edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Little AndrewPart 2 Other amendmentsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. This part of the bill deals with some associated but very important issues ensuring the integrity of elections through controlling other forms of foreign influence. So the first of those defines the party secretary by functions that the person performs and says that the person designated as party secretary must live in New Zealand. The other major change or minor change with significant impact is that in relation to advertising and it effectively says that advertising online or on social media must carry the same promoter statement or attribution that advertising in any other medium particularly print and television and radio also carries. That way we know who is paying for advertising; we know who is trying to influence the electorate. These matters tidy away something that I think given the presence of advertising on social media might have been done some years ago but it makes sense to do it now to address that issue that New Zealand through this Parliament and its Justice Committee and through reportage on the evidence gone to that committee knows is a real risk for New Zealand. So on that basis this simply tidies that away and closes the circle on foreign interference and foreign influence.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Hon Gerry Brownlee: He's already put it—he can't put it twice.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes you can.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave of the House to table the letter from the former president of New Zealand First and treasurer seeking to be heard at the Justice Committee inquiry because of inappropriate financial dealings within New Zealand First. The letter is to the Justice Committee.Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is rubbish. Sit down.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me.Rt Hon Winston Peters: It's just rubbish.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me. It's a legitimate seeking leave. Is that letter available on the website or is that part of the—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It's a letter that's been sent and circulated to the Justice Committee.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So it's still within the—it hasn't been released. It's not a public letter.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It hasn't but as I've been advised by the clerks where a member of the public writes a submission or letter to a select committee they may choose to make that document public. They have indicated they're quite happy for it to be public and that's why I seek the leave of the committee of the whole House in the interest of transparency and openness to table the letter from the former—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So they have indicated they are happy for that letter to be made public.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Correct.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In that case I'll put the leave.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No—it's not a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It isn't. I beg your pardon. He has sought leave. There is no debate.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The matter's subject to committee.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The House—we've already had this. I am going to put the leave. Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There is. There is objection.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. A call just to highlight a couple of issues in relation to the tabled amendment in the name my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the value of it which seems to have been missed by a couple of members opposite—namely one of the Green Party members last night and also the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little. The wording is very deliberate—to talk about a couple of entities that have the effect of being associated with or supporting the candidate. So the idea here for the benefit of the Minister and anyone else listening is that what we want is a regime that is functionally going to meet the aim of the bill because if we've got a bill that says that it's to protect democracy by restricting foreign donations then it should be every entity that is capable effectively of being like the candidate or being like the party in the context of donations. So that's why Dr Smith with wording that is I think very good—I couldn't have drafted it better myself—it's the same in each case. The intent there very much is to highlight that the intent of the law is what we should be concerned with as well as ensuring that obviously the letter of the law meets that aim. Now I'll come back to the Minister's point around also potentially having companies included in that. I think it's a reasonable point that he raises and I do want to address that shortly. But the Green Party member last night talked about shell companies and I'd used that phrase in relation to a point that had been made by an outside commentator a point that he might have been able to make had we had a select committee process of any kind. It's a point too that's been on my mind and in those of a few others who are genuinely concerned about—worrying about—undue foreign influence in our politics. The nature of a shell company is that it's a company that is set up with no other purpose than essentially for funnelling donations in this context or it might have some other sort of pretty nominal purpose. And the point about the bill that is being put forward is really that essentially that's the loophole that remains. What we've got to aim to get through is to close these loopholes and that's what Dr Smith's amendment is intended to do. And so it is that I sort of feel like I shouldn't need to point this out to fellow members of the committee but the whole point is to close these loopholes.