edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bennett DavidDAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The Taxation (Business Tax Exchange of Information and Remedial Matters) Bill does cover the issues that that last speaker Grant Robertson has discussed around foreign trust disclosure rules—Andrew Bayly: Comprehensively.DAVID BENNETT: —and does it comprehensively as my colleague says there as well. It follows the report from the independent tax expert John Shewan. I note that the previous speaker said that he agreed with that report and yet he expects more to be in this legislation than that report required. The report and its recommendations are the basis of what has been used in this legislation. It deals with the improvements to the registration and disclosure of information anti - money-laundering rules and increased information-sharing between Government agencies. So it covers off those issues around foreign trusts that were actually the subject of that public conjecture and also of the John Shewan report. There are a number of changes that are required under that report and they are formally in the bill. Members will be able to discuss them as they please.Another big part of the bill is the Business Transformation programme which the Inland Revenue Department is going through so there are measures in the bill to support and enable deployment of stage one of that programme which is essential to update the technology and the ability for the Inland Revenue Department to have the computerised system it needs for the modern world.Another big part of the bill is the provisional tax regime the accounting income method (AIM) which basically changes the provisional tax regime. It gives a pay-as-you-go option for small businesses and a way for them to pay tax as they earn income. That was proposed in the Budget of 2016. This accounting income method will make it easier for small businesses to pay their tax payments on an ongoing basis throughout the year.Other parts of the bill include the implementing of the G20-OECD Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters. That is in line with international requirements and is an important part of this bill as well. There are other measures in the bill around the use-of-money interest that also assist in the process of simplifying the tax payment for business.So this is a good bill that helps small businesses. It makes it easier for them to pay their tax. It brings in new initiatives like the AIM method which enables them to pay that provisional tax in a timely way. It also covers off the requirements of the Shewan report that deal with foreign trusts. This is an important bill that strengthens our tax system even further. Thank you.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. This Government is ambitious for all New Zealanders. If we look at the measures in this bill this is about unlocking the potential for Māori to participate fully in all of the opportunities that New Zealand offers. As my good colleague Andrew Bayly put it this allows Māori to grasp their own economic freedom. That is enormously powerful for Māori and superbly beneficial for all of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be speaking in the second reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Unfortunately I have not been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I have attended it on occasions and have seen the hard work that this committee does especially under the auspices of my good friend Nuk Korako. I have got to say I have read a little bit about this bill and have participated in some conversations and I fully endorse this bill. I think it is really important when you think that 5 percent of New Zealand land is held in various Māori interests. It is not being used productively and the best way to help Māori achieve and become economically free is to actually allow them to use the land more productively. I think this bill strikes a good balance towards that. I think it is really important in terms of creating that economic freedom. I think about the real thrust of this—what it does is it enables the legislative framework for the governors of that land to be able to manage it accordingly and to put in place the governance structures to enable that land to be used. So on that basis I have got to say I fully endorse this bill. Thank you very much.
SpeechThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I call a member I am seeking a little bit of advice. I have in front of me the decision of the Business Committee from 4 November 2014 which says that for the first second and third readings of Government bills where the New Zealand National Party gives one of its 10-minute calls to a Government support party the 5-minute call for the Government support parties will be given to the New Zealand National Party. I am just seeking advice on whether in fact there is authority for that decision to be overruled from the Chair.I think what I will do is I will call Marama Fox but I will ask the Clerk to look at the rules. It appears that the Business Committee decision might prohibit it but I think in the interests of goodwill and it being nearly Christmas I will call Marama Fox.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill at its second reading. I too want to add my thanks to John Grant and Tāria Tāhana sitting up in the gallery tonight for their expert advice. There was nothing in our select committee that Mr Grant could not respond to. He had the current Act and our proposed new bill sitting side by side. Bit by bit and clause by clause he took us through the differences. I for one as a member of the select committee was very grateful for his ability to do that to know this bill inside out and to actually guide us through the whole process.Everybody here in the House has talked about the various aspects of the bill. I want to just talk a little bit about landlocked land because I have friends in Rangitīkei who have landlocked land. I think the whole theory around landlocked land—that buyers of the land around it would slowly buy them out and choke the iwi out of those particular properties. But there is the resilience of those iwi and of the whānau who actually held on in there. Now we are looking at this new bill to be able to unlock access to those landlocked areas and it has been well worth the wait for those particular iwi.I too come from a whānau that has Māori land. Yes we have a governance board but it is not that functional actually—the particular one I am referring to. I think that it does need a lot of help and that the current Act has not really helped. Several times we have had to go to the Māori Land Court to get it to step in. I also belong to another Māori land block group as well which has an amazing governance group.This bill is actually addressing all the land governance groups not just the major ones that are doing really well—the big ones—but also the little ones as well to help them to be able to govern their lands well and to bring everybody who has been disenfranchised I guess from the lands back to their homelands. With me belonging to a number or Māori land organisations—we too have been disenfranchised and we have left it up to a small group of people to manage our lands. Now is the time that we return to be able to help them. This is what this bill is all about. This bill is going to stop that fragmentation and it is going to give us the ability to be able to participate as landowners in that land.As I said my speech is going to be very short because I too look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. Therefore I will commend the bill to the House and look forward to the next stage. Kia ora.
Point England Development Enabling Bill — First Reading (continued)
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I move That the Point England Development Enabling Bill be reported to the House by 28 April 2017.Motion agreed to.
Carter DavidVALEDICTORY STATEMENTSMr SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Order 360(3) I call on David Shearer to make his valedictory statement. I understand it is the wish of the House to suspend for the dinner break at the conclusion of the statement.
Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Very quickly this particular bill is actually a very good example of the comprehensive plan that the Government has on housing. This bill is also a great example of the Crown working with Māori for this development. The incredible thing is that in one fell swoop this bill is going to free up underutilised land in Auckland it is going to increase the housing supply that is needed in Auckland and it is also going to enable Ngāti Paoa to build their economic base.So ka pai to the Minister for Building and Housing ka pai to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and ka pai to Ngāti Paoa. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.Debate interrupted.
Point England Development Enabling Bill — First Reading
Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I realise that I stand before David Shearer's valedictory statement and dinner so I will come right to the point. The Labour Party supports this bill in its first reading. Secondly I am reminded of a saying by my elders E le'o le fale ae o le anofale" meaning the house is not the only thing that is important here. What is more important is what we use the house for—for families to keep them warm and to keep them safe to give children a sense of confidence and a sense of stability and to keep children off the streets so that they have a home they can call their own. That is the first thing. The second thing is that if this Government continues to deny that we have a housing crisis we are not going to solve the problem long term. We are not going to solve the problem long term. See the numbers that it has thrown up—20 percent social housing and 20 percent affordable housing meaning 60 percent is commercial housing—do not add up. We have got approximately 42000 people living in homeless situations—living in cars and in garages—whom we need to take off the street and into homes. Those numbers do not fit. The number of about 1500 overall does not comply with what the financial institutions are saying which is that Auckland requires 13000 houses to be built now. The third point I want to make is the fact that Ngāti Paoa have come on board. They are building these houses obviously. They have a social conscience. But this Government does not have a social conscience. It needs to recognise firstly that we have a housing crisis and recognise that we are not just going to build boxes; we need to build communities. We need to give a sense of confidence to those families. The final part is that I heard the Minister say that affordable housing was in the vicinity of $650000. Come off it! How can $650000 be "affordable housing"? Not at the rates of pay that this Government has created for the majority of working-class people up and down this country. So those members have got to do better. They have got to do better. I am glad that it has been the Labour Opposition—I take that back. It has been the general Opposition of this House that has held this Government to account and has forced it to do something about this housing crisis. But those members do not believe that there is a housing crisis so they still meddle around with the numbers. Until they adopt the policy that this Labour Party has put up of 10000 houses a year for the next year 10 years it will never solve this problem. So although we support this bill going to a select committee we need to keep challenging this Government to do far better. The final point I want to make is this land was reserved years ago as reserve land for the wider community. The money that it makes on this I have heard the Mayor of Auckland say ought to go back into building other facilities that will help support a strong capable community in the Point England area in terms of going forward. So it is not just about building houses. It is about recognising what this is for—strong healthy safe families—and that is what the Labour Party is about."
