edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Salesa JennyDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll just start by giving my thanks to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee as others have. I know it's obviously a very technical bill but also just I guess the huge number of submissions that came in at the eleventh hour which were quite interesting in terms of what they were saying the bill was about. So hopefully we've allayed some of those fears and convinced them that there's just no way that the New Zealand Government is capable of actually doing what they're worried about.I'd also give my congratulations to the new Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications and my commiserations to the old Minister—Hon David Clark—who's here in the House to see it through but I guess hey it could be worse right?This bill establishes a framework that has been well traversed in this House. It enables secure user-authorised sharing of personal information. I'll note from the legislative statement that it sets minimum standards for security and privacy and ensures that those taking part in the scheme demonstrate that they meet the requirements for handling information.Now I think it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out—obviously we support the bill—in practice because the world of cyber-security is getting fairly ugly if we look at what happened over the last few weeks—being made aware of the hack on Latitude as one example; we've got over a million New Zealanders who had their licence details hacked and leaked passport information and addresses and those sorts of things. So it's very personal information that's been part of that. Now I guess there's a hypothetical question: what if this framework were in place and what if Latitude were a part of that framework? What would the ongoing effects of that be? What would the consequences be? And how would that affect the stability of the whole framework of all those different participants that were in it? So if a company's doing their best to comply and they've been certified these things are going to happen unfortunately even once this is in effect. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out since the consequences of these security intrusions are quite significant.The consultation requirements in the bill with various stakeholders is well set out well-thought-out and we support that—how it's done in the legislation.I guess I'll just finish by saying that it's good to see that this bill is at long last going through the House albeit under unusual circumstances. I'm guessing that the previous Minister is very proud that it's doing so. So it will be very interesting to see how this plays out in practice. We shall support it. Thank you.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Organic Products and Production Bill.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): This bill for me has two main impacts and many speakers today have spoken about the protective elements but it's also about the ability to have ease of functioning in the digital world both as individuals and as other person entities in the digital space. So there are two big benefits there and as others have said we are moving increasingly into the digital space whether it's around accessing medical records or being able to have them handed say from one medical provider to another or whether it's setting up bank accounts or whether it's doing business or even contracts in the international space. There is a need to be able to have one consistent safe and easy way of establishing a digital identity being able to trust it and being able to work effectively. And I have to say that at times when I've forgotten my RealMe password it has not been that easy to use that particular platform that the previous speaker raised.There are also inconsistent standards currently and so that is one of the things that makes it onerous for people—having one way of doing a secure digital identity for one function such as banking and then having to have a different one for a different thing such as accessing Government services. So what this bill will do is create a framework a regulatory framework in secondary legislation that will enable that to happen but also give it the flexibility so that as technology changes the ability for the digital identity to keep up with technology will also be able to change. That brings me to another element which is around the need for good governance and the ability for the trust board to be able to access expertise. There are already functions in place to ensure that there will be diversity on that board but actually what this framework will do is enable the board to be able to call in specialists whether it's Māori whether it's women whether it's Pasifika children's experts and so on so that as technology changes the board will be able to get the expertise it needs in order to ensure that there is inclusive considerations in the digital identity space.The last part is really just a little bit more on the regulatory body which the bill sets up in Part 5 and that is really also to monitor the performance and effectiveness of the accreditation regime to undertake compliance and monitoring of the trust framework providers receive and assess complaints and investigate breaches. These are all fundamental elements of a good governance structure that oversees a framework to ensure that there is continual monitoring evaluation and learning from that so that we can be sure that as we move into this ever-evolving world our digital identity keeps up with technology and continues to keep people safe but also allows ease of access of doing business and conducting day-to-day life. It's a great bill. I commend it to the House.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Speaker—what an excellent choice. I commend this bill to the House. It is absolutely crucial in a digital age that we have a trust framework around identity and it is absolutely going to be incredibly important for our digitising of Government when we have to come in and pick up the mess that the current Government has made.We know that there are people who worry about what might be happening to their identity and yet still go on to things like Facebook and other platforms and go to very dodgy platforms where they end up with conspiracy theories. It is important that people have control over their own identity their own information but it is going to be absolutely crucial for the provision of Government services in particular that people can have trust in the digitisation of their information and to be able to rely on it.I will just mention RealMe just for one moment and that is simply to say that that was what 2013—it's been 10 years since anything has been done to improve that and 10 years in the digital space is like a century anywhere else. It is a shame it has taken this long for this bill to come through. It was first being talked about actually in a 2020 Cabinet decision back in I think July 2020. It is very important that the whole of Parliament supports it. I just think that that's a great way forward and I'm very pleased to be able to support it as well.
SpeechGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. It's been an interesting journey to be part of this select committee the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. Moving through this piece of legislation and as has already been spoken congratulations to the Hon Ginny Andersen for her new role and honouring and respecting the previous Minister the Hon Dr David Clark who originally brought this into the House.Now if anything in this legislation timing is everything and part of it I think as a select committee was—and Melissa Lee can vouch for this—the time when we started hearing submissions actually was obviously at a very heightened time in our country's history.Melissa Lee: Seems like a long time ago.GLEN BENNETT: It does seem like a long time ago and it was 2021 that we were hearing submissions. We received a lot of submissions but they came in really late and I do note that the advisers noted that—I think it was of the 4000-plus 3000-plus of those were form submissions that were last minute and said very little. But what they did say was obviously a lack of I'd say understanding of what this piece of legislation was about because this is actually—as Melissa Lee and others have said in this House—around protection it's around safety measures it's actually around the trust framework. And it was unfortunate through the select committee process to have the misinformation come through that people were concerned whereas what this bill does is protects what's going on online protects our digital integrity protects people in terms of their information—whether it's your name or your licence or your date of birth those sorts of things that are there. It's actually around the protection and the trust of the framework.This gives people more control—more control over how they share information about themselves and when they share it. If you look at the internet it was something invented 40-plus years ago and as it's come through over the years there are many things that haven't been put in place around protections. Many regulations haven't been put in place because it's in many ways an experiment that has exploded and is growing. So for us to have things put in place like the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill is very important for us in this House and as has been said I'm glad that we all support this legislation this morning so that we can see it through.Now RealMe was also brought up in select committee and I don't want to talk too much about that because we've got a lot of work to do still and I'm glad that this is part of making it better and because I know that everyone loves a good RealMe account. We will keep moving on this. I support this and I commend this bill to the House.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I start by saying on this side of the House we obviously support—and it is wonderful to actually note that the whole House supports this.I start by congratulating the new Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications and I'd like to thank the previous Minister the Hon Dr David Clark. I have to say that this may be the first bill for which he has support from all of Parliament in his tenure as the Minister.I don't really want to take too long on the third reading because it is something that is actually required. I echo what the Minister said in the end which is about the protection of data and the fact that through this bill New Zealanders can have more control over their data how that data is going to be used and how much control they actually have.The world is becoming more digital and strong protections are needed. Having a framework that we are actually setting up in this Parliament today will make a huge difference to New Zealanders as they navigate the world of digital. I commend the bill to the House.
Belich CamillaDIGITAL IDENTITY SERVICES TRUST FRAMEWORK BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 to 7 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members good morning. The House is in committee on the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill. When we were last considering the bill we were debating Parts 1 to 7 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2. The question is that Parts 1 to 7 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order—point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Oh we've already done that—we've already done that because we are continuing our consideration of the committee stage.CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order I was under the impression that leave was sought in the previous committee stage and not granted so my point of order is to seek leave again for all the provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK thank you—I'll check that one out. Thanks for that. It's our understanding that leave was granted. I'll put the question again: the question is that Parts 1 to 7 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.The question is that the Hon Dr David Clark's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 324 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 be agreed to.
Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Smith Stuart; Salesa JennySTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Madam Speaker—ahead of time which is very good to have; thank you very much. It's a pleasure to speak on the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill.This bill will be helpful. I think it's really important that we do ensure that the legal processes are in place for the retention of money and ensuring that it does go back to those people that it should do particularly in an inflationary environment that we're in today.In July last year inflation was at 7.3 percent which is high. Actually as of today—and I recommend the Massey GDP Live website: you can track GDP and inflation on a daily basis and it's actually more accurate than the Stats NZ numbers when they bring out their stats for a quarter. They actually go back later on and adjust it and it's pretty much right where GDP Live is. As of yesterday inflation is tracking at 7.28 percent so it's dropped off a little bit from July and then it's started to track up again.So we're in a really inflationary environment at the moment and one of the most vulnerable sectors to that is the construction sector which take on contracts—often with a fixed price out to the future—and then they get caught with the inflationary pressures. So now more than ever we need this to ensure that those people working in the construction sector are not even more disadvantaged by contracts that don't fully cover people in the way that they were intended. So with that in mind I commend the bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill.
Tuesday 28 March 2023 (continued on Wednesday 29 March 2023) - Volume 766
Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Tim van de Molen's clause 7 amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 278 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 328 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 278 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The committee has considered the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Civil Aviation Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9;Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bills read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill.
Civil Aviation Bill and Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Third Readings
VoteTANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Civil Aviation Bill — In Committee
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Chris Penk's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 327 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Coroners Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Coroners Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee
VoteDEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. A party vote is called for. Please conduct a party vote. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Sorry—point of order Mr Speaker. Are we voting on the closure motion or the shortened report-back date?DEPUTY SPEAKER: No no. I've gone straight—I waited to see if there was another speaker and there wasn't so we've gone straight to the question. I'm not taking the closure motion as you will have noted. As you will know the closure motion was not in its correct form anyway.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): No I'm not disagreeing with that sorry. The last vote—was that for the closure motion or the shortened report-back?DEPUTY SPEAKER: No the closure went for the shortened report-back.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh OK.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah and fair enough—so just to explain to the House the closure motion was not in the correct form so it was ignored. I then looked to see if there was another call and there wasn't so we now go straight to the motion which is the question. So that's where we—if you'll remind me where we are with that at the moment I think it was that a party vote has been called for. Are you happy with that Mr Doocey?MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you Mr Speaker.A party vote was called for on the question That the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 24 May 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 76 Noes 44.
Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.SPEAKER: The question is That the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
11. Question No. 11—ImmigrationDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 11—Immigration11. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: What is the total minimum investment value of Investor I and II applications that are currently with immigration officers and how many immigration officers are currently responsible for processing those applications?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I'm advised that as of 28 March the total value of allocated Investor I applications is $1.18 billion and the total value of allocated Investor II applications is $238 million—across 118 Investor I and 80 Investor II visas. There are 14 fulltime-equivalents currently allocated to process these applications.Dr James McDowall: Given the scheme closed in July last year why is his Government not doing everything it can to process those visas and secure that investment—in the billions—and why is he so against getting that funding into New Zealand businesses?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I certainly reject the assertion at the end of the member's question. I note that across the 2022 year 152 Investor I applications were approved and 115 Investor II applications were approved and that as of October last year we introduced the new Active Investor Plus category which is aimed at attracting more investment into New Zealand and more active investment that will actually drive jobs and growth rather than just the passive investment that was a feature of the old system.Dr James McDowall: Is he satisfied with his new investor visa scheme which in the 6 months since it launched has potentially cost New Zealand businesses $1.7 billion of lost investment when compared to the same time period under the previous scheme given the Government hasn't approved a single Active Investor Plus visa?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member's assertion in his question is an entirely hypothetical one. I am satisfied that the Active Investor Plus category is now beginning to attract applications and that as they make their way through the systems they will support Kiwi businesses to grow because they will direct investment into areas that will actually deliver jobs and growth across the different regions of New Zealand.
