edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I would like to rise to speak to Part 6 of this bill and in particular the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of Andrew Little and Kennedy Graham. Essentially what we are discussing today is the size and the constitution of the statutory Intelligence and Security Committee. We have seen huge debates in New Zealand regarding intelligence activities in New Zealand where public confidence has been seriously eroded in those activities and the supervision by that parliamentary committee and I think it is important to rise and stand to say a few brief words. We heard just before from the member Denis O'Rourke that he does not agree with proportionality. We have heard arguments from the other side of the Chamber that a committee greater than seven would be unwieldy but could I point to some of the members with caucuses larger than seven members of a Cabinet with 21 members members of a select committee with more than 10 members and university councils for example where this Government actively reduced the size from 20 to 12—all are much larger than seven. Are they unwieldy? That is my question to the Committee. The fact is that what we are seeing today if these SOPs do not pass is first-past-the-post thinking. I remember back in the 1990 election when the Green Party got 10 percent of the votes but 0 percent of the seats because of first past the post and an unfair disproportional system which saw a huge chunk of the New Zealand voters' will and perspective locked out. That is why I am supporting SOP 270 to increase the committee size to nine. The fact is that if we do not do this what we are going to see is groupthink on that committee. Good decision-making practices include the perspectives of others even if they are not acted on and even if they are not agreed to. It is no surprise that the Green Party has a different view on some of the matters before the committee but I think to increase the public confidence the confidence of the House—as the Hon David Cunliffe just pointed out—and to add a degree of legitimacy amongst the public we need to make sure that diverse perspectives are heard around that table. Kia ora.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I think that with respect to Mr O'Rourke he has hit the nail on the head because there is the representation principle and he covered that but there is also the expertise principle. This is not a select committee; this is a statutory committee with particular functions.Consider this hypothetical: it may well be that there is a very small party in the House of say two or three members but one of those members—and they are not in Government—has particular expertise in this area by virtue of the fact that he or she has come into the House after a distinguished academic career focusing on security issues or has been an ambassador or something like that and both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister after consultation say Well that person may actually be a good person to serve on the committee—reliable trustworthy blah blah blah." and so you put that person on the committee. So in terms of simply focusing on strict proportionality that may not be a relevant consideration but focusing on expertise it becomes a relevant consideration.So there are a number of matters in the mix and I would not say that simply because a person was a member of a very small party it automatically followed that they would not be able to go on the committee. I totally agree with Mr O'Rourke. We have moved to seven; there is a mandatory review. The last time this was looked at was in 1996 when we established the Intelligence and Security Committee. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. We have got the guarantee of a regular periodic review of the legislation and it could well be that a future Parliament decides to change the matter. But for the moment I agree with Mr O'Rourke that we have struck the right balance here."
O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I think it is important that I give New Zealand First's perspective on this but I do want to begin by thanking Kennedy Graham for putting up Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 268 because in it there are certainly issues that deserve to be debated here at this stage of the bill. Unfortunately I do not think that New Zealand First will be able to support any of the amendments and I want to begin with the suggested amendment to clause 155(1) by adding a new paragraph (h): to consider recommendations from the Prime Minister for candidates for the role of Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants." I do not really think that is practicable or necessary and it is not the way that Parliament usually proceeds with these things. It is worth thinking about but I do not think in the end that New Zealand First should support that.With regard to the deletion of clause 155(2) I did not really hear from Dr Graham a comprehensive justification for that but in any event I do not think that New Zealand First could support that. It is very important that the bill contain a provision like clause 155(2) to prevent the role of the committee from being extended into operational matters that are sensitive and that it should not be doing I think or conducting inquiries into complaints when there are other ways of dealing with them. I think the restrictions contained in that clause are very appropriate and I would not like to see them deleted for those reasons.I want to go on finally to this issue of the number of members of the committee and the question of whether there should be proportionality followed with regard to that. I want to say straight away that I do not think you could go very far with proportionality as far as the composition of this committee is concerned and I agree with what David Parker said about that. If you look at the whole question of proportionality in the House you would then have to think about how you would represent either individually or collectively the one-person parties that we have in the House. And thinking about the future there may be more of those and it would be almost impossible to do in practice. There does need to be some regard to proportionality and I think the bill already does that. The number of seven will allow that to be done. I think that is the appropriate number provided there is a review—and there is in the bill. I tend to think that nine is too many.This is not a select committee; it is a special purpose committee. It does not need a large number of people and it does not need full proportionality. I tend to agree with what Minister Finlayson has said about this and that seven is enough given that there will be review and I do not think that we should try to go too far down this path of seeing that there should be full proportionality; just some degree of proportionality which is already being achieved. For those reasons New Zealand First will not be supporting the balance of SOP 268—nor I think the provisions in Andrew Little's SOP 270 for those reasons."