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Tisch LindsayKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill the Point England Development Enabling Bill in its first reading. First of all I would like to congratulate the Hon Dr Nick Smith on bringing this bill to the House. This is an example where we can see the Crown and marae working together for the betterment of the people of New Zealand.I am a bit lost with the contribution from the previous speaker. In one breath he was saying that we will be losing the reserve and we should not be developing these kinds of sites. In the next breath he said that it is close to modern facilities transport and schools. So I am confused about what he wants to say—whether we should be making this kind of a contribution or not.Denis O'Rourke: The member should have listened to the speech; then he might have understood.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Then he should be clear in what he wants to say. In the next breath he said that he is against migration. I really feel sorry for my good friend Mahesh Bindra who is part of New Zealand First. He is also a migrant like me. So we need to understand that migrants bring a lot of contributions to this House—not only to this House but to the economy. We should understand—Denis O'Rourke: National's housing has been a dismal failure exacerbated by excessive immigration.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: You should appreciate what immigration is doing for this country. We bring a lot of investment. We bring a lot of skills. That is why we have got all the migrants coming to this country. New Zealand First is against it. So with these words I commend this bill to the House. I hope all the parties will be supporting this bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Marama Davidson—5 minutes.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. I just want to say that in order to have an aspirational party you need aspirational people and I do not see any across the way. I see nobody because the aspiration is all over this side—it is all over this side.This is a very good bill. I am really pleased that I am standing here during the first reading and speaking on the first reading of this bill. It is part and parcel of this Government's housing plan. Auckland has a big housing issue and we are adding another 300 more houses in partnership with Ngāti Paoa as part and parcel of the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement claim. Of these 300 homes 20 percent are going to be social housing and another 20 percent are going to be affordable homes. That is on 11.7 hectares; 33.31 hectares of the remaining land will remain as a reserve. It will remain as a reserve a green space. The member opposite said that there would be no green space; well that is a load of rubbish because there will be. Two hectares yes will be for a beautiful marae built by Ngāti Paoa—built for them by them. I think that that is an amazing feat for Ngāti Paoa.As I said my speech is only going to be very short because I think that everything that is going to be said on this side of the House is going to be a tribute—a tribute—to the people of Ngāti Paoa and to the Minister for Building and Housing who has shepherded this bill and many of the other housing projects through this Government. Therefore without any further ado I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is an honour to rise in support of the Point England Development Enabling Bill in this its first reading. Just with regard to the member opposite who has just resumed his seat Mr Henare thank you very much for that contribution. I actually agree with most of what Mr Henare said apart from his criticism—his cheeky criticism—of the title Point England Development Enabling Bill. This is an enabling bill this is a pragmatic bill and therefore it deserves a pragmatic title. I think it is a tribute that this is a Government that is committed to getting more families into warm and affordable homes and that commitment involves partnerships with iwi to do so.If we look at the Point England reserve in the traditional sense as a reserve it is not complying with its traditional values as to why reserves have been set aside. If you look at that reserve with cows grazing on it 20 minutes from the CBD it no longer fits those values. So this as I said is a pragmatic bill where the Minister has said: Let's look at this. Let's do something about it and enable a housing development on 11.69 hectares of that land to be worked through to provide warm and dry housing for families."And with that partnership with Ngāti Paoa it is wonderful that the proceeds of that market-value sale will go back into that community specifically to start developing amenities and as Mr Henare said with 2 hectares of it set aside for a marae. That marae will be the heart of a community to bring people together to create an environment that is supportive around the need for providing affordable housing and a dry warm environment for those people.I am not going to dwell on this first reading any longer. As I said before it is a pragmatic bill. It is special legislation to make sure that we get this development through. It is one of nine Crown land housing site developments and the sixth in Auckland. It is designed to address the need of increasing housing supply where demand exceeds supply and we are committed as I said before to getting families into dry warm affordable homes. With that I commend this bill."
