edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand National 58; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 41New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 327 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 327 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
12. Regional Economic Development—East CoastMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for InfrastructureRegional Economic Development—East Coast12. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Infrastructure: How much of the $11 billion infrastructure fund announced in Budget 2017 will go towards improving infrastructure on the East Coast?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: This Government has allocated $23 million in capital to the Tairāwhiti District Health Board and other projects to upgrade medical facilities in the region. A further release of $6.5 million in capital has been allocated for transport upgrades in the region including the construction of the Panikau Hill and Wallis Hill slow vehicle bays and the Mōtū Bridge replacement. This is on top of a number of infrastructure projects that were allocated capital in previous Budgets. Indeed given the very large capital investment coming over the next 4 years there may be additional investments made in the East Coast.Marama Fox: What is he doing to support an improvement in infrastructure on the East Coast to support landowners with harvestable forestry holdings who are considering burning down their trees because there is no way to move them due to poorly maintained and impassable roads?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Minister for Primary Industries and the Associate Minister are probably better placed to answer that but I am broadly aware that we have afforestation programmes at work at the moment on the East Coast and I also know that throughout Tairāwhiti regional economic action plan there are specific measures in relation to both forestation and also in relation to wood processing to ensure viable economic and environmental measures in the area the member speaks of.
8. Ministers—ConfidenceRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterMinisters—Confidence8. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Health when the chief executive officer of the Tararua Health Group and the Mayor of Tararua are having to cobble together" funds to support suffering cancer patients in the far-flung regions of the Tararua District because of health funding cuts especially given that the vital road link between Dannevirke and Palmerston North has been cut and they still do not have cellphone coverage out at Pongaroa?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would simply say that the health Minister has done an excellent job in recent years. He has done a marvellous job of getting extra money out of the Budget—an extra $439 million going into district health boards. I think those people out there—it is unfortunate that they do not have better representation.Fletcher Tabuteau: To the Prime Minister—[Interruption] I might wait.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Substantial—[Interruption] Jono Naylor no more interjections from you otherwise you will be leaving the Chamber for this question.Fletcher Tabuteau: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister of Energy and Resources who keeps allowing the Electricity Authority to delay its new pricing methodology which has led business leaders to say publicly that the uncertainty is stopping them from investing in our regions and—for the benefit of Mr Bridges—if finally implemented the methodology will be so harmful as to make any investment from that Government in the regions absolutely nonsensical?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. She is an excellent energy Minister carrying on the good work of previous energy Ministers. I would also on behalf of the energy Minister thank Mr Fletcher Tabuteau for his congratulations to her on the delay in the commission's work."
3. Economy—Infrastructure InvestmentDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Infrastructure Investment3. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Finance: How is this Government's $32.5 billion investment in infrastructure helping New Zealand's economy?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: New Zealand's economy has grown in 24 of the last 25 quarters. This growth is no accident and our strong economic plan is backed up by Budget 2017's increase of $11 billion for new infrastructure spending. Our infrastructure spending will boost productivity and help provide the public services we need for a growing country—for example the Waterview tunnel will open to traffic shortly and will provide additional capacity for people travelling between south and west Auckland as well as helping people get to and from the airport. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other transport infrastructure investments is the Government making to improve productivity?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There are significant transport projects under way right across New Zealand—for example the northern and southern corridor improvements in Auckland the Huntly and Hamilton sections of the Waikato Expressway and the corridors into and around Christchurch. There are also many other provincial projects including the Whirokino bridge replacement in Manawatū-Whanganui the Awakino Gorge to Mt Messenger corridor in Taranaki and the Mōtū Bridge replacement in Gisborne. This Government expects to open 540 new-lane kilometres of State highways over the next 4 years.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is the Government supporting service employers and exporters through new infrastructure? Hon SIMON BRIDGES: This Government has revolutionised broadband connectivity in New Zealand. More than three-quarters of the phase one ultra-fast broadband roll-out is complete. More than 1.1 million households and businesses now have access to fibre across 22 cities and towns around New Zealand. In fact New Zealand now ranks alongside other global connectivity leaders such as Japan and South Korea. The vast majority of New Zealand's commercial services exports are traded over the internet so our investment is providing them with a massive boost.
Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processing Legislation Bill — Second Reading
Tisch LindsayENHANCING IDENTITY VERIFICATION AND BORDER PROCESSES LEGISLATION BILLSecond ReadingThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I know you are on a high Mr Bennett but there is a process to go through.
Food Safety Law Reform Bill — Second Reading
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill in its second reading of course. Before I start I just want to acknowledge the new Minister in charge of this Minister David Bennett—a fine fellow doing a great job. But I think we should also just acknowledge the Hon Jo Goodhew who introduced this bill originally as a final step in terms of implementing all the recommendations of the Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident. I should also acknowledge the chair of the Primary Production Committee Mr Ian McKelvie and the committee members.Unfortunately I did not sit on the committee but as I represent one of the food bowls of New Zealand the fantastic area of Franklin this is a very very important bill from my perspective. I do note that the Government is actually implementing all 38 recommendations from that inquiry.Why is this important? Well we all know do we not Mr Robertson that food and beverage exports account for 60 percent of New Zealand merchandise sold overseas. That is why it is vital. I think this is a great bill as we have heard before. I do not really want to spend a lot of time on it but it does deal with the main things about getting information at the right time particularly during an emergency so we do not see a repeat of some of the events that we have seen in the past. So I certainly commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I would like first to acknowledge and mention Biddy; she has been mentioned a couple of times around the traps this afternoon and she is an interesting lady. She hand-milks two or three cows just outside of Eketāhuna in the mighty Wairarapa and her brand of cheese is called Cwmglyn. It is a hard cheese and it wins international medals around the world.I appreciate that there needs to be rules and regulations around food safety but we do have to be careful that we do not over-regulate and make the compliance to such an extent that it discourages innovation and award-winning producers like Biddy. I do note that the Primary Production Committee says exactly that there is merit and warrant for further consideration with regard to the smaller submitters and producers. I do appreciate that there are other ways. There will be better ways and more practical ways that have been mentioned already by Mr Prosser in his contribution.The other piece of that is of course that there are other handmade small cheese producers. There is another one in Featherston C'est Cheese which is really focused on attracting and supporting the tourism industry. That is where the margins are made. It is not around commodity cheese; it is around high-value hand-produced cheese. So again we need to make sure that the rules and regulations that we set in this place continue to allow those people to innovate to snowball and support other industries vis-à-vis the tourism industry.I would just like to mention one other thing and that is to talk about the traceability and the recall provisions. Traceability of food is very very important. It is about the safety but it is also about the brand—the brand is far more important than anything in my view in the production of food whether it is red meat or cheese or vegetables. People do pay a premium for a brand and the New Zealand brand is a strong one that we must continue to support and protect. For that reason I commend this bill to the House.