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I can assure the honourable member Kris Faafoi that the general principles of administrative law will apply when it comes to consultation. It is not going to be pro forma consultation. Consultation to be valid has to have an element of genuineness to it an element of openness of mind and being prepared to change your preliminary view as a result of that and so nothing in the legislation is going to derogate from that responsibility on any person who consults.Hon David Parker: Did he get his case reference right?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: He got his case reference right. I think he probably got his judge wrong was it not Justice McKay? But anyway—Hon David Parker: No no—Blanchard.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It was Justice Blanchard—well then I am very proud of Mr Faafoi. I do not want to sort of chill the works but I have been giving a lot of thought—because initially my inclination was to support Miss Curran's proposed amendment but I have had a good look at it and I actually do not think it is necessary for the reasons that I will now elaborate on. If one looks at the registers that are established under clause 101A and also clause 118K(3) one sees that both the Minister and the inspector-general can access the register and so the issue arises of whether the Privacy Commissioner should be able to do the same. I think the answer is provided by section 72B of the Privacy Act 1993 which deals with the referral of a complaint to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. If the Privacy Commissioner receives a complaint under this section that is more properly one within the realm of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security then section 72B(1) provides that the commissioner shall forthwith consult with the inspector-general in order to determine the appropriate means of dealing with the complaint. Then the commissioner would determine whether or not the complaint should be dealt with in whole or in part. So I think that what would happen if there was any issue is the inspector-general would consult with the commissioner and could well take over the particular complaint herself—that is provided for in section 72B(3).With respect I can understand exactly the rationale for the proposed amendment but in terms of the Privacy Act arrangements I do not think it is necessary because either the commissioner would do it or if it was felt that it needed to be done by the inspector-general then in terms of that particular section that could be done that way.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Much of what the honourable member said—well the issue raise by the journalist which I am very aware of—relates to Part 4 and I will deal with that in any third reading speech in relation to clause 55.The short answer to the honourable member's question is no. I refer him to clause 118E(2) and the criteria that are set out there. This in part also addresses Mr Cunliffe's point about the need for specificity. I come immediately to paragraph (c) of clause 118E(2) for the benefit of Mr Parker. The commissioner and the Minister have to be satisfied that it would not be more appropriate for the Director-General to apply for the issue of an intelligence warrant authorising the seizing" and then in paragraph (d) that: "there are satisfactory arrangements in place to ensure that nothing will be done in reliance on the approval beyond what is necessary and reasonable for the proper performance of a function of an intelligence and security agency;". So I would be satisfied that the ability to go for a general trawl is simply not there. These are very carefully grafted procedures which are set out and it is not going to allow for large scale or bulk access to information. Every request is going to need to be made with reference to a specific person and so on.As the honourable member correctly observes there is also the requirement for the register. I ask the member to read clause 118E(2). I do think that answers his question. I also invite Mr Cunliffe to do the same because he will see the kinds of requirements that are set out there that prevent a general trawl taking place.On the issue raised by Ms Curran I looked at clause 101A(3). She is not there. I am not allowed to comment that she is not there. [Interruption] I have no particular issue with that and we can go with it."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise to speak to the amendments to the Construction Contracts Act 2002 under the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill. As Ms Curran has pointed out the major change within the area that we were looking at is clause 138—the one that clarifies obligations around the holding of retention moneys. The clarification is that it will apply only to contracts that are entered into or renewed on or after 31 March 2017. It is a simple clarification simply to determine that the date would apply only to new contracts or contracts that were renewed—not contracts that remained in force. That was an important piece that the committee looked at. The other matters although of some import on their own were more minor than that. I commend this bill to the House.Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill read a second time.Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill read a second time.Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill read a second time.
Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill; Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill; and Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill — Second Readings
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the regulatory systems bills but as you can probably hear I am losing my voice. I was just a little bit disappointed hearing the previous speaker Sue Moroney state that this is a dry bill. This is not a dry bill at all; this is a very important bill. These are the types of bills that the Government puts forward to make sure that we cut out waste and improve efficiency. We are like a blowtorch.I do not think I will speak for much longer but I just want to quote some examples. There are the Companies Act changes—reducing time frames for people to have their audits done; reducing the need around when annual reports need to be available; allowing the registrar to remove companies particularly if they are overseas companies; changes to the Financial Markets Conduct Act and also to the Takeovers Panel—a whole raft of good stuff. I am going to sit down at this point because I am losing my voice but I do commend this legislation to the House.
Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): This is a largely uncontroversial and technical set of omnibus bills. I want to speak to the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill portion of the suite of bills that we are considering this afternoon. The Local Government and Environment Committee has considered this bill and we made a couple of amendments. Essentially this portion of this bill relates to some changes to the Building Act of 2004 where the purpose of the Building Act and its amendments is to fix and improve some minor details of the Act such as some cross-referencing errors and removing one redundant provision.But there are also some changes to the Unit Titles Act of 2010 in the bill. The purpose of these amendments is to reduce some unnecessary compliance to further clarify matters in relation to unit plans and also to give further consideration to rules surrounding the operation of bodies corporate. The registration of easements and covenants is also covered. These are as I said largely technical matters.The select committee heard a number of submissions. I want to commend the work of members and also submitters who were able to move through these proceedings in a quick and prompt way to facilitate the timing of this legislation coming back to the House. One of the recommendations that we made as a committee was in relation to a status of examples" provision to be included in the bill to avoid any confusion of any future examples being used in the bill. That is really just to give a bit of guidance and clarity to the legislation. Secondly we suggested clarifying the reassessment date in clause 20(4) which deals with reassessing ownership and utility interests in unit plans. We suggested that those be amended to make it clear as to which reassessment date takes effect and which one takes priority. Finally we further recommended that provisions in respect of calling extraordinary general meetings of bodies corporate as in clauses 32 33 and 48 be removed and included in the Unit Titles Act regulations.I want to just note also that the committee is aware that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is working on a much wider review of the Unit Titles Act and that the submissions process for that is under way at this stage. I support these bills and particularly the building amendment one. Thank you."
Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): I am rising to support on behalf of the Green Party these three bills. I want to start off with the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill. From our perspective this makes some improvements in terms of tidying up previous legislation and particularly deals with a number of key issues. The first issue is netting. We accept the case for netting that was discussed within the Commerce Committee and we think that has the potential to reduce costs to counter-parties and it is a sound amendment to make.Secondly the committee looked in particular at the requirement for auditing on small branches of large overseas companies. Again we looked at the equivalence in the way that branches and subsidiaries were treated. As a Green Party we were satisfied with the explanation that this would prevent a bias towards subsidiaries and away from branches on the grounds of auditing requirements. We thought that equivalence is important and we do not feel that there would be a significant loss of accountability by reducing the threshold for audit requirements for branches.The third issue was I think a very important one. It is important to the Green Party. It is the issue of retention of money under the Construction Contracts Act. We supported the introduction of retention moneys. The effect of the changes in this amendment bill would be to allow some flexibility in the form that that retention money could be held. We were concerned that there would be a loss of integrity over the retention moneys. We had considerable dialogue and there were some changes in the provisions under the bill. Eventually we were satisfied that the integrity of the funds would be protected so that where funds are retained pertaining to a construction contract those moneys would be safeguarded through credible schemes with credible institutions as issuers.So those three points for the Green Party were perhaps the three standout important issues. We feel that many of the other issues in the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill would benefit small companies in particular. As I said a number of them were changes as a result of correcting previous legislation which is sometimes disappointing but a necessary task for us to do. Therefore we are happy to support the commercial matters bill.We also support the second bill—the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill. I understand that these three bills are being taken together but it is important for us to understand the issues in each of the three bills separately. We consider that the changes to the building and housing amendment bill are not particularly material and do register as improvements.We have heard from previous speakers about the Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill and we have strong support for the changes within that bill particularly for clarifying the grounds under which an employee may take a personal grievance—we think that is important—and also the changes to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. So with that I commend these three bills for approval. The Green Party will be supporting them. Thank you.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): As chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I want to speak on the aspects of the Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill that came before our committee. I want to just commend the comments that Iain Lees-Galloway made. I think he has very succinctly brought the issues to the House and I think as the chair of the committee and speaking from this side of the House that it is important to reiterate some of those comments so that we do have that on the record.As a result of the changes made to the Employment Relations Act by the Employment Standards Legislation Bill there are two incorrect cross-references that this amendment bill now corrects. Currently section 67B(3) of the Employment Relations Act allows employees on a trial period to make a personal grievance claim on the grounds set out in section 103. The cross-reference range unintentionally excludes three reasons that an employee may take a personal grievance claim set out in section 103 and Mr Lees-Galloway mentioned them.One of the issues that we did raise and discuss was whether a person who might have a personal grievance in one of those three areas because of the error in cross-reference would have the ability to actually proceed with a claim if they felt justified in doing so. We were informed by the officials that employees who suffer any consequence as a result of the breach of the relevant sections would still be able to make a personal grievance claim on the ground of unfair disadvantage which is in section 103 of the Employment Relations Act. As such we consider those errors currently having little impact on the enforcement of the Act. However the intention of the legislation was to allow aggrieved employees to take grievances specifically for the grounds listed—those three particular areas—to ease the burden of establishing an unjustified disadvantage. So just for the record that is exactly the information and the advice that we received as a committee and we adopted the recommendations presented to us through this bill on those grounds. So I am happy now to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Visitors — Australia—Senator Bridget McKenzie Joanne Ryan MP and Hon Lynda Voltz
List Member Vacancy
Resignations — Jacinda Ardern New Zealand Labour
By-Election — Mt Albert
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): I rise to support the second reading of the regulatory systems amendment bills. As chairperson of the Commerce Committee I will be speaking very briefly on the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill which the Commerce Committee worked on. Some of the major issues that we were concerned about and where the amendments fall are things like allowing trusts to set up amounts they owe against amounts owed to them in derivative contracts thereby reducing the cost of capital and also providing powers to the Official Assignee to better the interests of creditors by widening the powers to challenge sham trusts.There were 13 submissions and we heard three major submissions from the Registered Master Builders Association of New Zealand the New Zealand Financial Markets Association and the New Zealand Bankers' Association. The key amendments to the bill that were deliberated on by the Commerce Committee were firstly in regard to the Companies Act to allow large overseas companies with small New Zealand business or group business not to be subject to an audit requirement if there is no audit requirement in their home countries. We also discussed the belief that the bill amendment would have benefits of removing excessive compliance costs and promoting entity neutrality. One of the things that really took the committee's time was in relation to the changes to the Construction Contracts Act to broaden the way in which payers can protect the retention money that they hold. They used to only hold cash but the committee recommends clarifying how payers will hold retention money on trust to allow payers the flexibility to protect the money so that it is either a default option of holding retention money on trust in the form of cash or other liquid assets that can readily be converted into cash or that they obtain an instrument such as insurance or a payment bond to provide third-party protection of retention money. That made good sense to us. As other members and the Minister have actually said there are a lot of technical corrections in these bills. Although the changes are small they will make for effective and efficient regulatory systems. I commend the bills to the House.