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I was privileged enough to have lunch today with my 21-year-old son and during the course of our lunch he reminded me that actually over the last 3 years I have helped him shift six times. It is no mean feat actually because the last one involved trying to get furniture like beds up three storeys—it would not fit in the lift. Anyway he seemed to be quite grateful for that. I thought it was probably a reasonable expectation that he could have of me as a father that I would help him out. Although I have got to say six times in 3 years is pushing the limits.I guess my point in telling this story is this: when we have children who are in the care of the State and we just sort of cut them off without any conversation—at the age of 17 in the past and after the last piece of legislation it would have been 18—I do not think that is the State taking the level of care that ordinary parents would actually take for their own children.I think what has been glossed over a little bit because it has been sidetracked into other issues this afternoon is the fact that we are looking now in special circumstances for certain people to be able to extend that level of care—where the State can still have some involvement up to the age of 21. I support that. It is what ordinary parents would do and it is exactly what the State should do to ensure that the young people who have been in our care receive the very best chance that they can have going forward. I support this bill.
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking this call to support the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill in its first reading. It is good to see that in general we all agree that our current Child Youth and Family system is not working. It is not delivering what we expect it to deliver for our young people.Child Youth and Family reform is a huge task. It is a huge task. It is about having a new operating model. It is about having a new approach that will be effective and that will be an accountable child-centred system that will help us improve outcomes for young vulnerable children. That is why the Minister for Social Development has already announced that there will be a stand-alone ministry to deliver this new approach. As this is a huge task there is already quite a bit of work that is under way and we have seen some other pieces of legislation that have been through the House complementing the bill that we have in front of us today.In this whole thing we know that it is a huge commitment. In Budget 2016 we saw a financial commitment to this. There was $200 million as an initial commitment to this reform along with the $144 million that was an extra to Child Youth and Family for its operation costs. It is really important to see that actually the system works for the people whom it is designed to work for. What we have come up with in this bill is after huge consultation with stakeholders. With that consultation we have identified issues and we have also come up with a plan which is a long-term plan to take us ahead and to help young children.This bill is actually to reform the Child Youth and Family system in a way that will deliver objectives that are around children who come into State care because we want to get good outcomes for these children. We also want to see that there is a single point of accountability. With that single point of accountability we will know that all agencies are actually working together to provide the support that is needed for children.So overall it is about early intervention it is about addressing the needs of children—those who come from very very complex family situations—and it is about using the data that we have from data sharing. I am really looking forward to what submitters have to say on this bill in the select committee process. So I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Wednesday 14 December 2016 - Volume 719
11. School Buildings—InvestmentMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of EducationSchool Buildings—Investment11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about investment in school property?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. This week I was pleased to announce over $30 million towards school redevelopments in Auckland. This means that in the last 6 months this Government has announced over $268 million of school property redevelopments in Auckland either under way or approved. We are committed to ensuring that students all over New Zealand can achieve the very best of their potential. That is why we are addressing the needs of schools with complex property issues and we are also building new classrooms to accommodate roll growth up and down the country.Melissa Lee: What priority is the Government giving to school property needs?Hon HEKIA PARATA: In this year's Budget Associate Minister Kaye and I announced over $880 million in new money for school infrastructure. This is more than twice the spend of last year's Budget and means the total amount this Government will have invested in school infrastructure is over $5 billion significantly more than any previous Government. We inherited a school property portfolio with an average age of 40 years so have put a huge amount of effort into getting the full picture of the state of the school property portfolio and making plans to address these needs such as weathertightness and earthquake strengthening. On top of this we are also expanding the school network where necessary to accommodate roll growth in line with New Zealand's changing populations.David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that Newmarket Primary School's new building is the first four-storey classroom building in an Auckland school will have 11 new learning spaces and a new school hall and is a very welcome addition to the school network in that area by local residents?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am delighted and fully able to confirm the member's question and it is to the tune of $8.7 million announced on 18 July. There are many happy people in Newmarket as there are on this side of the House.Fletcher Tabuteau: I seek leave of the House to submit two documents relating to the Northland School cluster agreement—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need to be clear. The member is seeking leave to table two documents?Fletcher Tabuteau: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: I need a brief description and the source of those documents.Fletcher Tabuteau: They were supplied to New Zealand First confidentially and they describe the cluster agreement between schools and the said company.Mr SPEAKER: The easiest way is for the House to decide. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.
