edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
1. Question No. 1—Prime MinisterRt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular I stand by this Government's action to set students up for greater success by mandating all schools to use the tried and tested structured literacy approach. It's going to be a big job for this Government to tidy up the mess that we inherited in educational achievement but we're up for it. We're ambitious for our kids. We're going to make sure they get the education they need so we can get the country back on track.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What's the current national gender pay gap?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry? Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the current national gender pay gap?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah just under 9 percent.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That's very good—[Interruption] Does he think it's acceptable—[Interruption] Does he think it's acceptable that women—SPEAKER: Just hang on.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think it's acceptable that women working in New Zealand earn just under 9 percent less than men for the same work; if not what's his Government going to do about it?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No we actually want to see pay parity in this country. We're going to work very hard to make sure that happens.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he think we have a gender pay gap in New Zealand?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh there's a longstanding number of reasons that you know has caused that pay gap. That's not acceptable. We're going to keep working hard on it.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What are some of those reasons?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well there's a number of reasons for it but I'm just telling you it's an unacceptable gap. We're going to work hard on it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as this matter is related to gender and it's very important for the Government has he received information as to what a woman is?SPEAKER: Look these questions may be enjoyable for the Minister but they're not particularly useful for the House.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is this Government abolishing the pay equity task force?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because it's the responsibility of Government agencies.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he disagree with the Public Service Commission when it identifies that pay equity settlements have been powerful vehicles for closing gender Māori Pacific and ethnic pay gaps that still exist?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if he doesn't disagree with that why is he abolishing the task force that does that work?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Agencies can do it.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he commit his Government to reducing the gender pay gap at least as fast as it has over the last six years when it's reduced from 12.2 percent to 7.1 percent just before the last election?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier I will be committing to lowering the pay gap.
Tuiono TeanauREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I move That debate on this question now close.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Rutherford Tom; Willis NicolaTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much Mr Chair. When we are taking this all as one part I'm really keen to actually talk about the title of the bill particularly. The Minister of Finance did talk about it briefly in her response to my colleague Katie Nimon's proposal and question to her. I'd ask the Minister: the title currently is New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill; had she considered a potential title for the bill to be New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Ideally Invest in New Zealand) Amendment Bill" where we're looking for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to invest ideally—Camilla Belich: Point of order Mr Chair. Thank you Mr Chair. Just a point of order. That is repetitive. The Minister has already spent a great deal of time responding to questions around the title and commencement which she did describe herself as quite simple and straightforward describing the nature of the bill.TOM RUTHERFORD: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you very much Mr Chair. I would just note in the Standing Orders under the committee of the whole House each member is entitled to make multiple speeches of up to five minutes.Camilla Belich: If relevant.TOM RUTHERFORD: Well I was relevant because I hadn't proposed this to the Minister for her consideration yet on the specific title that I was putting forward.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah that question is repetitive but I will allow the Hon Nicola Willis to respond if she has a response to that question.Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for his question. The member is bright he is bright-eyed he is bushy-tailed he's enthusiastic and he's full of ideas. I will admit that I didn't get to name this one and actually it was my predecessor who got to name it. Perhaps in future when I have the exciting opportunity to name a bill I will consider first a visit to Tom Rutherford he the designer of creative bill titles."
Kemp Takutai TarshTAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. A real short call from us here at Te Pāti Māori. We are in support of this bill. But just to make a statement and to remind the committee that superannuation—when I think about our kaumātua and kuia they are the pou of our society. They've worked hard and long and contributed to building the economy of Aotearoa. The problem we have and the issue we have for Māori is we don't get access to the superannuation fund. We die seven to 10 years earlier than non-Māori. If you follow the science and the data it tells us that. So what we need is legislation and policy that aligns to be able to adjust the inequalities of superannuation so that we can get access to it sooner earlier so that Māori get access to their right and to what they've contributed to in their years of life. Kia ora.