8. Question No. 8—JusticeVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 8—Justice8. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What new legislative tools have been progressed to combat organised crime?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Last night and this morning the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill and the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill passed through the House. These two bills provide a range of new and important legislative tools for law enforcement agencies to tackle organised crime respond to criminal offending and to go after gang profits and their assets. Vanushi Walters: How will these new tools help police seize illegally obtained assets? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Under the new provisions in the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act if it's shown that an associate of an organised criminal group couldn't have funded their assets legitimately they'll be required to prove to the court how they came to possess them or face having them frozen. New powers will also give law enforcement greater reach to seize assets from overseas-based criminals and block criminals from being able to hide illegal funds for example in their KiwiSaver accounts. We're going after gang leaders and the facilitators of organised crime and hitting them of course where it hurts the most—that's in their back pockets—giving police more powers to take their properties cars bikes and of course their bling.Vanushi Walters: How will these new tools help police respond to gang offending?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Gang violence and intimidation is intolerable and leaves our communities feeling distressed. The Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill passed this morning delivers practical and targeted measures for police to continue to keep our communities safe. Anyone caught discharging a firearm to intimidate others such as during a drive-by shooting faces up to five years in prison. Police will also have more powers to search for and seize weapons during times of gang conflict. The new laws also target dangerous and intimidating driving money-laundering and the moving of large amounts of money to facilitate offending by gangs. Coupled with the changes to the criminal proceeds recovery regime we are making it harder for gangs and for their leaders to benefit financially from crime.Vanushi Walters: How do these changes sit within the Government's wider response to organised crime?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: This Government has a strong record in combating organised crime gangs and drug use including removing unlawful firearms off the street actually progressing firearm prohibition orders when the other side failed miserably delivering nearly 1700 additional police officers and investing in officers—more officers focused on serious and organised crime. We've delivered these law changes at a time when police have just reached a major milestone of more than 30000 charges laid in Operation Cobalt which focuses on disrupting unlawful gang behaviour. This follows Operation Tauwhiro which led to 1800 firearms being seized from organised criminal groups.
6. Question No. 6—EducationNICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: How many students will be without their normal classroom teachers today due to the teachers' strike? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Schools are required to remain open if they are able to do so. Schools are not required to tell the Ministry of Education if they are open for on-site learning supervision or fully closed. However as of 11 a.m. yesterday morning 69 secondary schools had selfreported that they would be staying open for instruction and 52 have reported that they would be closed with no supervision. Nicole McKee: Does she stand by her statement I want every kid at school every single day" and if so how many teaching days have already been lost due to teacheronly days?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister in response to the first part of the question yes.Nicole McKee: Does she think it is acceptable that the Ministry of Education doesn't hold any data on teaching days that have been lost considering the number of bureaucrats has increased by 55 percent since 2017?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is law that schools are required to be open a certain number of half days a year and the Ministry of Education no doubt has the expectation that they will do that. That is the information they are focused on. Nicole McKee: Does the Minister trust principals to run their schools and if she does why won't she allow them to reward excellent teachers with higher pay?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister yes I do trust principals."
5. Question No. 5—ImmigrationCAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 5—ImmigrationCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker—[Interruption]SPEAKER: In silence please. Thank you.5. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent reports has he seen about the uptake of the Recovery Visa?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Late last month I announced the establishment of a new Recovery Visa to help bring in workers to support the cyclone and flooding recovery. I'm pleased to announce that we have seen impressive uptake of the visa since then with over 600 applications approved within the first month 161 of these applicants have now arrived in the country and more are expected over the coming days and weeks. I can also confirm that the average processing time is just four days—well within our target processing time of one week. We know how important it is to ensure that we have workers available for the cyclone and flooding recovery especially in light of tight international labour conditions and it's great to see the Recovery Visa supporting this.Camilla Belich: What is the criteria for the Recovery Visa?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Recovery Visa is for workers who come to New Zealand for up to six months to work in a role that supports the North Island recovery from extreme weather events in January and February 2023. This support can include providing emergency response; immediate clean-up; assessing risk or loss; supporting infrastructure building and housing stabilisation and/or repair including planning functions; and work that directly supports the recovery such as producing relevant materials for roading rebuild transport drivers and the like. The application process is a streamlined high-trust model to ensure that Immigration New Zealand can support applications as efficiently as possible.Camilla Belich: What workers have been arriving on a Recovery Visa so far?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There have been a very wide variety of workers who've come in since the Recovery Visa opened for applications. Labourers cleaners and carpenters are the most common types of occupation represented amongst applicants but we've also seen insurance professionals construction project managers and fencers coming in as well.Camilla Belich: Are there domestic recruitment efforts under way to complement securing of migrant labour through the Recovery Visa?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes; it is very important that we take a cohesive approach to the labour market. I'm advised by the Minister for Social Development that there are efforts under way to ensure along with international recruitment that New Zealanders are taking up employment opportunities presented by the recovery as well as helping individuals to be redeployed as necessary. This includes activating Enhanced Taskforce Green and using the Ministry of Social Development's employment-focused case management services which this Government has built up over recent years through products such as the Flexi-wage to help businesses retain staff to support the ongoing response.
