edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): After nine long years this Government inherited a rail network that was in a state of managed decline. This bill is about enabling this Government to show its commitment to revitalising rail in all of New Zealand and on those grounds I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.
SpeechLAND TRANSPORT (RAIL) LEGISLATION BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 4 June.ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): I am very happy to take the opportunity to recap on some of the previous points I made in an earlier contribution—I think last week—because I want to express how deeply concerned we are on this side of the House about this bill. Our concerns relate specifically to road safety. Although claims will be made opposite about the need for more investment in rail what they've been silent on actually is the effect on roads around the country. Taking $5 billion out of the State highway network which was one of Phil Twyford's first acts when he became transport Minister wasn't enough. He claimed that we had over-invested in roads for decades so he took $5 billion out of the State highway network to instead put into Auckland rail and cycle projects and now what this bill does is formalises that raid. This says that wasn't enough; we now need to raid that piggy bank of money even more—take more money out of roads to put into rail. Unfortunately what that means is roads up and down this country will be made less safe. I ran through some of those. There's Woodend where they're in desperate need of a bypass to make that community safer. There's the Waikato Expressway in Tim van de Molen's part of the world—a much-needed road for that community. There's the Northland motorway. They've been screaming out for four lanes there and all the Government does is wants to put money into all sorts of other Shane Jones projects not the one that's actually needed to unlock the Northland economy. And then in my part of the world the road between Ashburton and Christchurch—by the Government's own data the second-most dangerous stretch of highway in the country. When we get back into Government we'll fix those roads.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It's a shame that the Opposition continue to play politics for the sake of politics because they know that this is the right thing to do. The Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal have said that it was an outlandish mistake that the Opposition made in 2010 revoking the rights of those prisoners that would be released during that particular term to determine who would govern them. So therefore it is with great pride—and I acknowledge the Minister of Justice Andrew Little for his work—that I can commend this bill to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianELECTORAL (REGISTRATION OF SENTENCED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 16 June.Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. Just to recap on this bill the big question is: do criminal offenders—indeed should they—have the right to vote? On this side of the House we say no way. On the other side of the House they say yes but there is a little caveat. Now this particular topic—looking back in Hansard and the history books of this Parliament—has been debated since the 1970s. Indeed the National MP in the last John Key - Bill English National-led Government Paul Quinn—he proposed the change and indeed it went through and now we find ourselves back debating this very important topic now. Now this bill received something like 2500 submissions and it meant that because the Government's got their foot on the throttle they see that they may indeed need these 1900 votes that they might get—or potentially may not get.Hon Andrew Little: 78 percent in favour.Hon NATHAN GUY: I hear Mr Little chiming in from the back. He's obviously woken up and he's very passionate about screwing electoral law reform to satisfy the election result. We don't think that's fair. And I'll tell the Minister of Justice why we don't think it's fair. Why does this particular piece of legislation have to be rushed through? Why does it have to be rushed through Mr Little? Hon Andrew Little: There's Mr 22 percent right there.Hon NATHAN GUY: Mr Little can't answer a decent question. We know he has a habit of not doing that and getting fired up. That was a straightforward question. And the next question to the Minister is: why did the Justice Committee have to meet through COVID lockdown with all these Zoom sessions? Why? Why the urgency? Hon Andrew Little: It wasn't a day off. Everybody else worked. Every other MP worked.Hon NATHAN GUY: Well—it wasn't a day off. Well he should go and say that to the thousand people a day that are joining the dole queue. Yeah well they're now staring down the barrel of actually hanging out for the Government to create jobs. Now is this particular bill going to create jobs? No this is not going to create jobs. What this is going to mean is that 1900 prisoners will be given the ability to vote in this general election. We don't think that's fair when you think about the fact that these are serious offenders. What about the victims in all of this? They are lost and forgotten. This gives criminals the right to vote when we think they should be serving their time and they have had their freedoms taken away from them—and one of those is voting. We think—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): It is an honour to make the last speech in this House on the Arms Legislation Bill. I wish to end with thanks. Thank you to all the people who made submissions on the bill. We received a great many submissions. We listened to a great many people and listened very carefully to what they had to say and made some changes because of what people had to say to us. Thank you to the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who worked hard on the bill. I wish to record a special thanks to Mark Patterson from New Zealand First who came along and listened