7. Earthquake Kaikōura—Health ServicesSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of HealthEarthquake Kaikōura—Health Services7. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the Government is committing $3.76 million to assist the people of Kaikōura and Marlborough to access the health services that they need following the recent earthquake?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. The Government is committed to supporting the people of Kaikōura and Marlborough and we know from the Canterbury earthquakes that psychosocial recovery is a long-term process. For this reason we have announced that $1.76 million will be split between Canterbury and Nelson-Marlborough district health boards to essentially fund a range of mental health clinical staff and to increase access to general practice consultations. We will review this package in a year's time but we are committed to these people for the long haul.Sarah Dowie: What is the other $2 million of the package going to provide?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Earlier this year I had the privilege of opening the new $13.4 million Kaikōura health centre which is a major hub for the community and the sole provider of health services in Kaikōura. The Government put in $10 million and the community contributed $3.4 million but up to this point they had raised only $1.4 million leaving a debt of $2 million still to be paid. Given the other challenges facing the people in Kaikōura the Government is providing $2 million to clear the loan. We feel it is really important that these people can focus on the challenges that the earthquake has presented and we do not want them weighed down by the prospect of raising $2 million. That is why the Government is coming to the party.
4. Earthquake Kaikōura—Government ResponseNUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Civil DefenceEarthquake Kaikōura—Government Response4. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Civil Defence: How has the Government responded to the Kaikōura Earthquakes of 14 November 2016?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): One month on from the magnitude 7.8 earthquake this Parliament and the Government continues to stand beside the people of the affected communities in Kaikōura. During the last 2 weeks the House unanimously passed three bills that provided the legislative framework that allows us to support and promote full recovery from those earthquakes. The bills recognise the significance of the earthquake sequence and show the willingness of this House to move swiftly in supporting communities to resume their livelihoods and restore the damaged infrastructure without unnecessary roadblocks. Nuk Korako: What additional support has the Government provided to the disaster response?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Key to any civil defence response is a wide range of Government agencies working together. Examples of how other agencies have contributed to affected communities are the $12.5 million business support package to cover 16 weeks of wage losses from the date of the earthquakes; the $3.6 million health package to support Kaikōura and Marlborough so people can access the health services they need following the recent earthquakes; and a $5 million support package for the primary sector in the upper South Island. Tax measures and KiwiSaver relief are also available to affected areas. The enhanced Taskforce Green has been activated so councils can employ local job seekers to support in a clean-up operation and the Earthquake Commission and New Zealand's major insurers have reached an agreement that will have thousands of claims dealt with more quickly than might ordinarily have been the case. The assessment of what is needed in these areas will continue as I am sure the support from across the House will.