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you Mr Chair—a short contribution on this bill. I asked myself when it came through why are they doing this? What is the purpose? I just can't understand why they've pushed us into urgency. I had my Māori Affairs Committee cancelled because of this urgency. Two of the members are in this Chamber. We've got a heavy workload and we are sitting here arguing about this bill under urgency and it doesn't even solve the problem if there is such a problem.We're going to support the legislation. We're going to support it but why can it not be done properly in a normal process?Hon Damien O'Connor: Why are you so sensitive to it?MATT KING: We're not sensitive to it—we're not sensitive to it. We are not running a foundation where the donations are not disclosed. We are not worried one bit. That's why we are supporting it. But we'd even support a shortened select committee process so that members of the public and experts would come in and we could make a decent law so we can make a bill that actually is going to solve the problem. But no this Government says no.We're into protecting New Zealand democracy from overseas influence but I don't actually see evidence to support that we have a problem. The bill does nothing even if there was. Now if this Government was serious they would ban all overseas donations or make it so that only eligible people that can vote can donate or they would include the incorporated foundation amendment that the Hon Nick Smith had put in. This doesn't even cover the New Zealand First scandal and that's the foundation scandal. That stinks.To introduce legislation under urgency it's not justified so why are they doing it? So I take a step back and I think OK this Government are in full PR spin at the moment. They had a pretty terrible poll result and the serious allegations surrounding the New Zealand First Foundation were in the media and it was getting some impact. Then they come out with this—they rush this out. To me this Government is in a massive colossal diversion PR mode. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable what they are doing. New Zealanders are watching them.Now the Hon Nick Smith made many valuable points which the Government cannot counter—they cannot counter. I watched a bit of body language and I see a lot of heads down because this Government knows that what they're doing is wrong. They're seeking to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist but if it did exist I would suggest New Zealand First members should take a look in the mirror. New Zealanders know this Government are a lot of talk and they're not delivering and this bill is a classic case of that. It's solving a problem. The first thing that the Hon Andrew Little said in his PR was that they were dealing with a problem and that problem doesn't exist. They were banning overseas donations. Well that law's already evident. All they're doing is dropping the level. Never has this Parliament seen a Government that has promised so much and delivered so little.
Rurawhe AdrianTUESDAY 3 DECEMBER 2019(continued on Wednesday 4 December 2019)ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeDebate resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mōrena mai rā tātou katoa. The House in committee on the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). When we were considering the bill last night we were debating Part 1. The Hon Andrew Little had the call and he has four minutes and 28 seconds remaining.
Thursday 21 November 2019 - Volume 743
Public Service Legislation Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Schedule 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clause 1A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Referendums Framework Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
Referendums Framework Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
11. Question No. 11—AgricultureKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of AgricultureQuestion No. 11—Agriculture11. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he seen about the performance of the agricultural sector?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): There is a lot of good news for the sector. The recent ASB commodity price report headlined Rewriting the record books"—here it is—says that our farmers and growers are in a sweet spot. The ASB's index for primary sector exports shows it's at record highs above its 2011 level. So farmers and growers are getting better prices for their work under this Government than the last National one. Specifically lamb prices have set fresh record highs in eight of the last nine weeks. Lamb prices cracked $9 a kilogram for the first time ever last week. Meanwhile beef prices are not far behind with AgriHQ's beef index setting records each week since 11 October. Seafood prices have also been regularly setting fresh record highs since March. It's all good news.Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen about the sector's prospects for next year?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The ASB expects New Zealand commodity prices to continue to push higher over the remainder of 2019 and early 2020. In particular dairy prices are set to lift over November and December as New Zealand production growth slows and global demand remains firm. In meat markets we anticipate that prices will remain very high for that extended period as the impact of African swine fever is likely to persist over 2020 and potentially into 2021. Similarly we also anticipate that fruit and seafood prices are likely to remain near record highs. The low dollar the low interest rates and the high commodity prices mean that there is a very very good future across all the agricultural sectors.Kiritapu Allan: What actions is the Government taking to help this sector?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We're doing a lot more than the previous Government ever bothered to do. Firstly we're giving certainty to farmers with our recent agreement on agricultural emissions. Our just released skills work plan developed with the sector will attract workers—the workers that we require for the future. Our joint efforts with DairyNZ and Beef and Lamb to eradicate M. bovis are progressing really really well and of course with our $229 million Budget package to support farmers on the ground through things like catchment management groups updating Overseer and boosting extension services—it's all spectacularly good news."