Kuriger Barbara; Tisch LindsayBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country): I also would like to make mention of our new food safety Minister and acknowledge the cross-party respect that he seems to have across the House. I only want to speak—Grant Robertson: I wouldn't call it respect.BARBARA KURIGER: Do not test my voice. I want to speak on only two topics today and one of them is around the substantial change we made in terms of people being able to send only part copies of what they have changed to the verifier rather than having to send everything in every time they make a small change.If there is one thing that really grits me it is costly complex compliance. As you can imagine a lot of our bigger producers now are quite technically able and so when they make a small change it is very easy to digitally send that in. But actually we have also got quite a lot of small producers who are working on paper-based folders and so if they are going to make one small change it just makes sense to notify the verifier of that rather than go to the extreme of having to send the whole folder in again because it just does not make sense to do so.The second thing I wanted to really cover off—because I know we get a lot of concerns about people who run food stalls and things like that that they are going to get caught up—is that the Food Act covers only food that is sold or traded. There is a clear exemption to allow fund-raising sausage sizzles and home baking at school fairs to take place. So food safety should never be compromised but again we do not want to put people in the situation where they are finding that it is very costly and very difficult. So growing food for personal use sharing it with others bringing a plate to a club or a committee—that is the foundation we are based on here in New Zealand and we should never try to change the way we do hospitality and fund-raising. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Mojo Mathers—5 minutes.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well this Food Safety Law Reform Bill—I did have the pleasure of sitting on the Primary Production Committee at that time when we considered the bill. As has been referred to I have left that select committee—Rino Tirikatene: Come back.STUART SMITH: Tēnā koe Rino. This really marks the last steps in the whey protein concentrate inquiry and I think it really highlights—there have been a couple of points made there by the previous speaker Rino Tirikatene which are quite valid points that this sort of issue has arisen and of course it has led to this bill or major parts of this bill. But that is of course—it is an iterative process and you do not realise there is a gap until you find that gap by accident. Fortunately actually it was not the regulators that caused that issue; it was the producer of the milk powder itself. So that was an issue that has been dealt with.There is a balancing act which has been talked about by most of the other speakers and how—not putting too much burden on the smaller producers. However when our reputation really hinges on us being a high-quality producer of safe food then we really have to ensure the whole sector—no matter how big they are or how small—is actually not causing a risk to the community. I do note—particularly the small cheese producer who has been referred to on several occasions; it is 40 percent or something of their revenue to cover the cost of compliance. It is massive but it is a very small producer and the producer is producing cheese from non-pasteurised milk which has a higher risk profile than it would have if it was from pasteurised milk. So there is a risk. I accept that we could do better in cutting back on that bureaucracy. However you have to—really we charge the Ministry for Primary Industries with the role of making sure food is safe so if it is going to err one way I would far sooner see that it errs on the side of safety than taking a risk with people's health. The early childhood education issue was also referred to. The early childhood centres are actually charging money to feed the children whom they are looking after on their properties. It is incumbent on them to actually do that in a safe manner. So if you are charging money for it then you have to actually meet the regulations. I do not make any apology for that whatsoever. It did seem a little bit outside the scope of the bill but that is none the less where it is. It is about food safety so it was not about early childhood education although it has an implication for anyone who sells food. So I think it is a great bill. There has been a lot of progress made on that and I commend it to the House.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Rurawhe AdrianParts 1 to 3 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare nei. I too want to talk about the preliminary provisions in particular—a suggestion from one of the submitters Venture Southland that recommended including a reference to peaceful purposes. I just want to add to what my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has contributed so far and that is the whole notion around exactly what the opposite of peaceful purposes is—for example if a company wanted to send up into space a particular product that is for totally civilian uses right now but could be used in the future for military purposes. I think the issues that have been raised in the departmental report—and it goes to quite some length to discuss what exactly peaceful purposes might mean. It makes statements like … in the context of space activities is ambiguous and open to differing interpretation." I think the point that I want to make is that if in fact a reference to peaceful purposes was made then surely that could be specified in the interpretation around exactly what that meant. So it could actually say that it excludes products that have the intent of a civil everyday purpose that might in some future time be used for military purposes but the launch of that aircraft was for peaceful purposes.I really want to acknowledge Venture Southland for making the suggestion in the first place because I do think that it is relevant to this. But I also want to acknowledge the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I was not on that select committee but it has come up with a very specific new clause ensuring that the purpose of putting these aircraft into outer space is not for the purpose of carrying nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. So I congratulate the committee on that but that does not in itself totally mean—certainly from my view of the world—that peaceful purposes could not actually be part of the interpretation and the purpose of this bill. So that is the first part of what I wanted to speak about.The other issue that I wanted to talk about was orbital debris and also when something goes wrong in outer space—ensuring that there are good processes in place to deal with severe and unexpected but possible accidents in space whereby debris is now orbiting around the Earth. During the second reading we heard a number of contributions around the impact of orbital debris. I also want to highlight the contributions from the New Zealand Law Society the concerns that it raised on these matters—and I think it is on clause 76 I believe."