carefully and sensibly and advocated and made I think a good case for some of the changes that we made in this bill. Thank you to the other members of the committee who worked hard and sensibly on the bill. Thank you to the team of advisers people who have worked for many many years on the issues in this bill. It is wonderful to see you here today as this bill goes through its very last stage. I know for many of you it represents work that you are very pleased to see done work that you have done for many years. It reaches its culmination today. Thank you for your work. Thank you to the Minister of Police who brought this legislation to the House and who has shepherded it through all the stages and again has worked very carefully on it. It's legislation that about 85 percent of New Zealanders agree with that we do need to have better control over firearms in this country. This bill represents a step in doing that. We will continue to work on these issues over the years as should be the case. But today we have achieved something significant. I commend this bill wholeheartedly to the House.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I'm delighted to speak on the third reading of this Arms Legislation Bill. I want to just acknowledge not only our outstanding Minister in Stuart Nash for his leadership in shepherding this bill through the House but I want to acknowledge the late Justice Sir Thomas Thorp. Justice Thorp told us what was wrong with our gun laws way back in 1997 with his landmark gun control report. Nothing had happened since that time and we only need to look back to the tragic events of last year to see the deficiencies that are in place with an outdated Arms Act that goes way back to 1983.So I'm delighted to be standing to support this bill. I want to acknowledge Minister Nash and our coalition Government for taking action—for taking action and bringing about this significant and much-improved piece of legislation. I'm pleased that we're consigning the Arms Act 1983 to history and I welcome this new bill and I commend it to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Look I really only just wanted to make one brief point. It was in response to Mr McKelvie's statement that he didn't like the use of the word privilege" in the bill—an important statement that the ownership of a rifle is a privilege. You know I think if it's not a privilege it's a right. And if we go down that road we're in all kinds of trouble. There are all kinds of privileges we have and we have to show our competence and the reasons that we need it—whether that be using explosives or poisons or driving a car and having a rifle for a legitimate purpose is simply another one of those. Once we establish that absolutely the Government will confer that privilege on you but to suggest it's anything other than that to suggest it's a right is taking us down a very slippery slope. We don't need to look very far to see where that leads us and that's not where we'll be going today. I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechDEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker I will be leaving the Chair to attend another meeting and I do want to acknowledge Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement. He's performed an extraordinary service to New Zealand over the last 40-odd years. I wish him well and thank him very much—particularly from the East Coast electorate recently with the Whakaari tragedy and the support that he gave to the community there. But that's only one example of many many years of extraordinary service. So thank you Mike and all the best.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): The legislative changes that we have made as a nation since 15 March have meant the Christchurch terrorist would not have been able to purchase the types of weapons that killed 51 people last year. There have been a number of people that had contributed to this bill and I want to acknowledge the Hon Stuart Nash. I want to acknowledge him for stewarding through this bill under immense urgency and I also too want to acknowledge his team. With us we have the deputy commissioner Mike Clement who is retiring next week from the police force after 42 years of service. He has been an exceptional champion for the safety of all New Zealanders and in this House may I take the chance just to acknowledge you and the service that you've given to men and women across this country. I too want to acknowledge the rest of the team that is here with us today: Acting Superintendent Mike—I had to ask how to say this—McIlwraith Catherine Petrie Geoff Dunn John White and James Edmonds. You've all done exceptionally stellar job under exceptionally trying circumstances and I believe that we are fundamentally safer as a society due to your collective actions. With no further ado I'm extremely proud to commend this bill to the House.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Yes that matter was referred to in the letter. From memory—I'll just get it here—the matter of urgent public importance relating to the Government's handling of COVID-19 quarantine and managed isolation of travellers returning from overseas. That is the paragraph with the request in it and that is a general matter and not a specific matter which is referred to later. I will remind people of the further ruling that I made: if people are going to rely on specific matters it is important that they are brought up in a timely matter. These were matters which were well discussed before the House sat yesterday.
Urgent Debates Declined — COVID-19—Government Response to Quarantine and Isolation and Government Economic Management
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I don't have a copy of the letter from the Hon Nikki Kaye to you in respect of the urgent application but it was a specific triggering event as well as an accumulation of issues—that is the purview of Government responsibility—and that is the revelations around the management of the cases that have been the subject of media in the last 24 hours.