Brownlee GerryBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 21 March the Government will look to complete the Intelligence and Security Bill the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17 Closely Held Companies and Remedial Matters) Bill and the three cognate regulatory systems amendment bills on the Order Paper. It is hoped that Wednesday will be a members' day.
Carter DavidVISITORSAustralia—Senator Bridget McKenzie Joanne Ryan MP the Hon Lynda Voltz and New South Wales and Australian Federal Parliament Netball TeamsMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome Senator Bridget McKenzie Joanne Ryan MP and the Hon Lynda Voltz and the netball teams of both the New South Wales Parliament and the Australian Federal Parliament. [Applause] And good luck to you all.
Carter DavidLIST MEMBER VACANCYMr SPEAKER: I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Raymond Huo to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Jacinda Ardern from her list seat. I understand that Raymond Huo is present and wishes to take the oath. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.
Carter DavidRESIGNATIONSJacinda Ardern New Zealand LabourMr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Jacinda Ardern resigning her list seat in the House with effect from midnight on 14 March 2017.
Carter DavidTHURSDAY 16 MARCH 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BY-ELECTIONMt AlbertMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received a letter from the Electoral Commission detailing a writ declaring Jacinda Kate Laurell Ardern to be elected to represent the electorate of Mt Albert.
Browning SteffanDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Tuesday 20 September 2016 - Volume 717
Voting — Correction—Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2)Document for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Document Removed
Tuesday 1 November 2016 - Volume 718
Motions — Nuclear Weapons—United Nations Resolution for Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Tuesday 8 November 2016 - Volume 718
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — In Committee
12. Small Businesses—Government InitiativesKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister for Small BusinessSmall Businesses—Government Initiatives12. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What steps has the Government taken to make it easier for small business to hire employees?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Small businesses are hiring more employees. Over the past year 144000 more people have gained employment and according to the recent ANZ Business Outlook survey a net 21 percent of businesses are expecting to hire more staff. This Government continues to make it easier for small businesses to hire employees through policies such as implementing the 90-day trial and the starting out wage; reducing costs such as lowering personal and company taxes; lowering ACC levies; and providing free online tools such as the Employment Agreement Builder. Those policies and more make it easier for small businesses to hire employees. That is why this Government is better for business.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What reports has he seen from small businesses concerned about additional costs on small businesses that hire employees?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have seen a report from Business New Zealand that is concerned that smaller businesses would suffer if they were charged to hire employees. I have seen a report from Tourism Industry Aotearoa that says putting a levy on small businesses to hire employees would fall on its face pretty quickly. I have seen a report where when asked about taxing small businesses to hire employees Labour MP Stuart Nash said and I quote—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for those matters or indeed misrepresenting policy.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No I think on this occasion Grant Robertson is absolutely right. As I listened to the answer that was given it was relatively clear to me that the question was put down as a question simply designed to attack the Opposition. That of course is a breach of Speaker's rulings.Hon CRAIG FOSS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am certainly—[Interruption] Order! I am always grateful for assistance but on this occasion I do not need it. I am always grateful to hear a point of order but if it is in any way disputing a ruling I have just given I would be most upset and would deal with it quite severely.Hon CRAIG FOSS: No I just wanted to better inform the House of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not the purpose of a point of order. [Interruption] Order! That is not what we use points of order for.