8. Question No. 8—Building and ConstructionPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 8—Building and Construction8. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Is the Government supporting regional building owners; if so how?Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): This Government is implementing changes to our earthquake-prone building regime. Provincial building owners will benefit from these changes because we're relaxing the requirement for expected strengthening work to be done on low-value properties. Under the existing rules if a building owner makes improvements worth more than 25 percent of a building's value they're required to do a full earthquake seismic strengthening even if the value of the building is low. However the change we made by adding a minimum dollar value of $150000 of building work to the criteria for substantial alterations before costly strengthening has to occur means that our Government has delivered a major break for provincial building owners.Paul Eagle: How has the Government worked with regional building owners and councils on this change?Hon JENNY SALESA: The Government has listened to regional building owners and councils. I heard from business owners who wanted to use empty buildings in small towns to open shops and cafes but couldn't under the previous law. I was honoured to stand beside the mayors of Manawatū Rangitīkei Whanganui and Horowhenua who wanted this change when we made the announcement in Feilding. Thanks also to New Zealand First for their strong advocacy on this issue.Paul Eagle: What feedback has she seen on these changes?Hon JENNY SALESA: I was pleased to see comment from Masterton Trust Lands Trust's general manager Andrew Croskery when he said that this change would help to keep central business districts alive. Mr Croskery went on to say—and I quote—The ability to tenant buildings at significantly lower cost now while planning for structural work in the future will provide the cashflow needed to ultimately strengthen those buildings." This Government is ensuring we continue to have thriving rural towns and communities."
5. Question No. 5—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 5—Health5. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made rolling out the National Bowel Screening Programme?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news: last week I joined the Prime Minister at Palmerston North Hospital to mark the start of the National Bowel Screening Programme at MidCentral District Health Board. That means the roll-out has reached the halfway mark with 10 out of 20 district health boards now part of the programme. The programme now covers a population of around 360000 people aged 60 to 74 who are being offered screening every two years. The screening test itself is simple and can be done in the privacy of your own home and it can save your life.Dr Liz Craig: So what are the benefits of bowel screening?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: People who are diagnosed with early-stage bowel cancer and who receive treatment early have a 90 percent chance of long-term survival. Since it started just over two years ago the National Bowel Screening Programme has screened more than 194000 people. As a result 434 cancers have been detected earlier than they otherwise would have been giving those individuals a better chance of survival and on top of that hundreds of pre-cancerous polyps have also been removed.Dr Liz Craig: So how does the National Bowel Screening Programme relate to the Government's overall approach to cancer care and control?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government has a comprehensive plan to modernise our approach to cancer. A key part of that is prevention and early detection through screening programmes such as the bowel screening programme. At the same time we're funding more cancer medicines and we're purchasing 12 new linear accelerators including plans to put machines into Hawke's Bay Taranaki and Northland for the first time ever. We've appointed an interim Director of Cancer Control and we're establishing a Cancer Control Agency to provide the strong central leadership the sector has been crying out for. Improved cancer outcomes is a long-term challenge but we are making real progress.
3. Question No. 3—Social DevelopmentWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 3—Social Development3. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Is the Government's Families Package supporting Māori; if so how?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): We know that Māori disproportionately experience lower incomes than non-Māori. Under the Families Package low and medium income households have benefited significantly through a winter energy payment to help heat their homes over winter a Best Start payment for families with a baby a boost in Working for Families family tax credit payments and increases to the accommodation supplement and accommodation benefit—action this Government is taking is helping to lift Māori whānau and tamariki out of poverty.Willow-Jean Prime: What is the impact of the Families Package on Māori whānau and tamariki?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I can report that the Families Package monitoring report released yesterday has shown us that 138928 Māori main beneficiaries and superannuitants received the winter energy payment at the end of June 2019 giving them up to $31.82 extra per week over the winter months to warm their homes. Almost half of the 11490 unsupported child carers are Māori and received the increase of $20.31 per week as well as receiving up to $33.84 per week through the clothing allowance; and 91240 Māori receiving the accommodation supplement received an increase on average of about $24 per week.SPEAKER: Order! Order! That answer has now gone on for too long.Willow-Jean Prime: Why is this important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We know that Māori are a much more youthful population with huge potential. The median age for Māori is 23.9 years compared to 38 for New Zealanders overall. We also know that Māori have higher birth rates compared to the general population particularly in urban centres. This means Māori will make up an important part of our future workforce so ensuring that they have the best start in life is a priority for this Government and we are heading in the right direction.