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDCOVID-19—Quarantine and Managed Isolation Government ResponseCOVID-19—Government's Economic ManagementSPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Nikki Kaye seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government's handling of the COVID-19 quarantine and managed isolation of travellers returning from overseas. I have also received a letter from the Hon Amy Adams seeking to debate the Government's economic management given the official GDP statistics for the March 2020 quarter. An ongoing situation or an accumulation of information on an issue is not itself a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers' rulings 195/1 and 2. The Government's handling of COVID-19 or its management of the economy are ongoing matters. Applications for urgent debates must pinpoint with some precision a particular matter that has recently occurred. I will remind members that not raising a matter at the first opportunity will considerably weaken the case for an urgent debate application and Speakers' rulings 195/4 and 5 apply. The applications are therefore declined.
Hipkins Chris; Woodhouse MichaelTHURSDAY 18 JUNE 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): On Tuesday 23 June the House will consider the second readings of the Racing Industry Bill and the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill and the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. As notified to the Business Committee after the general debate on Wednesday 24 June urgency will be moved and the House will sit through to Friday evening. This will make up some of the time lost while the country was at COVID alert levels 3 and 4. Legislation that will progress during that time will include the Education and Training Bill the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill the Public Service Legislation Bill the Racing Industry Bill the Resource Management Amendment Bill and the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update and given the very long list of bills the Government intends to progress in urgency can he just clarify that the House will lift on Friday regardless of the progress that has been made or is there a scenario that sees the House sitting into Saturday.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course if the Opposition choose to filibuster and business takes longer than anticipated that's—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! This is by way of points of order.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is a matter that the Government will take into consideration when deciding whether or not the House will continue to sit beyond midnight on Friday.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you. Could the Leader of the House give a more accurate description of his definition of filibuster?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Well if legislation takes an unnecessarily long time.
Wednesday 17 June 2020 - Volume 746
Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Motion not agreed to.
Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the High-power Laser Pointer Offences and Penalties Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Motion not agreed to.
High-power Laser Pointer Offences and Penalties Bill — First Reading
8. Question No. 8—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 8—Transport8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Is he still reasonably confident" as stated in the House on 12 March 2020 that Cabinet will consider the recommendations from the Ministry of Transport on Auckland light rail before the general election; and has he seen reports from the Rt Hon Winston Peters that it is "clear as daylight" that Auckland light rail will not get Cabinet sign-off before the general election?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes and yes.Chris Bishop: Does he stand by his comment to this House two weeks ago on 3 June that he expects to take a paper to Cabinet about light rail in the coming weeks? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.Chris Bishop: Does he think his process around light rail is a good demonstration of the project being "prioritised and delivered on an accelerated schedule" as Cabinet agreed in May 2018?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think it's a good example of a project where the Government is doing something that 91 percent of Automobile Association members have asked for. It's a project that reflects the importance that Aucklanders place on a modern rapid transit system in their city and it reflects our Government's willingness to consider innovative financing arrangements to deliver that project and we're determined to take the time to get it right.Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments of the leader of the Green Party "I'm always disappointed in New Zealand First." and does he agree with those comments? SPEAKER: Order! If I thought the member knew that he was deliberately flouting the Standing Orders there'd be a punishment. I'll go on the basis that he didn't know that he was which is a very generous interpretation."