2. Immigration New Zealand—Holidays Act ComplianceRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of ImmigrationImmigration New Zealand—Holidays Act Compliance2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements; if so how?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Yes in the context in which they were given; and to the second part of the question vertically and confidently. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I never thought he would say that. Can I ask the Minister this: how does he reconcile and I quote him there are forms of exploitation that are going on" with Immigration Instruction BM2 that people will not be eligible for the grant of residence if they exercise significant influence over the management and administration of any business that has not complied with our employment immigration and taxation laws—page 52?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: With no difficulty whatsoever.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree in respect of compliance with the Holidays Act 2009 that it is relevant legislation in terms of Immigration Instruction BM2 page 19?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I need to check with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety but I think the Holidays Act was passed in 2003. [Interruption]Rt Hon Winston Peters: They were in power at the time. Can he confirm that many Government departments like the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and Immigration New Zealand have not complied with the Holidays Act 2009 by not paying the correct holiday pay for several years resulting in a taxpayer liability estimated between $200 million to as high as $2 billion—that is page 45?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is beyond my ministerial responsibility. It would be best directed at either the Minister for Economic Development who has responsibility for MBIE or the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given active corruption and investigations into Immigration New Zealand staff huge Holiday Act liabilities and migrant workers being exploited which is seriously harming our reputation and given that he exercises significant influence over management and administration of Immigration New Zealand does that mean that he is not a fit and proper person?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well firstly I reject the inference in the first part of that question that there are investigations into widespread corruption at Immigration New Zealand or that it is occurring. Actually I am very proud of Immigration New Zealand. When this Government came into office and certainly under the oversight of the very excellent former Minister of Immigration Dr Jonathan Coleman it was a mess. It was tidied up. Timeliness has improved the quality of decision making has been improved and most importantly the public perception of that organisation has materially improved."
Brownlee GerryADJOURNMENTHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Government notice of motion No. 1 is in my name and—[Interruption] Sorry? Hon Member: It's been reshuffled.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is on page 7 here. I thought I might have got some uncomfortable information then Mr Deputy Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not even got a page 7.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Eh?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not even got a page 7.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is right—page 7. In normal circumstances if another member was to move that the member whose name it is in would be required to leave the House. Members will appreciate that the somewhat arcane rules about tabling in the House have meant that it was not possible to achieve the desired effect of having the motion in the name of the member who would like to speak to it. I therefore seek leave of the House to remain—notwithstanding the Standing Orders around this matter—during the adjournment debate.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Statutes Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to speak briefly on the Statutes Amendment Bill to indicate the Opposition's support for this legislation. Statutes amendment bills are a very good way for the Parliament to expedite tidying up matters across a number of different pieces of legislation and therefore avoid the House having to engage in lengthy debates about things that are non-controversial and that simply tidy up mistakes or clarify things as required.There are many bills currently proposed in the members' ballot for example that could quite happily be incorporated into statutes amendment bills given that they are very uncontroversial. They compromise the majority I think of the members' bills put forward by National Government backbenchers. The ballot for those members who have bills of greater substance may be a more satisfying exercise if the ballot was not currently being padded out with bills that serve no useful purpose other than to soak up the time of the House.So I can indicate that the Opposition would certainly be happy to support a significant number of those bills being incorporated into the next Statutes Amendment Bill so that they can be passed through the House without wasting time as we have done with two bills already: the lost luggage bill and the bill that we just dealt with—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Give us a list.CHRIS HIPKINS: —in Committee regarding our reporting. I will be very happy in the new year to furnish the Leader of the House—whoever that may be—with a list of all of those National Government members' bills that we would be happy to support in a Statutes Amendment Bill—Hon Gerry Brownlee: How will the member have a holiday if he's doing that work?CHRIS HIPKINS: —so that we can—I am happy to give it to him before he goes away on holiday then. Although actually it is difficult in his case to tell which holiday he would want it before. But I will supply the Leader of the House with that list because statutes amendment bills are a very efficient way as I have said of passing legislation that is not controversial. This particular amendment bill has been thoroughly scrutinised by the Government Administration Committee and it had no concerns to draw to the attention of the House. Therefore the Opposition is happy to support it.Bill read a third time.