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Will he issue a direction to ACC to divest the $920 million currently invested in fossil fuels?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The responsibility for managing ACC's investment funds does lie with the ACC board which through its investment subcommittee regularly reviews and approves its investment guidelines including its ethical investment policy. This independence is an important feature of the Crown entity model which creates an arm's-length relationship between Ministers and Crown entities as set out under the Crown Entities Act. While I am not intending to issue a ministerial direction I have recently written to all Government investment funds to outline my expectations around investment practices. This includes regular reviews reflecting best practice and ensuring that we meet the highest ethical standards as New Zealanders would want us to.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think ACC as New Zealand's largest Crown entity investor should follow the lead of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund who in 2017 divested $950 million from fossil fuels?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer those decisions are indeed for the ACC and the super fund and their investment committees to make. I think we can agree that this Government is taking climate change seriously using our regulatory role on the emissions trading scheme to influence investment behaviours and I'm sure all of the Government's investment institutions will be well aware of the direction of travel.Chlöe Swarbrick: Well given that ACC has said they base their ethical investment decisions on Government direction and perception of the public in his view is bipartisan support for climate change legislation strong enough a signal that the Government and the public would like to see ACC divest from fossil fuels?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To repeat for the third time the answer it is the responsibility of ACC to make their investment decisions. I do understand the point that the member is making—that the direction of travel around climate change policy as we saw in the House had bipartisan support. We have seen what the super fund has done and I'm sure the ACC will also be aware of my letter that I have written to them as well.Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware of his powers to direct ACC to divest under the Crown Entities Act?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my answer to the primary question I'm aware of the power of ministerial direction. I'm also aware of the power of the letter of expectations that was written to our investment agencies. That is the approach that I took and I wrote to them as recently as last month on these matters.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. I thought that the time had nearly elapsed but this is completely a bill that is of no necessary need and the people of Hamilton won't want to see this bill progressed at all.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker for this opportunity to speak on the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill from the National Party perspective. There's not a lot that is objectionable about what we've just heard from the Minister except to say that on this side of the House we don't regard the need for this legislation in the same way that clearly the Government does. We regard it as something of a solution in search of a problem. Notwithstanding that there are situations in which at least theoretically there might be a problem arising I think it might be one of those classic cases where we say sure a thing works in practice but does it work in theory?It seems to us that there's not a lot of danger of real genuine confusion between different offices of the Ombudsmen official versus unofficial and so forth such that there would be a harm that needs to be corrected on the statute book. I note various remedies existing in our law—passing off and fraud as well is as the Minister's already referred to in statute already—that prescribe ways that the usage can already be limited. So I think it's probably sufficient simply that we rely on those. I think as well that it's worth considering a broader approach to the protections of names if this is an interest that the Government has in terms of law reform. For example one can have judges of competitions. One could be asked to judge any manner of different things without being a judge with a capital J" who sits in a courtroom wearing a wig and so forth—at least in the way that we popularly conceive such characters. So it doesn't seem to be part of a coherent framework of law reform and in any case it would be a relatively minor example of something that would need changing. For all those reasons we're not proposing to support its passage and any more use of the House's time accordingly."
Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you. I take the last call for the National Party this afternoon and although I didn't sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I did substitute in in a period of time to listen to submissions coming from community groups such as the Citizens Advice Bureau and another local group the Wellington Community Justice Project. It took me back to the days when I practised in the criminal jurisdiction with a number of my clients particularly in the role of duty solicitor applying for legal aid. The majority of my clients when it came to declaring what their debt situation was would often record some of the debts with these loan shark organisations—particularly the red trucks that would drive around in a predatory way and park themselves up in our lower socio-economic communities. So this bill the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill is about addressing those usurious lending practices. Now I had to look up what that word meant. Here I am as a lawyer of some years of practice but my role wasn't in the commercial sector; it was about helping our vulnerable people. Usury"—the definition of that for those who may be watching this debate and for the benefit of my colleagues in the House is an unusually high