have extremely volatile international and local financial conditions and the Reserve Bank has at its disposal a range of tools. The question is: how should it use those tools? Should it use them in some kind of economic isolation or should it use them taking into account the conditions on the ground informed by what's going on around them including what's going on in fiscal policy as well?We only have to look at what's happening to our economy to know that there is no one single tool that can be used—that there are a range of tools both monetary and fiscal and it's no good using one out of coordination and out of sync with the other. What this piece of legislation does is it improves the governance of the Reserve Bank so that it's not a single Reserve Bank Governor making decisions but that it's made in a way which is frankly widely recognised as having a higher-quality decision-making process with a group of people with a range of skills and backgrounds so that we come with a higher-quality decision that doesn't ignore the wider ramifications of what's going on.The Reserve Bank is not an island—we know that; we've seen that. The Reserve Bank must have a relationship with Government but it must at the same time maintain its independence. So having those lines of communication which are transparent and robust like the remit is really important so that clear legitimate interactions can be had but the ultimate decision-making has to be left in the hands of the Reserve Bank and outside of political interference. This bill strikes the right balance. It's the next step forward on a road which is to strengthen our financial system so that we're protecting the assets and positions of all New Zealanders and in accordance with the remit as it stands reducing inequality. This is a good strong robust move forward for the Reserve Bank. I commend it to the House.
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the first readings and referral to select committee of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill the Water Services Bill the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill and the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill.
Hipkins ChrisThird ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5) be now read a third time.
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5) — Second Reading
Hipkins ChrisSUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL (NO 5)Second ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I present a legislative statement on the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5).Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5) be now read a second time.It must be getting close to Christmas. Subordinate legislation bills generally come before the House at the end of the year. It's normally one of the final things the House does before it breaks for the Christmas adjournment. The purpose of the bill is to confirm by Act of Parliament regulations that would otherwise lapse at a particular date. The process for this is set out in the Legislation Act 2019. The second reading debate is the only opportunity that the House as a whole has to consider the bill. The first reading is without debate as is the third reading which will follow straight after the second reading that we are doing now. It's important that the House passes this bill before the end of the year because duties and levies that have been paid under a regulation that's not confirmed by the due date have to be returned to those who have paid them a potentially complex and expensive bureaucratic nightmare particularly for our primary industries where the majority of the levies that we seem to be confirming today seem to have been made—the commodity levies that are being confirmed by this.Secondary legislation to be confirmed by this is set out in the legislative statement that I've just presented to the House. It therefore means I no longer have to go through all of the detail of that which I'm sure members of the House will be incredibly grateful for. They are regulations made under eight different Acts of Parliament.I want to acknowledge the work done by the Regulations Review Committee in examining the regulations covered by this bill and I commend the bill to the House.
Standing Orders — Sessional (continued)
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I wasn't going to make any comment on this but I feel I need to because yet again I find myself at loggerheads with some of what Golriz Ghahraman has just offered to the House. There's nothing wrong with that. She enjoys debate; I know that. But you've got to keep it to a reasonable space. The reality is we have had that report today about the terrorist shooting in Christchurch a terrible event and yes there were criticisms in there about what the agencies were doing but equally the agencies were doing what they thought was best at the time to protect New Zealanders and that was against what was an international threat to world order from the Islamic State.I think to somehow say that there has been a failing when you had effectively a lone wolf operator and then also turn around in the same breath and say But we do not want the tyranny of people dobbing each other in if they see behaviour that's not entirely consistent with what they might like to have in society." seems to be—and that is the thread of what we heard in the House this afternoon from the Green Party—just a little bit confused.This is a good motion. The committee concerned is chaired by the Prime Minister. It is generally populated with Ministers and senior MPs who have an understanding of what New Zealand's best interests are. I reject the suggestion that it is secretive. There will be some aspects like all committees that are heard in private and that is for the security of all New Zealanders. This is a good motion. No one should be fearful of it. We support it.Motion agreed to."