Voting — Correction—Point England Development Enabling Bill
Hipkins Chris; Borrows ChesterCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I apologise for not doing this at the beginning. I seek leave for the debate on all of the clauses in this bill to be taken as one debate with each of the questions to be put separately at the end.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Carter DavidVOTINGCorrection—Point England Development Enabling BillMr SPEAKER: On 20 June when the House was considering the Point England Development Enabling Bill the result of the vote to insert new clause 8A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 317 was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 45 Noes 74. The correct result is Ayes 57 Noes 62. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Bridges Simon; Carter David; Hipkins ChrisTHURSDAY 22 JUNE 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 27 June the Government will look to make progress on the Appropriation (2016/17 Supplementary Estimates) Bill the Imprest Supply (First for 2017/18) Bill the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill the Point England Development Enabling Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper.Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Chris—Chris Hipkins.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Not yet Mr Speaker—a little premature.Mr SPEAKER: I do realise that.CHRIS HIPKINS: I wondered whether the Leader of the House would like to consider deferring today's question time until the National Government can rustle up some leadership—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is completely unnecessary and will lead to disorder.
Wednesday 21 June 2017 - Volume 723
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 325 in the name of Denis O'Rourke to insert new clause 9A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 53New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Denis O'Rourke to insert new clause 54 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 41New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.Noes 74New Zealand National 58; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 313 in the name of Denis O'Rourke to clause 57 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 41New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.Noes 74New Zealand National 58; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Land Transfer Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 28; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12Green Party 12.Part 3 agreed to.Parts 1 2 and 4 schedule and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Point England Development Enabling Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 41New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.Abstentions 14Green Party 14.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 41New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.Abstentions 14Green Party 14.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
12. Open Data Access—FundingPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of StatisticsOpen Data Access—Funding12. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Statistics: What recent announcements has he made on open data?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics): On Sunday I announced funding of $7.2 million to further support open data access for information held by Government. I am committed to ensuring that data collected by the State is increasingly freely available and in formats that are easy to use. Opening data helps businesses not-for-profit groups NGOs and individual citizens wanting to use the information to make their own decisions more easily.Paul Foster-Bell: How is open data good for an open democracy?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That is a very good question. In years gone by Government data has been closely and tightly held. Today New Zealand is moving to an open data open science environment where research findings code and tables are shared as a matter of course. Open data creates transparency accountability and more informed participation. Open data also helps everyone see how their tax dollars are being spent and how effective that spending is. I am delighted to hear that the Government Statistician has been emphasising recently the need to shift the conversation from Will we open this data?" to "How will we open this data?"."
10. Budget 2017—Auckland Schools BuildingsANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Associate Minister of EducationBudget 2017—Auckland Schools Buildings10. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made following Budget 2017 on school property in Auckland?Hon TIM MACINDOE (Associate Minister of Education): I am pleased to advise the House that Budget 2017 will see a $240 million investment in school property in Auckland. This investment will see four new schools and kura including a new primary school in Pukekohe—in the member's electorate—the expansion of Stonefields School the co-location and rebuild of two special education schools 170 new and replacement classrooms and five new special education satellite units.Andrew Bayly: How will this investment benefit students in the Auckland region?Hon TIM MACINDOE: This significant investment will boost capacity in Auckland by providing more learning spaces for students. As a result of the investment by the current Government Auckland is on track to have an extra 21000 student places by the year 2021. The $240 million investment announced under Budget 2017 includes funding for kura and special education schools which reflects the inclusiveness within our education system. I am very confident that the new and replacement schools and classrooms will help to raise student achievement by providing innovative and stimulating learning environments.