interest rate or the lending of money at an unusually high interest rate. An example: usury is an interest rate of 30 percent when normal rates are at 15 percent. So at the end of this debate people who have been listening would have picked up that this was about the inflating and the inflammatory practices that go with these loan sharks and their predatory practices prowling on the poor—how's that for alliteration at the end of the week?This bill as is known amends the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. It's strengthening the requirements to lend responsibly especially in relation to how affordability and suitability tests should be conducted. So as my colleague Simeon Brown alluded to the National-led Government back in 2014 passed the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. That was responsibly picked up and the work carried on under this Government. That's certainly to be commended because we are here in this House to make a difference particularly to our communities. We talk about wellbeing and this afternoon this is very much addressing those who are particularly vulnerable who are the desperate and who are the disparate.So in keeping this brief just to say that in the short time that I was on the committee the summary is that there were 173 submissions that were made to the select committee oral evidence heard from 50 submitters and I would have been present to hear at least seven or eight of those. That this is something that we as a House are united in: commending this bill to the House. I conclude my debate endorsing that."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker for an opportunity to speak at the second reading of the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill which the National Party does support. This is a piece of legislation which I wholeheartedly support with a couple of reservations. But it is important because this is the type of predatory loan shark behaviour that we see in our communities where people target those who are living in poverty those who are struggling to get by. Targeting them to charge high interest rates to make them dependent is something which I find personally incredibly abhorrent. I'm pleased that Parliament is taking further action against that type of behaviour.I do want to acknowledge the legislation passed by the last National Government which did make significant reforms in this area and made huge improvements. This piece of legislation will continue in that spirit and will continue to protect consumers and provide more support to ensure they understand the consequences of the lending that they are undertaking and to ensure that the people who are lending to them actually meet proper tests such as the fit and proper person test which will now also be required to be met by mobile traders. But this piece of legislation also does include a cap on interest rates and that is something which I personally don't support. I do think that they will as some submitters said become a target instead of being something which we can regulate through other mechanisms. An interest rate cap will become something which becomes the default rate. At 100 percent interest—essentially that's what it ends up being—that is a significant rate which will for some people mean they end up in a worse situation potentially paying a higher interest rate or having to take out longer-term credit because shorter-term credit becomes less available.The decisions we make and the intent that we have always has unintended consequences. I think that unfortunately one of the things we will see happen when this bill is passed into law is we will see unintended consequences and this is an issue which this legislation will not mean goes away and I'm sure future parliaments will have to grapple with again to ensure that we do protect our most vulnerable whilst at the same time ensuring that there is finance available to those who do need it. National does continue to support this legislation through the House.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Much of this legislation is way overdue and I'm very happy to support it. I want to reflect on comments from previous speakers and members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and Fletcher Tabuteau I think summed it up pretty well for me. There has been a lot of conversations in the committee. There has been a couple of chairs while I have served on it and I want to acknowledge Deborah Russell for her work because I think we all acknowledge across the Parliament and across the select committee that there has been a problem and it needs to be sorted.Now while this particular side of the House may have some issues with an interest rate cap I think that is sort of in many ways around the edges. What I found and what we found and even before I came into this place is there is a lot of what I call predatory lending going on and all it is doing is further causing people misery and harm. And in certain parts of my electorate those trucks are simply a curse.So we have looked at options to try and really protect the more vulnerable people in our society. I think it's a great day when this legislation can get to this point. I think the select committee has done a great job. I have talked to a number of budget advisers in my own electorate who have shared with me even now how people are trying to find ways around what's being proposed. I think most of those loopholes have been sorted. When I went to a place in Gisborne recently and I talked to some employers they said that as soon as they have a job even if they haven't started work the loan is made available. They go and buy a TV. They go and buy a whole lot of other things without any money actually physically going into their account but based on pre-emption of pay-day lending they are lent a whole lot of money.So I think this bill seeks a really good balance and personally I'm very supportive. I'm pleased that our party is supporting it because it will make a difference to a number of people who quite frankly are being ripped off. There are some people that need help from time to time—short-term help—but for many cases that turns into long-term misery. A role of this Parliament and the legislature is to find a solution for that. For that reason I'm very happy to support this bill.