Nimon Katie; Willis NicolaKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Look I just want to ask a couple of questions particularly around the main provisions of the bill. What I'd quite like to understand is how this seeks to allow for the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to hold controlling interest in a business particularly also with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund statutory requirements and the five-yearly statutory reviews. As well as that also how that applies to public sector organisations that aren't intended to apply to entities that the Guardians have invested in. So sort of more administrative questions but if there's any way that we can have some answers to those questions. Obviously there are consequential amendments involved in this bill but I'd quite like to really understand a bit more about the removal of the control restrictions specifically because obviously there's a wide group of investment opportunities that this will unlock and just to understand some of those administrative outcomes that we can potentially seek to see as a result of the viability of investment partners.Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for her question. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund via the Guardians is currently required to maintain a statement of investment standards policies and procedures. And in making these changes we will be requiring the super fund to update that to contain a governance framework for the implementation and operation of controlling interests.I think this is important for a couple of reasons. One because it will require the super fund to make transparent the approach it intends to take towards these sorts of investments ahead of making them and that that approach will be able to be scrutinised and consistently applied.The second reason that this is important is that it provides a separation between the Guardians' functions as an investor or a shareholder and then the underlying operations of the investee which is to say just because the fund has a controlling interest doesn't mean that it's actually running the business in which it is invested. Because management of that underlying entity would run the business under the supervision of the entities board. So I hope that goes some way to addressing the member's question.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That debate on this question now close.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I just want to say that in this particular case we have debated the independence of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund quite substantially during the second reading. And in terms of this particular thing there has been no amendment—there has been no new amendment tabled. And I think in terms of the technicality of this particular bill it's pretty robust. So I just want to say that we should observe the same expediency as the previous bill in terms of getting it through the House. Thank you.
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well Mr Chair thank you for the questions from the members from Carl Bates the comments from the Hon Deborah Russell and from Stuart Smith. One of the issues that did come through the select committee process and that the members are all referring to is this important question of the independence of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Because by allowing the fund to take controlling interests in entities it becomes arguably even more important that the Government be distant from its investment decisions.So I simply draw members' attention to section 58 of the Act which requires the guardians to invest on a prudent commercial basis" and requires them to apply "best-practice portfolio management;" and to "[maximise] return without undue risk to the Fund as a whole;". So this section in conjunction with the independence of the board and the governance frameworks in place give me comfort that the legislative settings do allow for a high degree of investment independence; that that is there in the Act and will continue to be preserved even while we allow this controlling entity stake to be made.I would note that the Minister is not able to give a direction that is inconsistent with the Guardians' duty to invest the fund on a prudent commercial basis. I think that is a very important part of the law and it would be inappropriate for the Minister—and in fact illegal for the Minister—to do that.So what that requires of the fund is that it assess what it thinks are good investments in the market. What can be observed as that direct investment is now a much more common feature of best-practice global portfolio management today than it was when the Super Fund was first created and that we also can see that the proportion of the fund allocated to direct investments has increased and may continue to grow into the future. As the fund becomes larger it actually has to look for a wider range of investments and there are more investments that are available to it.So look the member is correct to identify that there are other significant investors from around the world who the fund may want to jointly invest with and certainly we have seen that that's common practice with super funds in other parts of the world—that they invest with other technical experts into things.So I share members' hope that this will lead to investment in New Zealand infrastructure and significant New Zealand projects. But I would never direct the fund in that way and it would not be appropriate for me to do so."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. The New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill is a great bill and I think there's wide acceptance across the committee that things need to change.I have a question around the Guardians having independence in their investment decisions. I think it's really important that the House and New Zealanders actually have confidence that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will invest in companies based on the fundamentals of those companies and their business cases rather than trying to seek a political objective. We did hear in the second reading from some of the speakers at least about ESG goals—that is environmental social and governance goals—which in my view cloud investment decisions. In fact what we're seeing as I'm sure the Minister will be aware is entities such as BlackRock Investment which are the champions and the global leaders in ESG investments have been losing funds. Their returns are down and they've been losing investment from the private sector putting money into that because of those poorer returns that they've had. And it's because they've been trying of course to focus on things that are not related to the fundamentals of the company concerned: what are their business cases are they going to make money do they have a clear objective?When they start clouding it with objectives other than what the company is set up to do—let's say it's an investment company in the energy sector—what are they trying to do there? Would they forego an investment in a company that might build a gas peaker plant for example—that would keep the lights on but would not necessarily meet ESG requirements because it would emit carbon dioxide as a result of it running to keep the lights on but would be a very good business case—and instead say No we won't invest in that; we'll invest in something else"? Now those decisions should be made by the market. They shouldn't be made in my view by trying to put overarching templates of some sort of social goal that goes along with it. We're not talking about investment in landmines or something; we're talking about other things.An energy company is a really easy one to use for that as an example but there would be others—forestry companies for example. Are we investing in those and if we are what's the investment goal from that? Is it about sequestering carbon? Is it about a business that's actually going to return a good return on the capital investment? And if the superannuation fund is able to take a controlling stake in that company it could be a major impact on that business's operations. Are we going to have the super fund then imposing its own view on how the company should be run other than the investment drivers that the business was originally set up for? So I'd really like to have some clarity on that in the Minister's view—how that might play out—and that would be really helpful. Thank you."