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I welcome this motion especially on this day where we have heard back with the report of the royal commission on the Christchurch terror attack with specific recommendations and findings that relate to failures made by our security agencies where we've seen that their focus has often been misplaced where we found that rather than the national threat that we faced on March 15 last year which was far-right white supremacy terror their focus was in fact on the Muslim community. The royal commission found that to have been based not on evidence but something else.I note also in my own background that I spent part of my childhood in Iran where spying was done often. Everyone knew someone whose phone was tapped. No one felt secure to speak on any kind of phone or street corner. We knew that tyranny was rife and politicised. But in New Zealand though we have this proud history of a democratic Parliament that oversees policing. We have a judicial system that oversees the work of the police force in terms of search and surveillance. Even here mass surveillance outside of the law and what the public expect has happened. We've had a Prime Minister who promised to resign if mass surveillance was happening. We found that it was happening and that resignation did not come.We in the Green Party have had members of our caucus sitting MPs find that they were being spied upon by our spy agencies to track their political engagement with protesters. That was Keith Locke who stood firm against unlawful spying. So we know—we know—that the GCSB and the SIS conduct surveillance. We know that it's outside of what most New Zealanders understand to be search and surveillance that relates to the criminal law. Because the police do that and it's overseen by judicial officers by judges by JPs within a legislative framework that ensures transparency and accountability.This is something else. It can be politicised. It happens often in secret. It's amorphous and often unknowable. So accountability is crucial. This motion is about ensuring that accountability through a parliamentary body which we absolutely support and we hope will be not only sitting in name not only something that's a check box as part of our democratic system as sometimes these systems become but a fulsome forum to add proper democratic accountability. Because policing and especially spying that results in essentially quite serious results for both citizens and foreign agents—and we know our agencies of just last year admitted to spying on foreign embassies which is outside of international law. Policing of that kind without oversight without democratic institutions having input and holding those agencies to account is nothing more than tyranny.So we do welcome this motion and we hope that it does result in what the New Zealand public expects of us in this House which is that we hold power to account. Thank you.
Hipkins ChrisPARLIAMENTARY SERVICE COMMISSIONMembershipHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Kieran McAnulty Matt Doocey Brooke van Velden Jan Logie and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission.I don't think there'll be many on the edge of their seats at home listening to this one but this committee is an important committee. In addition to the members that I have just mentioned the Speaker the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition or a nominee—in this case I understand Mr Bishop—are automatically members of the Parliamentary Service Commission. The Parliamentary Service Commission does have an important role in the running of the Parliament. It provides political advice on the oversight and administration of the parliamentary complex to the Speaker—that advice is sometimes taken. The committee does meet regularly. I think it is an important part of our parliamentary arrangements and so I commend this motion to the House.Motion agreed to.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Orders — Approval
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): I just want to take a very brief call to say that we will support the order and I do agree with some of what Mr Seymour has said. Generally I think it would be fair to say that the Government's promulgation of the orders has been late and haphazard and largely as a response and a result of Opposition pressure in some cases pressure from the media in some cases and from public health experts.That's as it should be in a democracy and I for one don't accept the view that has been put about by some that at a time of national crisis we should all sit around and sing Kumbaya" and support the Government—that's the constitutional duty of the Opposition. Frankly that is a retrograde view. The job of the Opposition at a time of crisis is to support where necessary but to constructively critique where necessary and I am utterly convinced that the spirited opposition from National in the last year has made the Government's response better. I'm utterly convinced of that and there's any number of examples that you could point to to prove that and that is important. So we will continue to scrutinise these orders. We will continue to push for greater testing and push for policies that we outlined on the election campaign that are a good border policy designed by Dr Shane Reti.We support these orders and with those caveats I'll take a seat thanks.Motion agreed to.Orders approved."