Mallard TrevorCREDIT CONTRACTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 19 November.SPEAKER: When we were last discussing this bill Deborah Russell had the call and if she really wants it she has seven minutes and 30 seconds remaining.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I move That the Public Service Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 28 April 2020.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's my pleasure to take a relatively short call on this bill. This is a big step forward. I want to acknowledge the Hon Paula Bennett and yourself Madam Chair and your Cabinet colleagues who formed this view that the public sector needed to be reorganised and structured in a better way to work together. I absolutely believe that this is the right thing to do and our party and this side of the House is prepared to support it because what it does is it futureproofs the Public Service and the way it operates. I know in previous roles I've had I've often seen silos of one department another department and another department. They won't always talk. Many of them won't work together and often—and I acknowledge the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta in the Chamber today—in the local government world local authorities are trying to work with various Government departments and it's not always easy. So I think any structure that gives leadership and the ability for Government agencies to work together more collaboratively and in a different way than they have in the past is a good thing. I like this bill because it states the purpose principles and values of the Public Service but also talks about the responsibilities how they'll be carried out and sets a framework for how that is all governed and managed. I give the House a couple of examples. In Hawke's Bay we tried to set up what we called an Intersector Leadership Group to deal with issues in the community that intersected between local and central government. One of my major frustrations in the role I previously had before coming to this House was that you always heard from the Government departments how difficult it would be to get budget reallocate resources or make a change to policy without head office. So they'd invariably run off to head office we'd have a meeting head office didn't really understand it and it was almost impossible to get many of those things over the line. So in an inability to work together we pursued with that regime. It was led by a couple of pretty talented chief executives. I'm pleased to say that there are now some changes being made and some of the central government agencies are now way more responsive. But if we are to sort out issues particularly in the regions away from Wellington then we need to have structures that allow collaboration a certain amount of autonomy and some overall direction and guidance. For that reason I have great pleasure in supporting this bill.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak briefly on the Public Service Legislation Bill. Now the State Sector Act of 1988 has played a significant role in the past 30 years in regulating the Public Service sector. We now have a Public Service sector with an outstanding international reputation. But nevertheless over 30 years many things have changed so I would like to go through some of these changes. First of all we have witnessed a change in our demography. Over the past 30 years the population in New Zealand has changed substantially. We now have a much more diverse society including the Chinese community—a much larger Chinese community in New Zealand. So with the change of population we have a change of culture so we now have a multicultural society. So this change means that we need to somehow reflect in our Public Service sector to reflect multiculturalism in New Zealand so we need a more diverse public sector. A second change—technological change. The change of technology in the past 30 years we can see is really extraordinary in our human history. Now of course we have digitisation we have modern communication and we also have artificial intelligence. All these are now being used in our Public Service. And therefore we need somehow to catch up to make sure we are able to use our modern technology more efficiently. And thirdly with a change of modern society and demography old values have changed. For example we now have a stronger sense of human rights stronger sense of gender equality transparency and ethnic equality. Again our Public Service sector should reflect modern values.With all these changes we also look at best practices. So we have seen the changes of best practice globally. We believe a unified Public Service is now best practice and we need to have a cooperative approach with collective responsibility to tackle New Zealand's big challenges. And of course the public now have different expectations—for example they now expect a more efficient more transparent more diverse more inclusive Public Service sector with a better gender balance. Finally we see that the structure of the Public Service sector also has changed. For example we now have more agencies like ACC New Zealand Qualifications Authority New Zealand Transport Agency Housing New Zealand so these new agencies should be regulated. So I support this bill and refer it to the Governance and Administration Committee with the aim of creating a modern more agile and adaptable Public Service. Thank you.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chair. I am somewhat curious about the National Party Opposition's strategy on this bill which is to denounce it to say how horrible it is—We should never have it; it's a breach of the constitution."—and then in relation to the repeal clause say "Why have we got a repeal clause?" It would be good if they would make up their minds but it is there because this bill was conceived for the purposes of the 2020 general election only and the referendums that this Government plans to run in relation to that general election.It is clear from the submissions received by the Justice Committee in response to this bill that there are a lot of people saying "Look we ought to have a standing referendum frameworks piece of legislation." I agree with that. I'd like there to be a longer period of time for consideration both by officials and by the public at large and by Parliament to do that. This has been conceived for as I say that single purpose for the 2020 general election and I look forward to that member's support in a future Parliament for the development of a standing referendum frameworks piece of legislation."
Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — Leave to Set Down for Second Reading Declined
Penk ChrisREFERENDUMS FRAMEWORK BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 20 November.Clause 3 (continued)CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Chair. Just resuming obviously this committee stage of the Referendums Framework Bill—and specifically the repeal section at clause 3. What we've looked at previously—and I believe it was last night at the point that we finished the discussion—was around the timing and also the very fact of the need or disputed proposition that there be a need for a repeal. I did wonder if the Minister of Justice could comment on the choice of word actually to talk about a repeal" as opposed to an "abatement" or perhaps some other more neutral language that might talk about it no longer having effect given that as we've already discussed we've seen a situation where in fact it'll be effectively null and void in any case. So my question really is why it would be that we would formally repeal a piece of legislation that'll have no meaningful effect after the next general election in any case. So if we could have the Minister sort of provide some further comment on that that would be very helpful indeed."
Smith Nick; Mallard TrevorKERMADEC OCEAN SANCTUARY BILLSetting Down for Second Reading—Leave DeclinedHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill to be set down for its second reading on the next Government sitting day.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Hon Members: Yes!SPEAKER: Right. Look I know we're about to have a week's recess but we don't have to behave like we're a class of school children heading into the holidays.
Lees-Galloway Iain; Brownlee Gerry; Mallard TrevorTHURSDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 3 December. Legislation to be considered in that week will include the first reading of the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill; the second readings of the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill and the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill; the third readings of the Referendums Framework Bill the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) and the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2); and further stages of the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill. Wednesday 4 December will be a members' day.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Acting Leader of the House for that indication. The bit that we thought was missing was No. 18 on the Order Paper. Can we take it then that one more year will pass without the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill making the floor of the House? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): Well I note that when the member asking the question was the Leader of the House himself that particular bill languished on the Order Paper for about a year. This is a busy Government. We will eventually get to the work that National put in the too-hard basket but in the meantime we've got our own legislation to pass.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Acting Leader of the House may like to know that when the words second reading" are alongside a bill it means that the Government has dealt with it at some point and sent it to a select committee. What it now means of course is that the current Government have done nothing with it for almost two years. SPEAKER: Right OK—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Speaking to the point of order—SPEAKER: No—no more. No more. The member got what he deserved and it's going to finish there."
Wednesday 20 November 2019 - Volume 743
Referendums Framework Bill — In Committee—Part 4
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Part 4 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Part 3 agreed to.
Referendums Framework Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Referendums Framework Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to clause 11 be agreed to:in clause 11(2)(b) replace highest" with "higher".Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Part 2 as amended agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Part 1 agreed to.
Referendums Framework Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 111New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Ross.Noes 9Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move That the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill be reported to the House by 1 April 2020.Motion agreed to.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill — First Reading
10. Question No. 10—AgricultureMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of AgricultureQuestion No. 10—Agriculture10. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions is the Government taking to help farmers in financial distress? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank the member for his question. We've worked closely with our coalition partners especially in New Zealand First to develop the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2). We're focused on helping farmers get more value for their work and although they are seeing record commodity prices at present we're committed to ensuring there is a safety net for them and their families should they get into financial strife. Beyond the farm debt scheme we've more than doubled funding for rural support trusts. We're working with farmers at catchment level to help them get most from their land while protecting the environment. There'll be more announcements about that. We are doing a huge amount to help the farmers and the farming sector across this country. Mark Patterson: Why is the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) required at a time when our farmers and growers are receiving record prices? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Farm debt has climbed over the past 20 years to now be at more than $62 billion. This bill has been talked about for a long time and finally a Government has taken action on this. We know that farming is vital for New Zealand's growth and wellbeing accounting for $46.4 billion in exports last year. We know farmers are especially vulnerable to business downturns as a result of conditions that are often outside their control: the weather market price volatility pests and diseases—things like Mycoplasma bovis. We're taking a measured approach and by providing this mediation safety net we're making sure farmers and their families have dignity when they're in times of financial stress. Mark Patterson: What support have you seen for the farm debt mediation scheme? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There has been widespread support for the scheme from farmers from the industry organisations from the banks themselves and even from the National Party. There are people like Janette Walker who have seen first-hand the effects of farmers getting into financial difficulty and who have said how much this scheme will mean to them because it creates a clear path for farmers and it offers them protections at a terribly stressful time. I'd encourage people to listen to the podcast on Radio New Zealand to get an insight into what can happen at a time of foreclosure by a bank. People like the sharemilkers section of Federated Farmers—they support the farm debt mediation scheme and as I said the banks do as well. This is a good piece of legislation. I thank New Zealand First for their initiative.