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): A very quick call Mr Chair just to point out that this bill came back from the select committee unchanged and with unanimous support from the select committee. So there is very little to debate and the objective of the bill is not something where the Government should be telling companies what to do but it just gives the New Zealand Super Fund a little bit more scope to make more investment.So it's a very simple straightforward bill and a bill that this House is already via the select committee you know agreed to in its first formation.
Tuiono Teanau; Bates CarlNEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION AND RETIREMENT INCOME (CONTROLLING INTERESTS) AMENDMENT BILLParts 1 and 2 Schedules and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members we now come to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. Members we start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 9 Amendments to principal Act" and the schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I seek leave that all parts are taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave has been sought for that purpose. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary No. The motion is agreed to. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedules and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. If there are no calls to be sought the debate will end. So if there are calls to be made—"
Tuiono TeanauCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the debate on this question now close.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Amendment Paper No. 29 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 Part 2 as amended Part 3 Schedules 1 to 3 clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I will report this bill with amendment presently.
Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Bates Carl; Stanford Erica; Tuiono TeanauCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I've got a question for the Minister of Education just regarding the confirmation of the scholarship fund succeeding the 28th Māori Battalion Association. I'm just wanting to clarify exactly what the purposes of administering the fund and authorising the use of the words and emblems relating to the 28th Māori Battalion and association is for and why we are going about creating that confirmation to succeed the 28th Māori Battalion and what the purpose of doing that within the Act is. Thank you.Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I thank the member for his question. Look the scholarship fund is incredibly important to honour the memory of the 28th Māori Battalion. I was recently at their award ceremony where many incredible young Māori were provided with a scholarship. It means a huge amount to them to carry on the legacy of the 28th Māori Battalion. The reason for this legislation is to make sure that they are legally able to use the emblems of the 28th Māori Battalion because there has been some question in their new form their new entity whether or not they have the legal right to use those and this just clarifies that they do.CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Minister I'm going to ask a quick question and then go from there. Does that cover all emblems that the Māori Battalion may be using across—you know all varieties or variations of that emblem or just the emblem as per Schedule 1 of the bill.Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I can confirm with the member that that's all.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): All emblems.
Xu-Nan Lawrence; Rutherford Tom; Stanford EricaDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Apologies I do still have questions of clarification if that's permissible—thank you Mr Chair. Just one very technical question of clarification. First of all I would like to preface this by saying my apologies I was not here for the first reading of the bill when it was first introduced. But just checking in terms of clause 17 in the bill which inserts new section 35 in the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972  Amendments to Schedule 2 by Order in Council". This is just a clarification in terms of subclause (2) of new clause 35: "An order made under this section is secondary legislation". I just want a little bit of clarification: does that mean there is secondary legislation coming or is there a secondary legislation already available? TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move that the—Hon Member: Ask a question.TOM RUTHERFORD: Ask a question? All right we'll ask a question then.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ask a question yes because the Minister's still trying to get some advice.TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh she's still trying to get—well I'm happy for her to take the call once she's got the advice Mr Chair.Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his question and I'm just confirming that that is secondary legislation."
Tuiono TeanauCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Kia ora members the committee is resumed. This is just a reminder that all parts are being read at the same time.