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to confirm these orders—with the rider that we would urge the Government to think hard about again risk and proportionality when it uses them. It wasn't so long ago that we heard the Leader of the House I think at that time in his capacity as the healthcare Minister when asked why he hadn't used one of these why he hadn't used it to make sure that people who were working at the border were tested—you know there's no community transmission there's no COVID in the community the only people in New Zealand that had COVID were people who had arrived from countries where it is. Surely if there was going to be a priority for testing New Zealanders it would be the ones who were in contact with the only people in New Zealand that we knew had it. They would be the people to test. And the Minister was heard to say Well you know making people get tested is a big lever to pull." But of course under alert level requirements the order which is also being confirmed—he had decided to impose restrictions on the largest city in the country at a wholesale level. That was somehow not a big lever to pull.I think that there needs to be some proportionality in the response where the Government uses these orders in a way that maximises people's freedom and utility rather than being sensitive for instance to testing and then being prepared to use a sledgehammer on a whole city. So with that small rider I support these orders being in place. The Government does need these to manage a public health crisis but it also needs to start using them in a way that is proportional to the risk and minimises the costs to New Zealanders. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Oh thank you very much Madam Speaker. I hadn't particularly intended to take a call but seeing as we are entering the finest hour of the Regulations Review Committee as an integral part of our constitutional arrangements I felt it incumbent upon me as the newly installed chair of that fine body to rise and make a contribution. David Seymour: I take it all back. CHRIS PENK: Mr Seymour takes it all back. I just wanted to get—David Seymour: People would rather pay to go to court. CHRIS PENK: Well I'm disappointed to hear Mr Seymour is continuing this contribution because we had almost a thing going where we had Chris Hipkins Chris Bishop and with one non-Chris interruption in the form of Mr Seymour we've gone to Chris Penk. I look to Mr Faafoi to potentially try and help us break some kind of record and by my right is Mr Doocey who's not a million miles away from looking very much like another Chris—Mr Luxon. So anyway speaking of names and forms of address I will say it's heartening to hear the Regulations Review Committee referred to as something like a court. I will be pitching to be referred to as Your Honour" in future meetings thereof. But in fact on the subject of titles we do have one person who boasts the title "the Hon" so I acknowledge Eugenie Sage as a former Minister among our number. So I have said to her that her contribution in terms of that committee will be very welcome. She will have seen regulation-making power from the other side so to speak and just to acknowledge briefly for the record seeing as I have this opportunity the other members of that august body that is the Regulations Review Committee. As others have pointed out we've had a pretty good dissertation on the role of that select committee and indeed all select committees scrutinising the actions of the executive. So I won't comment further on the motion itself except to acknowledge the importance of what we're doing here tonight despite all appearances and look forward to the continued passage of these types of orders. Thank you. Motion agreed to."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): This motion is a great opportunity for New Zealand for this Parliament for democracy and for the Regulations Review Committee to take the mantle it has long deserved in our constitutional arrangements. I feel that with Chris Bishop's recent advertisements of free judicial hearings the Regulations Review Committee which we now know no longer has David Cunliffe as the chair may be about to reach levels of popularity that not even its most hopeful architects could ever have imagined.But I do think the opportunity for future orders in relation to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act is actually a very good initiative. It will allow a greater amount of transparency an understanding of why the Government is restricting New Zealanders' freedoms it claims in the public interest.It has to be said that that level of parliamentary scrutiny has not been a feature of the Government's early COVID response. I feared that it might not be a feature of the Government's future COVID response when I heard the Leader of the House speak earlier portending when we decide to extend this and soon we will make the following decisions. It appeared that he hadn't contemplated that the House actually needed to contemplate and make a decision. He seemed to be taking Parliament for granted and doing it in a subconscious way which is how the worst tyrants always start. So we were somewhat concerned at that point but he's made good with his later addresses and contributions and commitment to making sure that the Regulations Review Committee can play an important role here.Indeed it's worth noting that through the COVID period in the initial lockdown there were extensive debates some of them behind closed doors in a previous Parliament that can now be more easily discussed where the Speaker of the House came to a meeting armed with a list of dates when other Parliaments around the world would be shut as if that was justification for our Parliament to be shut too. The argument was made by some members of that Business Committee that actually we shouldn't aim to be average we certainly shouldn't aim to be the worst; New Zealand should aim to protect parliamentary democracy and scrutiny at all times and fairly balance public health risks with the right of New Zealanders to elect a representative to speak on their behalf and scrutinise the actions of the executive for them. That is the context and the contrast into which this motion passes today.The Government has not always got it right in relation to the level of democracy and parliamentary scrutiny the New Zealand people deserve through the COVID response. But this motion today is an example of where they are rapidly improving. That is something that I think we should welcome as a Parliament. I am very pleased to say that ACT will be supporting this motion. It's nice when we can all agree. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Can I echo the words of the Leader of the House and say I wasn't aware it was your first time in the Chair Madam Speaker and congratulate you for your elevation—well done. Thank you to the Leader of the House for that very sensible contribution with which I agree wholeheartedly. You know in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) they—Hon Chris Hipkins: Even the bit where I slagged you off?CHRIS BISHOP: Ha! Oh you can't have it all your own way. In MFAT they talk about hardship postings and postings that no one wants to go to and you know the Regulations Review Committee has sometimes been called the hardship posting of the Parliament.Hon Chris Hipkins: That is an outrageous statement.CHRIS BISHOP: I said it's sometimes been called that—sometimes been called that. When I became an MP six years ago Gerry Brownlee rang me up. He was Leader of the House and he said Mate how do you feel about regulations review?" and I was actually really excited about it because as a lawyer—or at least someone who has a law degree; shouldn't call myself a lawyer—someone who has a law degree sans practising certificate and someone who really enjoyed public law at university I was really excited to be on the Regulations Review Committee. It was chaired by the Hon David Cunliffe who—I think it was a hardship posting for him. He had been exiled to chair regulations review. The Hon David Parker sat on the committee as well and it was a great committee.The Leader of the House is absolutely correct that it does critical work because Parliament actually over time delegates quite enormous powers to rule-making bodies—to bodies other than themselves—and the exercise and the scrutiny of those powers is of critical importance. It's an under-appreciated and probably underutilised committee I would say and basically it operates like a court. You can turn up and basically take a judicial review claim before the Regulations Review Committee. What I don't understand is—people don't realise—you basically get a free judicial determination of your claim by lawyers acting for Parliament and it's a lot cheaper than going to court that's for sure.David Seymour: There'll be a rush now.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! If I can have your colleagues please—I can't really hear the contribution of Chris Bishop. Thank you.CHRIS BISHOP: I'm not entirely sure you're missing out on much Madam Speaker but I thank you for your forbearance.But this is just suffice to say that we support the motion which will give the Regulations Review Committee more power of examination and we also support the move that the Government has indicated around the extension of the Act. So I concur wholeheartedly with what the Leader of the House has said. His commitment to parliamentary sovereignty and to the rule of law in this occasion is very welcome."
Hipkins ChrisCOVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE ACT 2020ContinuationHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is continued and that the relevant period under section 3(2)(b) of that Act is the period ending on 16 April 2021.This is the first of three motions that the House will deal with tonight relating to COVID-19. This one is a relatively simple one: it extends the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act through until 16 April next year. The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was the subject of some quite wide-ranging and lively debate across the House when it was first passed into law. It creates new powers to allow the Government of the day to respond to COVID-19—in particular it creates some lower level powers that wouldn't be possible under the Health Act. When we're dealing with more localised outbreaks the existing provisions apply reasonably well in alert levels 3 and 4 but for the lower alert levels—around level 1 and level 2—where we need to put restrictions in place to contain a smaller outbreak or to have a lower level of intervention this Act is a much more appropriate tool.It also shifts the decision making from the Director-General of Health to a Minister—something that is better for the purposes of public and parliamentary accountability. If we did not extend the Act the Act would expire just before Christmas. To give you an indication of what that would mean it would mean that some of the orders that I have made first as Minister of Health and then as Minister for COVID-19 Response would no longer apply—and that includes things like the protections put in place at our border in particular and the requirements put in place around regularised testing of those who are most at risk. Those orders would no longer apply if the Act under which they were made was expired so it's important that we extend the Act.The question is: why extend it to 16 April rather than extending it for a shorter or a longer duration? Parliament will shortly debate something that will set in place some rules for how we deal with future extensions of the Act. In the future when the Act is extended the notice of motion to extend it will first go to a select committee and there will be an ability for the select committee to have a bit of a public process—a hearings process—around whether or not the Act should be extended. Those rules are not currently in place but later on tonight we will be putting those rules in place. So allowing for the Act to continue until 16 April means that we can ensure that when we next extend it we will be able to have a more transparent and accountable process because the motion to extend it will go to a select committee. The 16th of April gives us several sitting blocks in the new year where we can bring that motion to the House where it can be referred off to a select committee and where it can then go through that process.I think the Act is an important one. It is important that we continue to provide the powers necessary to ensure that we continue with our elimination approach to COVID19 and extending this Act will allow us to do that.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.