9. Pike River Mine Disaster—Re-entry and Recovery OperationRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterPike River Mine Disaster—Re-entry and Recovery Operation9. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Pike River Mine that What I did promise is that we could do everything we can to get those bodies out"?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Ron Mark: Is he aware that non-mining contractors and personnel have been working on the reversible seal without breathing apparatus which contradicts the risk assessment conducted by Solid Energy claiming that it could not be done and vindicates the expert advice to the families of the 29 victims as witnessed by Minister Barry in her last visit to the mine? Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. But what I am aware of is the advice that we have received from Solid Energy that the environment has not materially changed since the decision not to re-enter the drift was made in 2014.Ron Mark: With recent testing results showing gas levels within the Pike River mine are safe enough for re-entry will he now take steps to get the bodies out of the mine so that the families can have their men back and closure; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member will be aware the decision to enter or not re-enter the mine is not one that I think a politician should make; nor have I ever claimed I could make. We have taken the best advice or at least Solid Energy has as the owner and occupier of the mine. As I have always said one of the worst things we could do is now put at risk the lives of fellow New Zealanders as a result of the tragedy.Hon Damien O'Connor: Why will the Prime Minister not honour his commitment to the families and fund an independent expert to assess the situation at Pike River not rely on the advice from Solid Energy a company that the Government has effectively sold out?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I believe I have met all my commitments to the families."
8. Emergency Housing—Government InitiativesMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social HousingEmergency Housing—Government Initiatives8. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Housing: What announcements has she made about the Government increasing support for emergency housing?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Yesterday I was pleased to announce a funding boost of more than $300 million for emergency housing so that more vulnerable New Zealanders can get the help that they need. We have the funding to pay for an extra 1400 places at any one time which will be I must say an ambitious goal but we have a cross-agency team set up to secure and build suitable properties. This is just another step in the Government's comprehensive plan to secure more emergency social and affordable housing. Melissa Lee: How will the $300 million be spent?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The first thing we need to do is actually build the supply because we have already paid for the current beds that are available so $120 million is in capital funding—[Interruption] I am looking forward to Phil Twyford's question—to build buy and lease as many houses as that will get us. There is $71 million in rental subsidies which will be going to a number of providers to pay for the rent. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! Some of us might want to listen to the answer. The Hon Paula Bennett—does she wish to continue?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly I do Mr Speaker. The good news is that we are also putting $102 million into the wraparound support for those tenants and that is a component that manages the actual tenancy but also works on some of the issues that people might have around budgeting debt or some counselling services so that we can stabilise them put them into permanent housing and then stick with them—and also some funding for front-line staff.Melissa Lee: What other proposals has she seen to fund emergency housing?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have seen another proposal which also claims to provide 1400 new emergency housing beds but it is worth only $15 million a year. This is because it does not pay to find new supply which is the main problem or pay for the much-needed wraparound services that these tenants desperately need. One policy equates to $67 million over 4.5 years and ours of course is fully funded. I suggest you get your numbers right Phil.Phil Twyford: How much of the $300 million announced yesterday is recycling the $500 million that the Government has taken out of Housing New Zealand in dividends and to what extent has the sudden discovery of a housing crisis been influenced by the Mount Roskill by-election? Hon PAULA BENNETT: Unlike the other side I am not playing politics with these people's lives; I am actually doing something about it. So that $300 million quite frankly—we are actually the first Government to ever ever step in and fund emergency housing beds so although Labour ignored it we are actually doing something about it.