Bates Carl; O'Connor GregCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Mr Chair—Hon Member: Isn't it dinner time? CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well the time has come for me—you looked like you were about to make a speech Mr Bates. I thought it may have been a closure motion. However I anticipated that wrongly. So the House is suspended now until 7.30.Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Nimon Katie; Brown SimeonKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Look I just want to know now that we're considering it all in one question whether or not with the section that we have talked about—the Ngarimu VC fund—with the proposed amendments the Minister in the chair Simeon Brown considers that there are any great changes that we can see long term or whether this is sort of a fairly minor amendment?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): The proposed amendment which is on the Table affects clause 9 primarily in terms of—it replaces the definition of Pacific person" by removing the word "Aotearoa" from before "Pacific person". Effectively there is no substantial change in terms of the legislation but it reverts the terminology to that which is currently used in the principal Act to describe the class of persons eligible for financial assistance under the Act. Effectively what the previous Government was doing by creating a new term "Aotearoa Pacific person" was creating a new definition which of course isn't used in other legislation. The legislation will be basically consistent with other pieces of legislation which refer to "Pacific persons" rather than "Aotearoa Pacific person".Of course there's a very clear different definition: "Pacific person means a person who is living in New Zealand and who—(a) is a New Zealand citizen or has been granted permanent residence or has been permitted to enter New Zealand with the intention of gaining permanent residence; and—(b) has indigenous Pacific cultural heritage from a place listed in Schedule 2". New Schedule 2 is in the bill of course: "American Samoa; Cook Islands; Federated States of Micronesia; Fiji; French Polynesia; Hawaii; Kiribati; Nauru; Niue; Papua New Guinea; Pitcairn Island; Rabi; Rotuma; Samoa; Solomon Islands; Tokelau; Tonga; Tuvalu; Vanuatu; Wallis and Futuna". Those are the Pacific cultural heritage or the places which have been listed in that.There are a number of other clauses. Clause 11 again deletes the word "Aotearoa" in section 5(a); clause 15 deletes it from clause 15(1) page 6 line 6. So that very clearly outlines a very minor and technical change to make sure it's consistent with other pieces of legislation."
O'Connor Greg; Brown SimeonREGULATORY SYSTEMS (EDUCATION) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come first to the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. Members we start with Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 7 Amendments to Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945" and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part. The question is that—Katie Nimon: Mr Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oh sorry—Catherine Wedd.KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Ah no; Katie Nimon in fact. But that's all right. It happens almost every day Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well at least I got a name!KATIE NIMON: I move that the bill be—sorry I'll just get my wording right.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): You seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question I believe.KATIE NIMON: Yes thank you. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. Thank you Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you Mr Chair. On behalf of the Hon Erica Stanford the Minister of Education whose name this bill is in the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill makes minor technical amendments to maintain the effectiveness of our regulatory system. It's an omnibus bill which makes changes to two education Acts: the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945 and the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972. As well as updating these two Acts the bill makes technical amendments to two sets of regulations that impact the education sector.The Minister does have an Amendment Paper on the Table that relates to the Pacific Education Foundation Act amendments. The Pacific Education Foundation Act provides for the Pacific Education Foundation which is a statutory entity established with the purpose to promote and encourage the better education of Pacific peoples in New Zealand including administering different kinds of support such as financial support and scholarships. This change updates clauses 9 11 and 15 of the bill to revert the term labelled "Pacific person" in the defined terms of the Pacific Education Foundation Act rather than proceed with the previous Government's proposal to use the term label of "Aotearoa Pacific person".The coalition Government will support retaining the current term label of "Pacific person" in the Act rather than the proposed new term of "Aotearoa Pacific person" so there is an Amendment Paper on the Table which simply makes that very minor change to ensure consistency of language and I look forward to members across the Chamber supporting that Amendment Paper."
O'Connor GregHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee for consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill.