8. Primary Industries Ministry—Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries ReportBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesPrimary Industries Ministry—Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries Report8. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on the positive outlook for primary sector exports?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has just released its Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries at the National Fieldays. MPI is forecasting that the primary sector exports will grow to $41.6 billion in the year to June 2018. This is an increase of 9.1 percent and would be the highest level ever. Dairy forestry and horticulture will lead the charge for this growth. New market opportunities and diversification into higher-value products such as chilled meat into China retail-ready products and nutraceuticals will help to further increase the value of our primary sector exports.Barbara Kuriger: What was the primary sector's reception to the launch of this document at this year's National Fieldays? Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. It was extremely positive. Many farmers and growers have dealt with some very challenging times over the last 12 months so it was great to feel this real mood of optimism at the Fieldays—133000 people came through the gates over the 4 days which was a record. There was a strong sense that many farmers and growers will be looking to use this extra forecast revenue to reinvest in their businesses. Ultimately this will have flow-on effects into the wider economy—in particular to those businesses that support our primary sector.Hon Damien O'Connor: In relation to the question I just seek leave to table a summary of that report which points to a reduction of almost 10 percent in—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. That information is publicly available to all members.
2. Budget 2017—Social Investment InitiativesJONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of FinanceBudget 2017—Social Investment InitiativesJONO NAYLOR (National): My question is to the Minister of Finance. How did Budget 2017 support social investment—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a fair bit of interjection coming both from my right and my left. I invite the member to start that question again.2. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Finance: How did Budget 2017 support social investment initiatives?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Budget 2017 provided a $321 million social investment package with 14 initiatives designed to help our most vulnerable improve their circumstances. From reducing youth offending to contraceptive access for low-income women we are funding high-quality social investment initiatives that evidence shows will help make a difference in the lives of target groups of New Zealanders. This social investment package means we can target integrated services at those individuals families and communities who face the highest long-term social and economic costs. We want to get in earlier with the right interventions to help change their lives.Jono Naylor: How were these initiatives assessed?Hon AMY ADAMS: Budget 2017 included the most rigorous investment criteria we have used for social bids to ensure funding went to proposals with the strongest evidence base that will deliver long-run benefits for vulnerable people and for taxpayers. The funded initiatives are about supporting better cross-agency ways to target some ingrained and complex social issues. They are based on a citizen-centred approach and judged against a whole-of-life understanding of cost and benefit. The bids were assessed against the case for change value for money and effectiveness in delivering results.Jono Naylor: How does social investment improve lives and reduce costs to taxpayers?Hon AMY ADAMS: This Government is supporting—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the answer. There is one particular member who has not stopped interjecting since question time started. I will not name him but he knows who I am talking about and if he continues with that amount of interjection I will have to ask him to leave. The Hon Amy Adams to start that answer again.Hon AMY ADAMS: This Government is supporting social investment because intervening earlier and more effectively is the best chance to change the lives of New Zealanders with some of the most complex and ingrained challenges. However it is also about reducing the long-term cost to taxpayers by supporting people to lead productive and more independent lives. A good example of this is the social investment approach to welfare which has already lead to a $4.1 billion reduction in welfare liability since mid-2014.
Mallard TrevorTE TURE WHENUA MĀORI BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 31 May.Part 5 Authority to act in relation to Māori freehold land (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering the bill we were debating Part 5. Meka Whaitiri had the call and while she had 4 minutes and 27 seconds remaining we are going to be really generous and give her 5 minutes.
SpeechPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I too want to add some creative suggestions for the title of this bill because Land Transfer Bill" I just feel does not really do it justice. It is too short and it fails to take into account I think a very good Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that Denis O'Rourke brought to the Committee which—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Which has been voted down and therefore is not relevant to this debate.PHIL TWYFORD: So it is too late to even propose it? The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes.PHIL TWYFORD: OK then.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Unless there is an SOP on the Table.PHIL TWYFORD: I will rest my case too."