3. Question No. 3—FinanceGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the COVID19 pandemic?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest Westpac McDermott Miller Consumer Confidence Survey released yesterday did show the consumer confidence had fallen by 7 points to 97.2 in June. Westpac said that a drop in sentiment was not surprising given the economic impacts of COVID-19 and that the result was in fact surprisingly moderate" likely owing to New Zealand's success in limiting the spread of the virus and the earlier than anticipated easing in lockdown restrictions. Westpac further said that this relative resilience in consumer confidence adds to other signs that the COVID recession may not prove quite as severe as initially feared. However Westpac still expects weak GDP and a big increase in unemployment over the coming few months something which we have been clear about from several months ago. That's why we are making the significant investments we are through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund to help New Zealanders recover and rebuild from this global pandemic. Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the global economic context for the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week the World Bank released its latest Global Economic Prospects report forecasting the global economy to contract by 5.2 percent in 2020 the deepest recession since World War II. This recession is expected to be particularly acute in advanced economies which are collectively forecast to contract by 7 percent. Similarly the IMF Chief Economist said on Monday that the global economic crisis is "unlike anything the world has seen before" and its forecast in April of a 3 percent contraction for the global economy this year will likely be even worse in its June World Economic Outlook. As I've mentioned previously in this House the OECD has also revised down its forecast for the global economy. All of these reports are useful reminders that despite some recent good economic news in New Zealand the pandemic is still ongoing and will require a sustained response from the Government.Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the impact of restrictions as a result of COVID-19 on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to the Oxford University COVID-19 Government Response Stringency Index—a composite measure based on nine indicators—New Zealand has a reading of 22.22 tied with Taiwan for the looseness of the restrictions below Japan far below Australia South Korea the UK the US or China. This shows that our strategy of going hard and early is paying dividends with a far less restrictive environment for businesses and consumers allowing New Zealand a head start for kick-starting our economic recovery."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies in relation to the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context they were made and delivered. In particular I stand by our policies that have supported more than 1.6 million New Zealanders to stay in work through payments of cash grants for businesses and our policies that have given us the opportunity for New Zealand to be one of the most open economies in the world at the moment.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement this morning that he shares the frustration" of the Prime Minister who was angry at The Warehouse Group when they announced job losses what would he have had them do?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well what I would have had them do is what I think all businesses in New Zealand are doing: they're looking at every single option that is available to keep workers on board. We know of many small-business owners who have reached into their own pockets to make sure that they keep all of their staff employed—that is an example of New Zealanders coming together in the face of this crisis and it's what we want everyone to do.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he also frustrated with the employers of the 40000 New Zealanders who lost their jobs in April?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have a great deal of sympathy for all New Zealanders who've been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. What we are saying is we want everybody to come together and do their bit.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does his frustration or the Prime Minister's anger do anything to help New Zealanders stay in work or find a job?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the last three months this Government has undertaken the biggest investment in New Zealand's history to support people to stay in work and to support businesses to create new jobs. Every single waking hour of this Government is devoted to making sure we create jobs and support people to stay in jobs.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Shouldn't his and his Prime Minister's focus be on a credible growth plan to save jobs rather than taking cheap shots at companies under stress?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our focus is exactly as I articulated. It is on helping to create jobs. Right across New Zealand the feedback that we are getting is that businesses and employees appreciate what's been done to put in front of them around $11 billion worth of support for the wage subsidy scheme. The member should get on board with that spirit and actually support New Zealand businesses."
McAnulty KieranSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. A members' day is a special day and speaking to a member's bill is a special moment and in that spirit I do not wish to have the Hon Nikki Kaye deprived of the opportunity to do a speech on the whole. So I therefore seek leave for the House to now adjourn.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I'll be very quick and to the point. So retrospective validation in this legislation is not a blanket validation of their non-compliance with one legislation but it is only if they have been compliant with the Charities Act 2005. The change that we are making to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 is to align it with the Charities Act 2005 so it makes full sense. Thank you Madam Chair.Clause 7 agreed to.Schedule agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 7
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Since my colleague Michael Wood is unable to continue his call I would like to take the opportunity to discuss clause 7 here because of course the retrospective nature of this clause I think needs further investigation—or certainly explanation—and I'm sure the member Parmjeet Parmar would like to take the opportunity to do so. It's a very simple question. Just so that we can all better understand what it is that we're about to vote on could the member please outline why this is retrospective in nature?
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 6
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 5
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I'm just going to very briefly have one further go at this because I think possibly members on this side and the member in the chair are talking at cross-purposes. So for absolute clarity I would say that members here understand and support the point that the member in the chair has just made—that we want to see this issue fixed whereby these organisations have been told that they effectively have to report according to two different sets of financial standards. That's the core purpose of this legislation. We support that. No one wants that extra burden to be placed upon them which also puts them in a precarious probity position. The specific point that both Ms Radhakrishnan and I have been making in respect of section 39(2)(b) is why have we also changed the wording in terms of some of the reporting standards to seemingly lessen what has to be reported on—OK? We could do what the member in the chair Ms Parmar has said and not do that and have a slightly smaller bill. We could simply change it to make sure that they had to report according to the generally accepted accounting standards. Fine—we can do that. But we don't also need to change the wording in section 39(2)(b) which has been pointed out in Julia Durkin's submission and was pointed out in my comments before and Ms Radhakrishnan has also touched upon it. So that is a specific question and concern that we're coming to. To put it really crisply: why have we made those other changes to section 39(2)(b)? If the member could satisfy us on that then I think we would be very pleased with that and it will enable us to proceed. Clause 5 agreed to.