Motions — Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain on 15 March 2019—Report
Waititi Rawiri; Mallard TrevorRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kei te tautoko ahau i ngā mihi ki te Kaikōmihana nā rātou tēnei rīpoata. Kei te hoki atu ngā mahara ki te wā i aituāhia tēnei parekura nui ki Ōtautahi Maihe 15 2019.[I support the acknowledgments to the Commissioner the authors of this report. My thoughts are with those who were taken during the tragedy in Christchurch on March 15 2019.]Firstly I acknowledge the loss of life particularly in the sacrosanct place of worship in which these cold-blooded murders took place. Our security services are so engrossed in watching Māori activists that they overlooked white supremacists. The total criminal justice and security system must acknowledge the over-regulation and over-policing of Māori. We will never forget the massacre at Rangiaowhia or the invasion of South Taranaki in the non-violent community of Parihaka. But it never ended there. The attack on Tūhoe and Rua Kēnana at Maungapōhatu and the atrocity inflicted on Tūhoe again nearly 100 years later over the Tūhoe raids of 15 October 2007 shows there is still something deeply wrong. This is our home—ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei. This is our reality—the use and abuse of the power of the State concentrated on race rather than rights. Here the full powers of the State allowed a white supremacist to commit an atrocity on a scale in New Zealand history that will position us in the worst of times but it brought out the best of times in our collective response. The report concludes that there was an inappropriate concentration of counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist terrorism. More must be concentrated on white racists and white supremacists because the only multiple killings carried out in Aotearoa in the last 150 years have been by Pākehā in addition to what the report found—not gangs. Firearm laws will only marginalise Māori. The New Zealand Police had degraded and from 2015 was not carrying out strategic terrorism threat assessments. That is an issue of police prioritising resource. The report recommends the setting up of a new intelligence agency—our own homeland security if you will. Māori have a right to be suspicious about the set-up of any new Crown intelligence and security agency. Why? Because six months ago in this House under the cover of COVID legislation our marae—our sacrosanct places of culture and worship—were named to allow police fishing expeditions to enter at will. Mosques were not named. Churches were not named. Thankfully the Māori Party has returned to this House to shine our light and to speak our truth. We will be cautious and vigilant. Nā te mea nā tātou tēnei kāinga. Kia ora tātou.[Because ultimately this is our home. Thank you.]SPEAKER: Before I call the next member I am—I didn't want to interrupt that member before he spoke. But I will indicate to him that the requirements for business attire will be applied to him before he is called to speak in this House again.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.PETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been presented. No bills have been introduced. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019annual reports for 2019-20 from:Creative New ZealandDepartment of ConservationPredator Free 2050WorkSafe New ZealandNew Zealand Productivity CommissionReserve Bank of New Zealand and Regenerate Christchurchstatements of performance expectations 2020-21:Creative New ZealandPredator Free 2050 andWorkSafe New Zealandreports of the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990:Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment BillMisuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2)Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement together with the National Interest Analysis and the annexes to the agreement.SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Tertiary education institutions: 2019 audit results and what we saw in 2020 and the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of amendments to annual returns and initial returns from newly-elected members 2020. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the briefing on the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 4 September and 26 November 2020.SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration.