Bridges SimonThird ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a third time. By their nature statutes amendment bills do not address significant policy matters. The amendments proposed must be technical short and non-controversial. However statutes amendment bills are an important part of the Government's legislation programme. They make amendments that individually would not receive the priority needed to be progressed. They allow us to keep the law up to date and accurate.Some of the objectives achieved by the amendments in this bill include clarifying that a special licence permits the sale and supply of alcohol not the sale or supply of alcohol; removing obsolete references to imprisonment served on home detention which is no longer used in the criminal justice system; ensuring that employees can pursue a personal grievance when their employer has not provided them with either notice of a cancelled shift or compensation if notice is not given; and correcting discrete drafting and cross-referencing errors throughout the statute book.I want to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their time and their considerable efforts in going through this bill. It is a thankless task that they do going through all of the parts and making sure they cross the t's and dot the i's. They were very thorough in this bill and in the process that they put in place. I would also like to thank those who submitted on the bill for their I think very useful and considered submissions. I know that the committee heard from a cross-section of society—a lot of lawyers and so on—who again helped the committee in getting this bill into shape.Finally I want to thank all parliamentary parties for their backing of the amendments contained in this bill. Can I just wish you Mr Deputy Speaker and all of my parliamentary colleagues a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I commend these bills to the House.
Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): Very briefly can I just thank all members for their contributions. Can I make clear that both Matt Doocey—it was Matt Doocey's member's bill and then of course David Seymour had fantastic intentions in reducing compliance on publicly listed companies. Of course Deputy—David Seymour's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) previously—Chris Hipkins: Something's on his mind.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No I have moved on. It was previously debated at the Committee stage and it proposed inserting a new Part 6A into the Companies Act 1993 in relation to annual report notice requirements. It sought to replace the requirement for companies to provide a written notice of the annual report to shareholders and allow companies the ability to make reports available online. These are very common-sense intentions. However the Government has since been advised by officials that it could inadvertently impose additional requirements on some companies that were not meant to be captured. I have tabled a new Supplementary Order Paper 257 for Part 6A of the bill pertaining to the Companies Act 1993. It retains the intent of SOP 207 but clarifies that Part 6A should only apply to companies that are required to prepare financial statements under Part 7 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013. The limited application of the amendment will ensure that there are no unnecessary compliance costs placed upon companies such as private companies with fewer than 10 shareholders and public entities whose primary audience are taxpayers and ratepayers and not shareholders. This SOP will remove ambiguity and provide certainty around the requirement to provide annual reports to shareholders. Without this change the broad application of the amendment as it currently stands may also raise issues of commercial confidentiality and shareholder privacy. Any changes made through this bill are technical short and non-controversial and this change is necessary in order for the amendment to satisfy the criteria of a Statutes Amendment Bill.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 257 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 6A be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 6A as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I think what we just saw was actually a window into Chris Hipkins' character which is nasty vindictive and somewhat overwrought when in reality what we have achieved with this Supplementary Order Paper is to save the House the 7 hours of parliamentary time that would have been required to put a whole bill through and instead pass a Supplementary Order Paper in a matter of minutes which is all that has been required to achieve the same thing.Yes there was a drafting error that existed in the original member's bill and yes that would have been discovered had it gone through the full process but it would not have justified all of the time required to catch this minor error when we have just displayed that we can correct it in such a short period of time and achieve exactly the same result.So the net effect is that by including this private member's bill in a Supplementary Order Paper we have saved the House 6 or 7 hours of debating time to achieve the same result. So I would like to thank Simon Bridges for catching this and including it in this extra period so that we could get the law exactly right. What a pity that good grace and magnanimity have not quite yet got to Chris Hipkins this Christmas-time. Merry Christmas Chris.