3. Question No. 3—Arts Culture and HeritageANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Arts Culture and HeritageQuestion No. 3—Arts Culture and Heritage3. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage: What progress has been made to lift artists' incomes? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): In line with our free-trade agreement with the UK last year we announced that the Government was establishing an artists' resale royalty scheme. This week I'm pleased that we're delivering on that commitment and introducing a bill to the House that will lift incomes for visual artists support them beyond the current spike in the cost of living and ensure they're properly recognised for their contribution to our economy and culture. Today represents a huge milestone in a journey that began 15 years ago. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is this next step important? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Artists have some of the lowest median incomes in New Zealand and have limited opportunities to benefit from their work on an ongoing basis. Currently if an artist's reputation grows and their art attracts a higher price on the secondary market the artist does not receive any of the profit and recognition of their intellectual property hard work or success. This bill changes that and will ensure more money in the pocket for artists whereby a 5 percent royalty is collected every time an artist's work is resold on the secondary art market. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What evidence has she seen that shows this will make a difference for visual artists? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: More than 80 countries including Australia the UK and all EU nations have a similar royalty scheme in place for their artists and it's time for New Zealand to join. Australia put a similar scheme in place over a decade ago and from June 2010 to April 2022 A$11 million has been generated in royalties for visual artists. I'm confident that Aotearoa New Zealand and our visual artists will reap the benefits of such a scheme. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will the scheme be inclusive of Māori and Pacific artists? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: New Zealand is a unique country with a diverse artistic community including our rich and vibrant Māori and Pacific arts community. In its definition of visual art this bill acknowledges that unique context by making specific reference to the visual artworks of Māori and Pacific peoples. I've heard through engagement that artworks by some groups including Māori Pacific and female artists are more likely to be sold privately. The bill does provide the option for those involved in private resales to pay a royalty voluntarily if they want to. By enabling private sales to opt in voluntarily we have sought to ensure that as many artists as possible can benefit from this scheme including Māori and Pacific.
1. Question No. 1—EducationTEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of EducationORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Education1. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her comments that teachers' pay and conditions are not good enough"?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I am going to answer this on behalf of the Minister of Education. Perhaps before I do so by way of explanation on her way to the House just now the Minister of Education was hit in the head by a camera in the lobby and is on her way to seek some medical treatment for that. So that is why I'm answering the question on her behalf. On behalf of the Minister of Education yes I want all of our teachers to feel valued in their mahi and as educational practitioners.Teanau Tuiono: I hope the Minister of Education is well soon. Why does she think teachers are gathering outside the Minister of Finance's electorate office today?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are negotiations under way about teachers' pay and conditions. It is not unusual for teachers to make their views during these processes publicly known as the former Minister of Education has reminded me on occasion in the past few days. The Government is absolutely committed to working with teachers to resolve the issues that they are raising and we believe that the best place to do that is around the bargaining table.Teanau Tuiono: Has she had any conversations with the Minister of Finance to reprioritise spending to allow teachers to have a pay offer that is in line with inflation?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This Government's track record when it comes to teacher pay and conditions is one of prioritising those matters when it comes to Budget considerations. Significant additional investment has been made in our teaching workforce during the tenure of this Government. I'm confident that we'll continue to do that.Teanau Tuiono: Why has there been no formal collective agreement offer put forward for secondary school teachers since October 2021?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've indicated before my expectation as the Minister of Education on behalf of the Minister is that the teacher unions and the Ministry of Education will bargain in good faith to get to the point where the teacher unions can put an offer in front of their membership for ratification.Teanau Tuiono: Does she agree with the Post Primary Teachers Association that there is a shortage of qualified secondary school teachers?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes there is evidence to suggest that there is a shortage of teachers in New Zealand. Over a long period of time we have not trained enough teachers.Teanau Tuiono: Will her Government improve the offer to prevent further strike action and give our teachers the pay and conditions they deserve?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've previously indicated that is a matter for bargaining and the best place to do that bargaining is around the bargaining table."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.SPEAKER: The question is That the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.
Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 34New Zealand National 34.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 86 Noes 34.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading
Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Menéndez March Ricardo; O'Connor GregRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill. To follow Andrew Bayly's points this bill has indeed taken a little while so I won't take much longer. This bill is good for workers it's good for people in the industry and the Green Party's happy to support it and see the outcomes that it will bring.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended and will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 11.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Mr Speaker. I think that this is a very important piece of legislation at this time of night that we would be contributing to the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill. This Government is providing greater financial protection for the construction subcontractors. As part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee who heard directly from these subcontractors we know that they wanted change. This offers a fairer system for them. This offers the opportunity for them to be paid on time. So without further ado at this time of night I commend this bill to the House.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): It's an absolute pleasure to be talking at 11 minutes to 12 a.m. on this fine night on the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill third reading. Well it's a long time since this bill was introduced to the House back in 2021. Gee a lot's happened since then. Gee a lot has happened in the last week I think when you reflect on what's happened. So my first point is I think it's very disappointing that it's taken so long. If this legislation is so important as the Minister and the previous member Helen White spoke of why the dickens did it take so long to get into this House? Gee this House has been in urgency so many times doing the most ridiculous pieces of legislation. If you really wanted to help the construction sector you would have done this years ago rather than at 12 o'clock on this night nearly two years later. So anyway the second point is: I think the issue that Mr Seymour brought up just showed how poorly advised or disinterested the Minister is actually in the building and construction sector which employs 280000 people and accounts for about 10 percent of the GDP of New Zealand. It is a mammoth sector and probably employs the most amount of people in New Zealand the second one being manufacturing employing about 250000. So it's pretty standard and in answering Mr Seymour's question it would have been pretty easy to say Well the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment"—who actually advise the Minister and would have told her no doubt at some stage that "Last year we did $11 billion of commercial construction we did $22 billion of residential construction." That's why my good colleague Tim van de Molen was talking about roughly $33 million being 10 percent which was about $3 million. They were pretty easy numbers to work out. And what this bill will mean is that those retentions are there and let's hope for the Minister's assertion which may be contrary to some of the legal advice we've had that there can be a system put in place that we don't end up doubling up in the amount of retentions as it cascades from prime contractor subcontractor sub-subcontractor as Mr van de Molen quite rightly pointed out. Hopefully that is not the case because if it is National's bill will change this if we were lucky enough to win in October and it was necessary.The second thing is about the tools. I hope that's been dealt with. And the third thing was the court case the Ebert court case that talked about the trusts and the Minister again has given an assurance around that. Let's hope that is the case. If all those things are as the Minister asserts then we all agree this is a much better piece of legislation. It has just been too long in the making too slow in bringing it to fruition and in the meantime the construction industry is now in a perilous state with many many companies going into receivership as a result of some bungling of the economy and some of the rules and regulations that have been put on them."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): It's a pleasure to rise in support of the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill. This was one of the first bills that I dealt with as an MP. I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and it was just a real delight to see this because I'd seen the problem and I was seeing us create a solution and it was done relatively cooperatively I think between every side of the House. The underlying issue here is that there had been a habit of taking a percentage—say 10 percent—of a price to be paid and to hold it back and it had been abused—I go that far. It wasn't being held back and then remitted. Every excuse under the sun was being given as to why sometimes that wasn't returned and the money was being used as working capital. Those are not good things. They are not fair things. So it was really nice to see this piece of legislation come alongside our subbies and our contractors who work really hard and actually deserve to have the whole of the price paid not a piece held back. So what happened here was that we ended up with a piece of legislation responding to a bad habit of not everybody but some people to hold back that money and the intermingling of that money and the use of it for capital. It was a situation where it was David and Goliath. It was the big guys versus the little ones. I am very very proud of the Labour Party and the Labour Government but also all the other parties for getting alongside this particular group of people and recognising that that power imbalance had led to an abuse that needed to stop. And it stops tonight. I commend this bill to the House.