7. Health Services—Funding and AccessHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Funding and Access7. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes including my comment that you always have to check the facts check the numbers and ask lots of questions until you get the truth about any Labour Party claim.Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that in ophthalmology there are one or two DHBs that need to lift their game" when it has been revealed over the last week that there are huge delays in Counties Manukau District Health Board Nelson Marlborough District Health Board and Southern District Health Board for follow-up appointments and that there is no time frame for follow-up treatment for thousands of New Zealanders with eye conditions that can lead to blindness?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes.Hon Annette King: Why did he not listen to Treasury and put in a bid for primary care reform last year knowing that one in nine New Zealanders cannot afford to visit a GP and the chair of his own working party advised that it had "left many low-income patients out in the cold."?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Actually it is not Treasury that sets policy. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just have the supplementary question.Hon Annette King: How can he continue to claim that health has sufficient funding when the professor of orthopaedic surgery in Dunedin said yesterday: "Due to lack of resources about a third of referrals from GPs cannot be seen … [and it is] getting worse."?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Simply because health has had an extra $2.2 billion in the last Budget over the next 4 years for pressures and new initiatives including a record $568 million. But of course the point is that we are focused on results.Hon Annette King: Is the reason he is allowing district health boards to send letters to frail older New Zealanders telling them that their home help will be stopped unless they also require personal care services that that is the way to reduce costs at the expense of very vulnerable people?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from MidCentral District Health Board to an older New Zealander telling them exactly what I have just said.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Annette King: It is dated 1 November this year.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been described. Leave is sought to table that letter from the district health board. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."
4. Saudi Agri-hub—Auditor-General's Report and Trade NegotiationsJAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime MinisterSaudi Agri-hub—Auditor-General's Report and Trade Negotiations4. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister : Does he accept all of the findings regarding his Government in the Auditor-General's report into the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership; if not which findings does he not accept?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.James Shaw: Does he accept the finding in the Auditor-General's report that Settlement of a grievance was provided under the guise of a contract for services."?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes although the line I would rely on is one that says: "The arrangements entered into were a lawful use of public resources and public money was spent with appropriate financial authorities in place."James Shaw: Does he accept her finding that the contract was "A convenient mechanism by which the allocated $10 million later $11.5 million was put towards achieving those unstated objectives."?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes but I would rely heavily on the statement she made when she said that payments did form "part of a legally valid contract for services. Public money was spent within the necessary financial approvals." James Shaw: Does he accept the Auditor-General's finding that one of the purposes of the contract was to resolve a diplomatic issue between Governments?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes the Government said that one of the objectives was to try to speed up the Gulf States free-trade agreement.James Shaw: Is it now his Government's policy to make financial payments to the tune of millions of dollars to any influential individual who can facilitate a trade deal?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. As the report says: "The arrangements entered into were a lawful use of public resources and public money was spent with appropriate financial authorities in place." I think every New Zealander can see that Labour and the Greens completely over-egged this and now they have been caught embarrassed and now they are foraging around in the asterisks and the sub-sub-prints because there is just nothing there that is wrong according to the Auditor-General in the more substantive parts.James Shaw: Given his comment that—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to start the question again.James Shaw: Thank you Mr Speaker. Given his comment that this contract gets us "an agribusiness hub which allows us to promote New Zealand" why was a cameraman employed by New Zealand journalists denied access to the farm detained by the police and had their equipment confiscated?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details. You would need to direct them to the Ministers.James Shaw: How is it that a Government that paid $11 million for a "showcase of New Zealand agricultural expertise and technology" has to ask for permission to even visit this supposed showcase?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We spend a lot of money in the intelligence and security area. I think you might need to ask permission to go and see some of that as well."
3. Drinking-water Supplies—MayfieldRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Local GovernmentDrinking-water Supplies—Mayfield3. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his statement on 23 September 2016 It is imperative that steps are put in place to ensure core infrastructure including water sewerage and roads across New Zealand are well managed. Failures of infrastructure and service are unacceptable to New Zealanders"?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Acting Minister of Local Government): Yes under the Local Government Act of 2002 local authorities are responsible for providing communities with good quality and cost-effective local infrastructure and local public services.Richard Prosser: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the fact that the Ashburton District Council has told Mayfield residents that their water supply will soon be coming from stock water because the bore is so low?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The responsibility of local water supply is for the Ashburton District Council. I am advised that the council is taking appropriate steps to manage this issue.Richard Prosser: Does the Minister find it acceptable that a Resource Management Act - driven change in the type of irrigation consented ad infinitum by the Ashburton District Council has contributed to the depletion of the bowl that the Mayfield bore draws from?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would refute the assumption that is made and repeat my answer that the responsibility of safe drinking-water for Mayfield and the community there is the responsibility of the Ashburton District Council.Richard Prosser: Does the Minister acknowledge that access to Canterbury's ample artesian water could be made available to towns such as Mayfield if local authorities had access to funding from a royalty on the export of water?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That is an interesting theory that that member has. As I said before the responsibility for the supply of safe drinking-water is for the Ashburton District Council. I am not sure that given the distance from Mayfield the council is going to be driving bottles of water out to the community there but I am sure it is considering all options."