Hipkins ChrisSTATUTES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeNew Part 6ACHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the leader of the ACT Party David Seymour on this piece of legislative brilliance because it is important to note that the reason we are here today is that David Seymour boasted that he had converted one of the National Party MPs' members' bills into a Supplementary Order Paper to be incorporated into the Statutes Amendment Bill and it took him only 2 hours. It took him only 2 hours and therefore he was going to save the House's time. And yet because he got it so completely wrong here we are again back in the Committee reconsidering it again because actually David Seymour's 2-hour drafting effort went far further than simply incorporating the member's bill into the Statutes Amendment Bill. It then inadvertently covered all companies. So in fact more and more companies were going to be bound up in red tape by the amendment put forward by the leader of the ACT Party.So in order to fix it—and I give credit to Simon Bridges for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee—and to ensure that the ACT Party's cunning plan to wrap small business up in red tape to add a whole heap of additional compliance requirements on to them is thwarted Simon Bridges has brought this very sensible amendment to the Committee which would in fact ensure that the original intention as proposed by one of the National Party backbench—I cannot remember which one it was who put forward the somewhat pointless member's bill in the first place given that it could have always been incorporated in the Statutes Amendment Bill; I cannot remember who it was who put that forward—has now been preserved. Therefore it is with great pleasure that the Labour Party members can say that we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper as put forward by the Minister Simon Bridges and I do not intend to waste any more of the Committee's time whatever the ACT Party has decided to do.
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Brownlee GerryThird ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. Bill read a third time.
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Points of Order — Australia—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice
Motions — Syrian Crisis—Aleppo
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Can I assure the House that the Regulations Review Committee which is in fact chaired by a member of the Opposition has thoroughly scrutinised this legislation. It had no matters to report to the House's attention; therefore I commend the bill to the House. Bill read a second time.
Brownlee GerrySUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL (NO 2)Second ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. The streamlined procedure adopted in the 2014 revision of the Standing Orders provides that the bill at second reading will be followed by its third reading without debate. The bill confirms 17 instruments under 12 different Acts in the year ended 30 June 2016. It must be enacted by 31 December 2016 to avoid subordinate legislation being revoked. The bill was introduced on 18 August and referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 23 August. The committee asked the six relevant Government agencies responsible for administering the legislation to explain why a confirmation of the regulations and orders is warranted. I know that the shadow Leader of the House over there will want to examine this at some length when he speaks. However his opportunity did come at the Regulations Review Committee. I understand that on that day he was detained on other important matters and his thoughts could not be directly given to the committee but he has conveyed them and therefore will be relieved that there is no Committee stage here today. The committee was satisfied with the responses it received and presented its report on 10 November recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. The committee has recommended that the confirmation bills be introduced earlier in the year than has usually been the case and I would have to agree with that. The Government agrees with this recommendation. In previous years we have introduced confirmation bills before 1 August and these bills have a cut-off date of 30 June for including confirmable instruments. The 4-week adjournment in July and early August this year meant that it was not possible to introduce the bill any earlier. The Government will work to ensure that the next Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill is introduced as early as possible in 2017. I thank the select committee for its thoughtful consideration of the bill.
Brownlee Gerry; Carter DavidHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I use the point of order process to thank the Leader of the Opposition for that motion; it is appropriate that he moved that today in the New Zealand Parliament. It is totally in line with what the Government has moved as a representative of New Zealand on the United Nations Security Council and it is very pleasing that the whole of Parliament has been able to affirm that today.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member.
Little AndrewWEDNESDAY 14 DECEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSSyria—Aleppo CrisisANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I seek to move a motion without notice or debate that the House express its deep concern with the situation in Aleppo and call on all parties to cease hostilities immediately.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.ANDREW LITTLE: I move That this House express deep concern with the situation in Aleppo and call on all parties to cease hostilities immediately to ensure the protection of civilians and prevent what is already a major humanitarian disaster from getting worse and call on the United Nations Security Council to put aside political differences demand an end to all attacks and immediately move to provide assistance to the thousands of innocent Syrian people who are caught up in the fighting to stop the brutal and indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.Motion agreed to.
Thursday 8 December 2016 - Volume 719
Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 256 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 10 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.