Henare PeeniClauses 1 and 2PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I just want to take a quick opportunity I guess now that we have reached this part of the bill. It always is an interesting part. You hear of some very clever witty exchanges in the Chamber on these clauses but I think it is a good opportunity actually to summarise what has been a very technical bill that has been debated throughout this particular process.When we consider some of the content of this particular bill and we look at the title of the Land Transfer Bill actually while it states something rather simple perhaps something a little bit more complex could be given as a title for this particular bill—really I guess capturing exactly what it is that is in the bill. There is some very detailed stuff around mortgage issues. I have asked questions about ture whenua and its scope around Māori freehold land. So perhaps just as a suggestion the Land Transfer Bill could be called something a little bit more in line with what the content of the bill is. It could be something like I do not know the Land Technical Holding Bill". The reason I say that is that obviously the technical aspects of this particular bill are over the heads of a heck of a lot of people. But it was said during the debate that lawyers across the country will be celebrating this particular bill to make sure that the land transfers in the future are done properly in the House. I will close my contribution and just once again thank everyone for their contributions on this bill the Land Transfer Bill. There could be any number of other names for this particular bill and I have already offered one in the hope that that could be considered on the floor. Thank you."
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): I would like to take a short call not necessarily with some comments but observations.The term fraud" has not been defined until now. The term "mortgage" is defined but "encumbrance" is not. The term "adverse possession" although well defined in common law is not defined under this bill. Having said that this is a largely technically laden and it could be dry bill but we did enjoy taking calls on this bill.For me as the newest MP it is the very first time to have such a great opportunity to have a look at the bill itself. So I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee which has a wonderful chair the Hon Ruth Dyson and again thank the Law Society for its submissions and thank the Law Commission for having shaped and reshaped the bill in such a wonderful form. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston and on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to Part 5 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 5 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to."
Mallard TrevorPart 5 Miscellaneous provisionsThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 5 which is clauses 207 to 247 and schedule 2 stand part. I am assuming that Mr Wood would like a call at this point.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Oh Mr Chair I am always delighted to surprise you. I am keen to take a short call on clause 226 of the bill where I think the Government Administration Committee has actually done some really good work in proposing some quite important changes in respect of the regulation-making powers that are set out in this piece of legislation. It warms the little cockles of my heart—coming from the Regulations Review Committee—to see that scrutiny has been applied in this area. Actually just looking at the comments in respect of clause 226 and the proposal to insert a new subclause (3) I do note that the Regulations Review Committee does seem to have provided some guidance on this.So what are we talking about here? If we turn to clause 226 it sets out a very broad range of regulations in respect of the bill. These are measures that by Order in Council can be undertaken in terms of applying this bill. They are not necessarily hugely substantial things but they are quite important—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member is about two parts premature. MICHAEL WOOD: Oh my apologies.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We are currently debating Part 3 clauses 73 to 153.MICHAEL WOOD: My apologies Mr Chair. I will leave it there.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Part 4 Miscellaneous applications and other mattersThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Twyford Phil; Mallard TrevorPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to make a few comments in relation to the new clause 92A in Part 3 and it has to do with leases. I note that in the commentary there is some discussion about the policy intent of the bill in regard to consent for varying a cross-lease and there was some discussion I understand at the Government Administration Committee about this. It is kind of a clarification really and is bringing this bill into line with the policy of the 1952 Act. Essentially the idea is that the cross-lease should be able to be varied only with the consent of all the parties—so all of the mortgagees—because a variation to one lease may affect the others. The committee has taken the view that it is important that this intention be made explicit and so it has added in clause 92A. It has also recommended adding a definition of cross lease" just to cross the t's and dot the i's.There was also some discussion I understand from submitters on this. The Auckland District Law Society was concerned about this gap and I think it drew the committee's attention to it pointing out that clause 92(8) only required consent from a mortgagee for the land subject to the lease. As any kind of variation of one lease would affect the value and potentially the usability of another lease in a cross-lease situation it proposed the inclusion of what became clause 92A. So it was a pretty useful intervention I think and one that was agreed to by the committee.The officials have said that essentially it was the policy intent to align with the 1952 Act. They advised the committee that last year Cabinet rescinded a policy decision from 2010 that had been made to accept the Law Commission's recommendation which was to actually remove the requirement to get consent from the mortgagees of all the leases in a cross-lease situation. So I think that has to some extent clarified that. The intervention of the Auckland District Law Society was appreciated in that regard and I will leave that there.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that the—oh Michael Wood."