10. Question No. 10—Prime MinisterCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 10—Prime Minister10. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes and especially our announcement on the weekend which will save Aucklanders including those in that member's electorate from a predicted rates increase of 26 percent. We promised to repeal and replace Labour's disastrous three waters model and we are. The previous Government's divisive ineffective approach wasted $1.2 billion and achieved absolutely nothing. In just six months we've delivered for Auckland and Aucklanders. Local Water Done Well's going to deliver better water services.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the OECD's findings some of which his Minister of Finance was just referring to that I quote New Zealand's tax settings remain an outlier internationally." and that shares land and owner-occupied residential property are tax favoured?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I would say is that I agree with some of what the OECD says; I disagree with other things that they say.Chlöe Swarbrick: What did the OECD get wrong then with their analysis that New Zealand's tax settings remain an outlier internationally and that shares land and owner-occupied residential property are tax favoured?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I would say is what they got right is that we need to invest more in education; we need to invest more in competition and deregulation; and we need to make sure that we're investing in science technology innovation and international trade and investment.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree that our tax settings incentivise property speculation and disincentivise productivity or does he disagree with the Treasury the IMF the OECD and pretty much every credible economist in the country?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look what I agree with is that low and middle income working New Zealanders—the very people that the Labour Party and the Green Party used to profess they cared about—actually deserve tax relief. It's been 14 long years; there's been a 40 percent growth in inflation. They're going to get it at this Budget.Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he say to those low and middle income earners who can see in this OECD report that shares land and owner-occupied residential property are tax favoured under his Government's tax settings?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again as I said we are not supporting a capital gains tax; that is period. We're not doing that."
6. Question No. 6—FinanceHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 6—Finance6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that tax reductions will be funded by reprioritisations savings and new revenue measures" and is she committed to delivering meaningful tax cuts as outlined in the National–ACT and National–New Zealand First coalition agreements?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes and yes. The fact that tax reductions will be funded by reprioritisations savings and new revenue measures means that tax relief in the Budget will be fiscally neutral. The Government has decided to reprioritise lower-impact spending to give a modest amount of tax relief to people and families who have been paying more and more of their wages in tax over the last 14 years. Our tax package will be responsible. I look forward to when that member explains to working people why they should be yet again denied the opportunity to keep more of their own hard-earned money.Hon Barbara Edmonds: What national assets if any will she sell to pay for the tax cuts?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: None.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can she commit to no changes to the Government contribution to KiwiSaver to pay for her tax cuts?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she committed to the changes to the independent earner tax credit that is outlined in the coalition agreements for Budget 2024?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well now we're getting exciting questions because the member clearly wants to know the detail of the tax relief that we will be delivering on Budget day. I'm sad to say that just like everyone else she will have to wait until 30 May and gosh it's going to be good.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can the average earner expect to be $50 better off as per the coalition agreements or $10 to $20 per week better off as announced by David Seymour last week in the media?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Only 22 sleeps to go. I tell this to every worker listening to question time today: you will get precisely zero dollars of tax relief from a Labour-led Government and from our Government you'll be getting a lot lot more than that.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it responsible fiscal management to continue with her tax cuts when her Budget Policy Statement shows that tax revenue will be down $13.9 billion over the forecast period and she has confirmed she will be borrowing for everyday costs; if so what economists support her tax cuts in the current economic climate?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In answer to the first part of the question yes and what a mess we have been left. I will just invite the member opposite to consider the counterfactual. So if the counterfactual was to have a $3.5 billion operating allowance and spend it as was her party's stated alternative then our Budget package including tax relief for working people requires less borrowing."
5. Question No. 5—Local GovernmentDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 5—Local Government5. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about a financially sustainable model for water in Auckland?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): On Sunday I joined Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown to announce that the Government has delivered on our election promise to provide a financially sustainable water services model for Auckland under our Local Water Done Well plan. Our plan was unanimously endorsed by Auckland Council's governing body and Watercare's more financially sustainable model will ensure water rates for Aucklanders remain affordable both now and into the future. Dan Bidois: What do these changes mean for Auckland ratepayers?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well good news. Under the Local Water Done Well solution we announced on Sunday Aucklanders will avoid the 25.8 percent water rate hike previously proposed by Watercare; $1.2 billion was spent over the last six years by the last Government on water reform which took away local control and was divisive. But in six months our Government has avoided these significant water rate increases.Dan Bidois: How does this fit into the Government's plan to keep water assets in local control?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well good news. Our Government recognises the importance of local decision making and local ownership of water infrastructure. As part of our 100-day plan we scrapped three waters to restore council ownership and council control of water assets. And in six months we have delivered our first Local Water Done Well deal: a sustainable financial model for Auckland that will keep water assets in local control.Dan Bidois: What reports has he seen on water reform in Auckland?