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you. I understand what the member Priyanca Radhakrishnan was trying to say but by saying that what the member is saying is that all the charities that are registered according to the Charities Act 2005 should be actually having this extra layer of work to prepare their financial statements which I don't agree with because this is one of the legislations where we want to make sure they don't have the duplication of work—continue doing the duplication of financial statements they have been doing until now. Some of them I know since 2014-2015 have not been complying. We don't want them to go back and actually comply which we will talk about later on. But by saying that the member is saying that all organisations that have charitable status according to the Charities Act 2005 should also be adding this extra layer of work for their financial statements which I don't agree with. This is actually to make their life easier not to make their life difficult. So this is not about the Charities Act; this is about the funding Act 2008. Thank you Madam Chair.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I take the member Dr Parmjeet Parmar's point that the change that this bill proposes would be removing that additional layer of compliance and not in effect requiring these specified amenities to report against two separate standards. I think by this point all of us in the committee get that that's the difference that this bill seeks to make. However I don't think actually some of the points that Michael Wood raised were addressed.I too went back to the principal Act to look at the changes that clause 5 proposes the replacement section 39(2)(b) that is proposed in this bill and how that compares to section 39(2)(b) that is in the principal Act. My reading of this is that it's really only section 39(2)(b)(i) and (v) that are in effect retained in the replacement section. I say in effect" because section 39(2)(b)(i) of course relates to "a statement of financial position prepared in accordance with the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards;" and that is of course what we're replacing with generally accepted accounting practice. So I get that. I get that the first part that section 39(2)(b)—the first bit deals with the replacement of that and that's fine. I have no issue with that. I support it.Section 39(2)(b)(v) though is exactly the same as far as I can see as replacement section 39(2)(c). But the bits in between are the bits that I have some questions about and I with due respect don't think that there was an actual response that would allay our fears that the standard hasn't been lowered and I think that's the point that the submitter Julia Durkin was making as well which Michael Wood relayed to the House. That is the removal of those three bits in between and the requirement for an overall operating statement a statement of cash flows and any other statements necessary to fairly reflect the amenity's financial position the resources available to it and the financial results of its operation.Again I take the member's point that she made that there are different standards that we should require of for-profit entities and not-for-profit perhaps but having been in the NGO sector myself for many years and knowing that these organisations are also entrusted with money I think it's a fair point to raise that people should be confident in the fact that those moneys are being used in a way—and I'm not in any way trying to cast aspersions upon these charities but I do think it's a fair point that we have a reasonable standard of financial reporting. With due respect I think that was the point that Michael Wood was trying to make as well. So the response that I would seek from the member in the chair then is that those three bits that are now effectively removed by replacement section 39(2)(b) still give us confidence that the intent of those three bits will still be kept in a sense or if not why not. Thank you."
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I would like to clarify to the member Michael Wood that the funding board is established exclusively for charitable purposes. So what we are doing here because these amenities are already complying with the Charities Act is we want to see that it's the same standard in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act because the main purpose of this board is to support charitable purposes. So I hope that clarifies the question that the member has asked. There's a big difference in accounting standards for profit-making entities versus non-profitmaking entities. These entities are not profit-making entities and it's important for them to comply with the Charities Act. As the funding board's main purpose is to support services that are basically charitable kinds of services it makes no sense to keep this extra layer of compliance on them which is just adding to their work and not adding any value or efficiency to anybody there.
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 4A
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Chair. These changes are to section 39 and section 40 of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. Obviously these amenities have to report because this Act provides for funding for these amenities. So in new Schedule 1AA inserted by clause 7 of the bill clause 2(1) is for the amenities. It clarifies—it makes it very clear—what these transitional provisions will look for these amenities. But then because that board is also required to prepare their financial statement the next clause actually specifies transitional provisions for the board because the board has to prepare their financial statement as well which is in section 40. So that one applies to section 40. That applies only to the board not to the specified amenities. Thank you Madam Chair.Clause 4A agreed to.