Huo RaymondPart 3 Dealings in estates and interests in landRAYMOND HUO (Labour): I would like to take a call on Part 3. I am particularly interested in clause 99 subclauses (3) and (4). Subclauses (3) and (4) of clause 99 refer to encumbrances while the immediately preceding subclauses (1) and (2) address mortgages. A common example of the use of encumbrance includes the use in a subdivision to require the owners of the lots to join a residents' association or society and pay annual fees. The purposes can be various. The common one in Auckland I guess is to limit an owner's ability to for instance install a giant satellite dish in the front garden or the backyard. Another example would include the measures to provide for the obligations of a landowner using council land for such matters as building a retaining wall.Looking at the bill itself while the term mortgage" is defined "encumbrance" is not defined at all. Again looking at the relevant clauses it appears that the definition of "mortgage" which includes a rent charge or annuity would include an encumbrance. I had a look at the submission from the New Zealand Law Society. In its submission the Law Society said that this would result in a confusing situation. "By way of example presumably clauses 100 to 105 relating to mortgages would extend also to encumbrances."However the Law Society believes it would be desirable to state this clearly and explicitly. The New Zealand Law Society in its submission noted that it would be desirable in this bill to define the expression "encumbrance". Clause 99(4)(b) referred to the prescribed form of encumbrance and the Law Society believed that it would be helpful if the prescribed form in the regulations was available at the same time as the final version of the bill. The end result is what we can see in clause 99(4)(b) which now reads "contain the prescribed information." so the wording "be in the prescribed form and" has been deleted.The population in Auckland has gone up by 45000 a year. We need about 15000 extra houses a year and we are building only about half that number. Supply is falling far short of the demand and that puts prices up. The Auckland Council has addressed the problem of not having enough land to build on with the Auckland Unitary Plan and once the appeals process has been dealt with it will enable the construction of close to half a million housing units in brownfield developments and about 15000 units on greenfield sites.Back to this bill—I agree with what the Law Society's submission said which is that there may be "many redundant encumbrances which could impede the reasonable use of the burdened land. … there is a strong case for extending to encumbrances the powers of a court to modify or extinguish covenants in gross." as a whole. Thank you."
Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Thank you for allowing this opportunity Mr Chair. I do not intend on taking up too much time. I just want to say to my colleague that people do care my friend; they do care. In this particular bill I want to talk about clause 59(1). The reason I want to talk about this particular clause is due to the response by the Minister who was in the chair Christopher Finlayson with regard to Māori land holdings and in particular the court—whether the issues that this Land Transfer Bill deals with will then go on and be heard in the High Court. That is certainly what is proposed under Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.Clause 59(1) of the Land Transfer Bill says: A person may bring a proceeding in the court against the Crown for compensation if the person—(a) by reason of anything in subsection (2) is deprived of an estate or interest in land; and (b) by this Act is barred from bringing an action for possession or other action for recovery of the estate or interest …". I bring up that particular clause because the response from the Minister was talking about Māori freehold land and I wonder whether the Minister actually realises just how many issues have come through the Māori Land Court with Māori freehold land around succession of landownership—around succession of landownership. I wonder whether this particular bill is proposing as it does in clause 59(1)—are we asking for or is there going to be a large fallout of unintended consequences with regard to Māori freehold land? It is a shame Mr Finlayson is no longer in the chair. He answered the previous questions really well and he also talked about the ture whenua and the ownership of Māori freehold land and what that might mean when an appeal when the value of the land or when the ownership of the land are in question. In these particular clauses 59(1)(a) and 59(1)(b) I cannot help but think there is going to be a flood of inquiries from Māori freehold land owners those who have actually felt that they have not had justice served through the Māori Land Court. I can give one very quick example: a whāngai tamaiti of a land actually succeeded the ownership of his whāngai father's land despite the four natural kids of the father. The Māori Land Court actually found in favour of this particular whāngai child and the other actual descendants of the landowner had no recourse to be able to seek justice. I wonder just in this particular clause whether or not as an unintended consequence there might be a flood of inquiries with regard to this particular clause and all of those Māori land owners who actually do hold Māori freehold land. I wonder whether the Minister can address some of that.I must say that my comments in this contribution are premised on the response from Minister Finlayson who was in the chair. I hope that this particular exchange can continue because I think this is a serious matter—the Māori Land Court freehold Māori land and whether or not there is a course here now for justice to be sought by those who have felt that they have not had justice heard through the Māori Land Court."
Kuriger Barbara; O'Rourke DenisBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): There cannot possibly be a point of order. What possible point of order is there now?DENIS O'ROURKE: The person who just moved the closure motion has already previously moved a closure motion. I understand you cannot do that twice.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member's understanding is incorrect. [Interruption] I am sorry; I am considering the calls. We have had quite a few. Mr O'Rourke do you still want a call?Denis O'Rourke: Absolutely.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will give it to you.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I have just had a text from Mr Williamson who calls me a very sad puppy for being interested in this stuff. But it is very interesting and I say to Mr Williamson that he should be ashamed of himself for making such an allegation. But let me address immediately the very good point made by Mr Henare about clause 57(4)(c) which talks about where manifest injustice may apply in relation to land that comes under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The issue he raises is: how does that provision affect Māori land and does it in fact introduce a different standard in respect of land under that Act compared with other land? The point I would want to make about that is that the manifest injustice provision does not introduce a different standard of conduct in respect of Māori land compared with other land. Māori freehold land will continue to have the same indefeasible protections as for other land.The point here that needs to be emphasised though is that when considering whether to make an order cancelling the registration of land or of an interest in land because the applicant alleges allowing the registration would constitute a case of manifest injustice clause 57 sets out various factors that the court takes into account. One of those factors where the estate or interest is in Māori freehold land is whether there was a failure by a person to comply with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. In other words in instances where due process was not followed under that Act resulting in an incorrectly registered title the manifest injustice provision would allow the court to consider—at least consider—the overturning of the registration to avoid an unfair outcome. So I say to Mr Henare that if anything the provision reinforces current protections under the 1993 Act.
Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I think it is good timing with the Minister the Hon Christopher Finlayson in the chair as I read through this particular bill and in particular clause 57 Court may make order only in cases of manifest injustice" and given the Minister in the chair's role and responsibilities in the House one particular provision under clause 57(4): "In determining whether to make an order the court may take into account— … (c) if the estate or interest is in Māori freehold land failure by a person to comply with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993;".Given that Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is to go through its progression through this House I wonder whether—and it is good timing that it is Mr Finlayson in the chair—he can provide some sort of commentary just on that part in particular with regard to the proposed changes under Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Also in his role as the Treaty Minister the clause—I was staring at it earlier; it will come to me—I am referring to is around the value of land and the compensation aspects of this particular bill around the value of the land and what impact this might have on proposed Treaty settlements moving forward. So I guess it is not necessarily a question but certainly a request as to whether the Minister in the chair would not mind providing some commentary for his thoughts in particular around that particular clause I raised—clause 57(4)—where it says there: "In determining whether to make an order the court may take into account— … (c) if the estate or interest is in Māori freehold land failure by a person to comply with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993;". Some commentary on that would be much appreciated."