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well I've seen reports that over the last six years $1.2 billion was spent on water reform plans that would take away control of water assets from local councils. Some said that our Government's Local Water Done Well plan would not work but in just six months we have delivered a financially sustainable water services model for Auckland and we spent only $300000 on that.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceSUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on the economy?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. Every two years the OECD reports on the economic situation and policies of each member country. The latest report on New Zealand was released yesterday. As well as the usual commentary on economic and fiscal policy the report looks at three structural issues: competition policy climate change and improving educational performance in schools. I would encourage members to read the report. It is particularly good in describing what has happened in the economy over recent years and it brings cross-country expertise to important policy areas.Suze Redmayne: What does the OECD say about New Zealand's fiscal situation?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OECD report talks a lot about the current fiscal position and how this has come about. It says—and I quote—The pandemic and spending overruns led to a permanent increase in the government spending to GDP ratio resulting in a substantial deterioration of New Zealand's fiscal position." It says that public debt is rising Government spending has been higher than planned and that the discretionary increase in spending in the 2023 Budget "worked against monetary policy efforts to reduce inflation."Suze Redmayne: Does the OECD describe how those overruns happened?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The OECD report says that expenditure slippage to use the OECD term arose in two main ways: first from 2021 onwards the Government set relatively high operating allowances in advance of its Budgets and second when it came to the Budget itself the actual amount of spending was higher still. This is borne out by the relevant Budget documents. For example the operating allowance for Budget 2023 was originally set at $2.6 billion then was successively raised to $2.7 billion $4 billion and finally $4.5 billion. The actual new spending in Budget 2023 was $4.8 billion. That is how spending overruns happen.Suze Redmayne: What is the OECD's advice on addressing these fiscal issues?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OECD says—and I quote again—"It is important that the Government continues to steadily reduce the fiscal deficit as planned to limit the rise in public debt and thereby increase the fiscal buffer available for the next negative shock." [Interruption] Members are clearly very interested in this so they should listen up: "On the revenue side any tax cuts should be fully funded by offsetting revenue or expenditure measures." We've not shared any details of the Budget with the OECD but it is safe to say that after 30 May they will find that the Budget is entirely consistent with this advice."
Speaker's Rulings — Oral Questions—Supplementary Questions
Brownlee GerrySPEAKER'S RULINGSOral Questions—Supplementary QuestionsSPEAKER: Can I just refer members to the particular Standing Order—which I don't have in front of me; I did but I haven't got it with me at the moment—that makes it clear that it's the Speaker's discretion to grant supplementary questions and that while we have a sort of roster that roster falls within the discretion of the Speaker. I'm just told that it's Standing Order 397. I just offer that because of the nature of some of the questions that I've spoken of before that are on the sheet today.
Point of Order — Urgent Debates Declined
McAnulty Kieran; Brownlee GerryPOINTS OF ORDERUrgent Debates—Application ProcessHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. Is it your intention to respond to urgent debate applications before question time moving forward? I just note that that has happened on occasion but also they have been responded to after questions. I'm just trying to figure out how you're going to approach this moving forward.SPEAKER: A mix of both. Before we go on to oral questions can I just—Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Responding to that point of order I am unaware of instances previously where Speakers have responded to applications before question time. Usually—or in the past certainly—they've been responded to after question time and if they have been accepted a debate then happens at that point. If it is your intention to respond to applications before question time obviously that gives the House a lot more notice to prepare for what is an urgent debate.SPEAKER: Or not. The Standing Orders were changed in 2023 to indicate that the Speaker can indicate whether a special debate has been granted at any time. I'm just sort of feeling my way to see how the House feels about that and since we were doing a lot of other procedural things before we started question time I thought why not get it out of the way. If that's not something you're happy with then take it up with the Standing Orders Committee.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): No I'm delighted; I just wanted to know what was going on.SPEAKER: You're delighted? You're delighted not to get a debate—I'll bear that in mind next time.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: We come now to petitions.CLERK: Petition of Miriam Woon requesting that the House change the school bus drop-off on State Highway 6 opposite Todd Bush Road petition of Shary Bakker requesting that the House take immediate action to roll back the changes made to the purchasing guidelines outlined by Whaikaha Ministry of Disabled People and reinstate the guidelines that were in place immediately prior to 18 March 2024 petition of Shubham Sharma requesting that the House urge the Government to remove the existing ban on pet imports from India.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. I present a report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled General Election 2023: Independent review of counting errors. That paper stands published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Emergency Management Billreports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Kathryn Phillips and the petition of Kiwilaw Probate and Estates Ltd.SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Brownlee GerryURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDAuditor-General's Report—Review of University of Waikato's Procurement Services from Joyce Advisory Services LtdSPEAKER: I received an urgent debate letter from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Auditor-General's review of the University of Waikato's procurement of services from Joyce Advisory Services Ltd. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. However there is no ministerial responsibility for an Auditor-General's report. The Auditor-General is an Officer of Parliament responsible to the Speaker—Speakers' rulings 218/1 and 218/3. Urgent debates have been permitted when Governments have responded to an Officer of Parliament's report. However no response was disclosed in the member's letter. The application is declined.