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members at the beginning of this debate Grant Robertson queried whether the commencement date in the bill was in order. A commencement date must provide certainty about when the Act is to come into force. It may not rely on an indeterminate event. That is Speakers' ruling 130/2. Clause 2 of the bill provides that it comes into force on the date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. That is a relatively common method of providing for a commencement of an Act. However it goes on to say that the date of the Order in Council must be the date on which the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) enters into force for New Zealand. That is an unusual feature.It is important that the House knows when it is legislating the determinate event that will cause a bill to come into force. The House must also ensure that where a bill commences by Order in Council the Executive Council knows when it must act. It does not seem to me that the event that would cause this bill to come into force lacks clarity. It is always possible that the TPPA or any other treaty will not come into force if member States do not agree with it. However the bill provides that if the treaty does come into force then the Order in Council bringing the bill into force must name the same date for commencement. The commencement provisions in my view make it clear what event would cause the bill to come into force but not whether it will come into force. That is a matter somewhat beyond the control of this House. I am satisfied that the current commencement date does not infringe against Speakers' ruling 130/2.As I noted earlier the commencement date is already part of the bill recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and agreed by the House at the second reading. Although this Committee could amend the commencement date and I could rule on the relevance of an amendment it is not within the power of the Chairperson to rule out of order something already agreed to by the House. However for the reasons I have just given that is not a course of action that needs to be contemplated.
Henare Peeni; Tisch LindsayTRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I seek leave for all provisions of the bill to be taken as one debate with separate votes on each question at the end of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that provision. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take the final call on this legislation. It is very good legislation. There has been a lot of discussion across the House in support of it. I too support it and commend it to the House. Thank you.Bills read a third time.
Third Readings (Bills divided from Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders Bailees and Other Persons Legislation Bill) (continued)
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me pleasure to take a brief call on this legislation which pretty much has the unanimous support of the House and I think that is pretty encouraging. Every little incremental gain that we can make in rehabilitating our prisoners or people convicted of various crimes is a significant gain. I think it is really positive that we can move in that direction as a House and I think it is positive that as a community we can accept that this is good for what goes on in our community. I would make the point that the New Zealand Trotting Cup is on right now. These bills do not preclude prisoners from having a small wager—and I wish I knew what the result was.These bills do move into a complicated and difficult area for Corrections that of rehabilitation as has been pointed out by many speakers before me. The issues of drugs and alcohol are significant contributors to many of our offenders' problems that they face. The ability of Corrections and the police to be able to drug test and manage the process of reintegration into our society for these people who have committed various crimes is a great move forward in my view. The authority that this legislation provides will only apply when being drug- and alcohol-free is a condition of bail home detention or other community-based sentences and will help ensure that these conditions are met.I have been pleased to see the support for this legislation across the House during my time in the Law and Order Committee. I have followed with interest the challenges of reintegrating prisoners. I think as I said earlier any little gain we can get in that area is significant. I am pretty confident that this legislation will make a little bit of difference. If it makes a difference to only two or three people over the course of a year then we have had a major gain when you think of the cost to society and also to those families in terms of not being able to move themselves out of the net of crime. I have got a great deal of pleasure in supporting this legislation as it proceeds to become law today. Thank you.