Wednesday 2 December 2020 - Volume 749
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 66New Zealand Labour 64; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 64.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
Motions — Climate Change—Declaration of Emergency
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
11. Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer AffairsNAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What is the Government doing to protect New Zealanders from unaffordable loans?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The Labour Government is committed to protecting Kiwis from high-cost loans and unaffordable debt. Last year we got started by taking the bite out of loan sharks and now we're making the rules clearer for all lenders to protect Kiwis from unaffordable loans. This morning I announced new rules that will require all lenders to make the same detailed inquiries to understand people's objectives and financial circumstances before approving a loan. The aim is to ensure borrowers are given only loans that are suitable for their needs and that consumers won't be burdened with debt that they cannot afford to repay without significant hardship.Naisi Chen: How does this build on work to crack down on loan sharks?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I do want to acknowledge the work that my predecessor Minister Faafoi did to take the bite out of loan sharks by making changes to the credit contracts legislation which put a cap on interest rates a cost-of-credit cap on high-cost loans and made sure that mobile traders comply with responsible lending rules. This is the next step which creates specific requirements for all lenders. Before approving a loan lenders must make consistent inquiries now about the borrower's needs and objectives to help ensure the credit product is suitable and they also need to verify the borrower's income and expenses to be satisfied that the repayments are unlikely to put the borrower into significant hardship.Naisi Chen: What difference will this make for people in vulnerable financial positions?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This morning I heard from Sariah at the Newtown Budgeting and Advocacy Service which sees hundreds of people each year in financial hardship due to unaffordable loans and I heard some of the stories. During the consultation in fact previously we heard about many New Zealanders struggling with unaffordable loans including the superannuitant who had got herself into debt through needing repairs to her car for her warrant of fitness. She'd taken out a loan with a private loan agency with a 26 percent interest rate. We also heard about a client who applied for a $1000 consolidation loan but got offered $10000 which he took and he is now struggling to meet repayments. These new rules are about ensuring that situations like these are prevented from the start. It's about having the right safeguards in place before Kiwis take out loans they cannot afford.
8. Question No. 8—TransportSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 8—Transport8. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'm pleased to report progress has been made on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project as part of our Government's plans to deliver better transport outcomes in our biggest city. On Monday the upgraded Ōtāhuhu Station was formally unveiled. This $50 million investment in the city's transport network includes construction of a third platform and passenger access at the station 1.3 kilometres of new track alongside KiwiRail's Southern Line four new crossovers to allow trains to switch between tracks signals and a new overhead line to power trains. I note that one of the advances that the current Government has made over and above the previous Government is that we've actually funded the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. Shanan Halbert: How will these upgrades improve public transport in Auckland? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: These upgrades are critical and will provide additional capacity to allow trains to run more often and faster when the City Rail Link (CRL) opens in 2024. Together along with New Zealand Upgrade Programme projects like the third main line it will allow us to double the capacity of Auckland's rail network. For commuters it has the potential to slash their commute time to the central city in half. For example from Ōtāhuhu to Britomart it can be 30 to 40 minutes; after the CRL it will be around 20 to 30 minutes. Ellerslie to K Road will go from 36 minutes currently to 17 minutes approximately. Shanan Halbert: What other progress has been made on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Good news: a number of projects have progressed. Some recently completed projects include in Ōtara safety upgrades including a new roundabout at the entry of Hayman Street and new pedestrian islands; at the notoriously dangerous Dairy Flat Highway / Coatesville-Riverhead Highway intersection a new $10 million roundabout right-turn bays centre median safety barriers side barriers and intersection upgrades; pleasingly in Mount Roskill a safer communities project including new footpaths speed tables as well as 11 raised pedestrian crossings that will help kids to cross the road more safely; on Waiheke the first electric buses have been rolled out; and construction continues on job-creating projects like the Eastern Busway State Highway 20B improvements the Puhinui interchange Old Māngere Bridge replacement—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Enough.