Voting — Correction—Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill
Seymour DavidVOTINGCorrection—Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment BillDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave to amend a vote on the instruction to committee on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. People may wonder why ACT has done this a couple of times. We're missing a member who's had a particularly bad case of pneumonia but I also want to tell the House that his wife says that he sounds like Rod Stewart now so it's not all bad. But we would like leave to amend that vote if that's OK.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. The vote will be corrected. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (RETENTION MONEY) AMENDMENT BILL
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Seymour David; Woods MeganDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Could I ask the Minister if it's true that I'm incorrect that the extrapolations that every other member on this side of the Chamber is making is incorrect? One last chance: can the Minister just tell us what are the costs in terms of tied-up working capital and the costs of tying that working capital up versus the benefits of insolvency that won't happen? Because if the Minister responsible can't tell us what the numbers are for the costs and benefits then it's not really fair for her to tell everyone else that they're wrong when she doesn't know herself.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): I've been over this several times in terms of not being able to extrapolate that out. But let's actually get back to what this is. This is the retention money that is there for the subcontractors. It is put aside because this is money for people who have done work and should be and deserve to be paid out. That is the whole point that is occurring in this legislation.In terms of the wanting to extrapolate from those numbers I'm not going to be ruling in or ruling out. It could be but as I have said you cannot draw the assumptions that members are trying to. But let's think about some of the high-profile cases where we have had businesses go under where we have seen contractors and subcontractors that haven't been paid out. We have seen a number of small businesses who have worked incredibly hard on projects not get paid and—I take the point that was raised by members in the National Party around that—not get access to their tools. In the case of Mainzeal that meant their business couldn't operate but that is covered under a separate piece of legislation.But the point of this is the fact that even if we're talking about a couple of dollars here this is money that people have worked hard for and they deserve to be paid and not for people to use that in an irresponsible way. What we know is the best practice in the building industry is already to do this.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Court Simon; Woods MeganSIMON COURT (ACT): I just want to ask the Minister a question to clarify. So if the cost of insolvency as a result of construction businesses going under is in that region of $89 million a year under the amendments to the Construction Contracts Act the impact summary it says that retention moneys held are between 2 and 10 percent of the contract price. Now let's assume generously that $89 million - odd is lost to insolvency 10 percent of that being the contract price—is all of this legislation all of this compliance requirement really for $8 million $9 million $10 million or potentially $1 million or $2 million a year? Is that the net quantum of the amount of money that we might be protecting for subcontractors who have performed work who may well have been paid for the work they have done apart from that 2 5 or 10 percent withholding which is genuinely withheld because of the risk of defects or quality issues being found with their work or their work being found to be incomplete or not conforming or some aspect of the contract?So is all of this legislation intended to protect on an annual basis maybe I don't know $1 million $2 million or $5 million worth of payments that would otherwise be due to subbies? And that's assuming of course that actually those retentions weren't going to be used for dealing with quality issues or withheld by the head contractor because of a failure to deliver to the quality standard.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): Again I have already covered this question off in previous contributions. The extrapolations and assumptions that members are making to draw from that are simply not correct.