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 3 and 4
Andersen GinnyClause 3 Principal ActGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Look it was a real pleasure to be on the Governance and Administration Committee and to be able to hear the submissions and also be part of that discussion. But the question I've got for the member Dr Parmjeet Parmar in relation to clause 3 the principal Act revolves around the date. So we know that the Act amends the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 the principal Act. It goes along to the vein of what's been said today already and that's the concern around that commencement date. My concern in relation to that area is whether there is sufficient time for those entities affected to have those parts in order. From all accounts from what we heard we did. But the fact that the issue around the commencement date isn't overly clear—I would just like a sense of reassurance in terms of those ones that we've heard about in terms of those charitable entities if they have the adequate time necessary for that principal Act to be changed. Thank you Madam Chair.Clause 3 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Michael Wood—oh sorry; changed your mind.Clause 4 agreed to.
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll take a very quick call to just answer a couple of questions that came up. One question that came up is through the changes that we are making through this legislation just clarifying that we will not be penalising any charities. So this legislation actually is not changing the Charities Act itself; it is changing the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. So it's not changing anything in the Charities Act.The other question that came up about the commencement date—I see that the members have elaborated on new section 4A inserted by clause 4A. That was to clarify the transitional provisions that were needed because depending on when the legislation goes through we wanted to make sure that these regional amenities understood from when to apply the changes that will come into effect once this legislation has gone through. So that's why it was clarified that it will apply to the year in progress the year that would have just finished and obviously to any future period. Thank you Madam Chair.Clause 2 agreed to.
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a short contribution just wanting to check with the title. A significant component of this bill is actually about the funding mechanism and the preparation of financial statements. Perhaps the title could be broadened to include that kind of aspect of the provisions of this bill—that it's not just about the funding mechanism; that it's also about the financial statements and it's also about the requirement to report. I would see that there would be some value in including that within the title. I'd like to ask the member in the chair Dr Parmjeet Parmar if she had considered that. I think that's all I need to make a contribution on for this clause. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Because the work on this bill started in 2019 and it was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee in September 2019. Officially it was in and we started working on this bill in 2019 so that's why the title includes 2019. Thank you Madam Chair.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I'm sorry this hadn't occurred to me until just now and I'm sure the member has an answer for it. Because I wasn't on the Governance and Administration Committee I didn't actually get into the detail of this bill. I'm sorry—I might have drifted off. But it's the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2019 but we're now in 2020. I know it's a small point and I just missed it. I would appreciate it if the member could just clarify that for me. I do understand that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act where it goes back to—was it the 2008 Act which provided that funding for those specified amenities? So I wouldn't have been surprised if that had been in the Act title and things like that. But that 2019 date I've just gone: oh what's that 2019 date about? I'm sure it's only a very short and small explanation but I would just appreciate given that it's 2020 whether you could explain to me why it says the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2019 instead of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2020. So if the member could explain that. Thank you.
SpeechClause 1 TitleDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): A very quick call to say that the title of this Act—that is the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2019—is the best suited title because it clarifies the principal Act that it amends. We know this is amending the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. So because the amendment actually goes into that Act the funding Act 2008 it makes sense that the title contains these terms—that is the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding" and "Amendment Act 2019"—because 2019 is when the work on this legislation started.We know that the Auckland regional amenities get funding through the board that is set up through that legislation—I would refer to that to be the principal Act. Then obviously they have to report they have to prepare their financial statements to declare their financial position because of that funding that is received. So I believe that the amendment which is going into the principal Act which is to change the reporting standard to bring it in line with the Charities Act 2005 and also to change the reporting of the Auckland Regional Amenities Board according to the amenities board Act 2008—changing that it makes sense that we have the title of this legislation as it is; that is the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2019. Thank you Madam Chair."
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I was going to offer a small incentive for anyone who referred to recital (4) in the preamble by saying Mind the GAAP." That's no longer on offer.Preamble agreed to."
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — In Committee—Preamble
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you. I wish to answer some of the questions that have come up since I spoke last time. One is about if there is any other legislation that could be affected because this legislation is just amending the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. This is confined to only Auckland regional amenities. So that's one part. The second part to the External Reporting Board—so there was a consultation that was done with the External Reporting Board and also with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. After that consultation the board decided to put forward this as an idea to resolve this issue. So that consultation has happened. That happened in 2016. Thank you Madam Chair.