6. Question No. 6—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that school students are able to learn in warm dry and modern classrooms?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The election delivered a clear mandate to accelerate our economic recovery and build back better and part of that is prioritising construction projects in schools. Around 7500 students are set to benefit from the Government's latest investment of $164 million to build new classrooms and upgrade schools around the country. I am very proud of the work that we are doing to lift the quality of the classrooms that our students and our teachers spend so much time in.Jo Luxton: Will this investment have any impact on employment opportunities for New Zealanders?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. The package will help to create and sustain more than 3000 jobs. The Ministry of Education and schools will be engaging with local builders plumbers carpenters roofers electricians and other local businesses throughout this process. This investment in schools is backed up by our plan to make training opportunities more readily available as well.Jo Luxton: Can he identify the schools that will benefit from this investment in the North Island? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes I can and there's heaps of them but I'll name just a few including Greytown School in Wairarapa where I announced the package who are having a 100-year-old five-classroom block replaced and they're getting four additional classrooms; Ormiston Primary School; Kauri Flats School; Browns Bay School—to name just a few.Jo Luxton: Can he identify schools that will benefit from this investment in the South Island?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Once again there's plenty but I'll just name one which is that we are going to be building a new primary school in Rolleston East.
5. Question No. 5—COVID-19 ResponseCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 5—COVID-19 Response5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Why has the report of the COVID-19 Surveillance and Testing Strategy Group not been considered by Cabinet yet and what is his best estimate for when the report will be made public?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In answer to the first part of the question because my office only received the final draft of the report last week. In answer to the second part of the question the release of the report will depend on the decisions that Cabinet takes in response to it.Chris Bishop: Why did he say on 3 November then Obviously we needed a chance to digest that and consider it and in this post-election period that is what we are doing and we will certainly be releasing it." when he says he only received the report last week?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did receive earlier drafts and I made it clear when I received the earlier drafts. I asked the review panel to go and consult with the Ministry of Health before the report was finalised and they did that.Chris Bishop: Have all recommendations of the report even if they were in earlier draft versions of the report that were received by him been implemented?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No not yet. Those are some of the things that Cabinet has to make decisions on.Chris Bishop: How many recommendations did the report make and which of the recommendations does he consider to be the most pressing and urgent to implement?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The report concluded overall that the testing that Cabinet had mandated was being undertaken. They made some recommendations around how the reporting and monitoring of the testing could be improved. Obviously people are affected by that; therefore I asked them to consult with the people who are most affected including the Ministry of Health which they have now done. Cabinet has not had a chance to consider the report and to consider the decisions that it may take. Given that there will be people who will be affected by that the member will understand that I'm not going to go into great detail about that until Cabinet's had a chance to make decisions.Chris Bishop: Is it his expectation that Cabinet will consider the final report received by him before the end of the year and if so when can the public expect the recommendations of the report to be implemented in the new year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question yes. In answer to the second part of the question as I indicated in my primary answer release of information around that will depend on the decisions that Cabinet takes."
4. Question No. 4—Energy and ResourcesANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 4—Energy and Resources4. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to reduce fossil fuel use by large industrial users?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Last month I joined the Prime Minister to announce the launch of the first round of the Government investment in the Decarbonising Industry Fund. The Government recognises the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from process heat and the introduction of this fund represents a win for our climate and a win for our recovery. The fund operates as a partnership between the Government and business to accelerate the decarbonisation of industrial process heat and thermal energy used to manufacture products in industry. Process heat makes up around a quarter of New Zealand's energy-related emissions and over 50 percent of process heat is fossil fuelled mainly by gas and coal. This fund will be key to reducing those emissions in the years ahead. The $70 million new fund will allow businesses to invest in energy efficiency the application of innovative technologies and fuel switching with the ultimate goal of accelerating decarbonisation through the lowering of emissions.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is it important to decarbonise industrial users in New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: For New Zealand to achieve its ambitious climate goals we need to tackle the issue of emissions from our large industrial users. The interim Climate Change Commission recommended a focus on lowering emissions from process heat as a priority for decarbonising our economy as we continue our transition to a low-emissions future. The fund would be used for upgrading transmission or distribution network connections which would facilitate the electrification of industrial process heat to enable the deployment of energy efficiency and electrification technologies in industry. By targeting process heat produced by New Zealand's largest energy users we can accelerate the uptake of electrification and other technologies that will dramatically lower emissions and bring with it the benefit of clean-energy jobs.SPEAKER: Question No. 5—Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Pātai tāpiri.SPEAKER: Just to make it clear the first answer was far too long. The second answer answered the question in about the first 20 words and the rest of them answered a whole pile of other questions which were not asked. I think the member has had her time.