Brownlee GerryPRIVILEGEConduct of Member—Hon Julie Anne GenterSPEAKER: As notified to the House last Thursday I have received letters from the Hon Scott Simpson and Todd Stephenson raising a matter of privilege relating to the Julie Anne Genter conduct towards Matt Doocey during the committee stage of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill on 1 May 2024. The conduct complained of could amount to threatening or intimidating a member acting in the discharge of their duty or threatening a member on account of their conduct in Parliament—see Standing Orders 418(m) and (w) and McGee section 59.9. The Speaker does not inquire into the veracity of the evidence presented or conduct an inquiry into the allegations. That's the role of the Privileges Committee. The Speaker's role in such matters is to determine whether the facts alleged could amount to a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House. Accordingly I find that a question of privilege does arise and that question stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Death of Former Member — Derek Alan Angus QSM
Brownlee GerryOBITUARIESDerek Alan Angus QSMSPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 2 May 2024 of Derek Alan Angus QSM who represented the electorate of Wallace between 1981 and 1990. During his membership of this House he was a member of the Electorate Law Committee the Petitions Committee and the Statutes Revision Committee. I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of loss and sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I will now ask members to stand with me to observe a period of silence as a mark of respect in his memory. Members stood as a mark of respect.
Swearing in of Member — Francisco Hernanadez
Brownlee Gerry; Hernandez FranciscoLIST MEMBER ELECTEDGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—Francisco Bagkus HernandezSPEAKER: I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Francisco Bagkus Hernandez to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of James Shaw from his list seat. I understand that Francisco Hernandez is present and wishes to take the oath of allegiance. MEMBERS SWORNFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Ko ahau ko Francisco Bagkus Hernandez e oati ana ka noho pūmau taku pono ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture. Ko te Atua nei hoki taku pou.[I Francisco Bagkus Hernandez swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III His heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.]Ako si Francisco Bagkus Hernandez ay sumusumpa na ako ay magiging tapat at mag-aalay ng tunay na katapatan sa Kanyang Kamahalan kay King Charles III sa Kanyang mga tagapagmana at kahalili alinsunod sa batas. Tulungan nawa ako ng Diyos.SPEAKER: Do you declare this oath to be binding upon you? FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: I do.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 7 MAY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Brooking Rachel; Brownlee GerryHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Speaker. I will note given the time that we are speaking at that I want to endorse everything that my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa just said before particularly that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which considered this bill—which didn't report back with a track-changed version—was a very thoughtful membership. I know that everybody on that committee would have cared a great deal about both human rights and the manaakitanga that we've heard about.I just want to quickly touch on the Immigration Act itself and that it does define a mass arrival group" at section 9A. That means more than 30 people who don't have a visa or are stowaways who arrive in New Zealand on board the same craft—a craft not being something that is a scheduled international service. "Craft" is then defined as "any form of aircraft ship or other vehicle or vessel capable of being … used to transport [persons] to or from New Zealand". So it's a large craft a range of crafts.The issue that we found was that the 2009 legislation doesn't provide for a mass arrival in terms of being clear about what would happen to those people. So as my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa said the Labour Party listened carefully to the objections that were made at that select committee and we'll have some Amendment Papers when we're in the committee of the House stage. Thank you. SPEAKER: The time for me to leave the Chair has arrived. The House will resume again at 2 p.m. on 7 May. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m."
Thursday 2 May 2024 - Volume 775