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you Madam Chair. I wasn't going to take a call on this bill but it occurs to me that there are some questions that I need to ask and have answers to in terms of the relationship to the Charities Act and the work that's currently under way modernising charities legislation.The questions that I would like to ask the member in the chair Parmjeet Parmar if she would be so good as to respond is: we're looking at the Auckland regional amenities; could this equally apply to other parts of the country where there are other frameworks and set-ups that sit outside of the current charities legislation? Is she aware of that? Also just in terms of the work that is currently under way in my portfolio with modernising the charities legislation—which has had some significant response in submissions from charities and the like about reporting requirements working alongside the External Reporting Board: will this piece of legislation when that work is completed actually then provide another anomaly? Has the member actually worked to align this piece of legislation with forward pieces of work and has the member considered the framework that the External Reporting Board now requires because that will likely have an impact on this particular piece of work? So I'm just seeking from the member whether by passing this piece of legislation at a later point we may need to come back and look at potentially an anomaly that's been created by this. Thank you Madam Chair.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look in some ways being a debating chamber—and just hopefully the member in the chair Dr Parmjeet Parmar if she chooses to reiterate—the Governance and Administration Committee's intentions and certainly hers is not to worry about the two different types of standard but to make sure that there is alignment. That's my general understanding. In fact it seems a rather academic point if this House of all 120 MPs is meant to ascertain the different nature of accounting systems. I assume—and the member may want to speak to this if she chooses—is it's not really the place of this Parliament to worry about the two types of systems. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than two types of systems. But the member was relying on previous legislation particularly out of the Charities Act 2005 I suspect to direct where we should go.So a little bit of clarity around that. I know another member whose speech depreciated each time—that's just a very bad piece of accounting humour there. Fundamentally it's not the nature of what the systems are but that the singular purpose as being articulated in the preamble that we have alignment. I know the member who resumed her chair Dr Deborah Russell was very worried about experts who were called and I would wonder if Dr Parmar as the sponsor of the bill could give that member who has resumed her seat the confidence that there was a full and proper select committee process where not only officials but people were able to submit.
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It's very interesting to see the argument that the member Dr Deborah Russell has put forward. She wants to understand what the difference is between the two accounting standards because that will become the basis of their support for the legislation.So in simple terms this is just making sure that the standard in both pieces of legislation is the same. If the member wants to understand it should be clear that in the Charities Act 2005 the standard that is required is for any charities that have operating payments of $125000 or more in the two preceding years. So that's why they have been complying with the Charities Act 2005 and have been complying with the standard that is required under the Charities Act 2005. But then because their funding is provided through the other Act they have to comply with that too. So this legislation is not splitting the accounting standards; this bill is to make sure that the standard in both pieces of legislation is the same to make their life easier. So this is not an accounting lesson—I'm sure the member is really interested in having an accounting lesson. As I've already said there is this operating payment of $125000 or more in two preceding years which is the requirement as per the Charities Act 2005. Thank you Mr Chair.
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Some really good questions from members from all sides. I'll go in the order they were raised. So first Priyanca Radhakrishnan asked if there was any other legislation we should be looking at. This bill is to amend the Act which is to provide for funding for these amenities. According to that Act—the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008—there is a requirement for preparing their financial position their financial statement. Because they have to comply with the Charities Act as well—because they are not for profit—they have to prepare another set of financial standards on top of what they prepare for the Charities Act 2005. So these are the two pieces of legislation. We want to make sure that the standard that is required in these two pieces of legislation is the same. The second question from Dr Deborah Russell—I thought Dr Deborah Russell will understand the technical bits of this legislation. We know that the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standard is part of the generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP) but what happens according to the Charities Act—they are preparing their statement of financial position according to the public benefit entity standard. So we want to make sure that the standard in these two pieces of legislation that they have to comply with is the same so that they are not duplicating their work. Then we had a question from Simon O'Connor about the preamble. I think it is just basically to explain what the legislation does. That's it. All these terms which are used in this legislation have been already defined in the Act—for example the public benefit entity standard and GAAP—they all are in the Charities Act 2005 and the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards and the Auckland Regional Amenities Act 2008.Then I go to a question asked by Chris Penk: if this was going to make their lives easier. It definitely is going to make their lives easier because they will have to just prepare one set of financial statements to comply with both pieces of legislation. I know that the member asked two other questions which we will address as per Mr Chair's direction later on when we are debating those clauses. Thank you Mr Chair.