edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
1. Question No. 1—Economic DevelopmentDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Economic DevelopmentORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Economic Development1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he seen on New Zealand's attractiveness to the global screen industry?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Last week I was happy to welcome Amazon's announcement that the new Lord of the Rings series will be filmed in New Zealand. The executive producers said—and I quote—As we searched for the location in which we could bring to life the primordial beauty of the Second Age of Middle-earth we knew we needed to find somewhere majestic with pristine coasts forests and mountains that also is home to world-class sets studios and highly skilled and experienced craftspeople and other staff." And that is exactly what New Zealand offers.Dr Deborah Russell: What benefits is this expected to bring?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The series is expected to have a large cast and crew with significant opportunities for New Zealanders. A production across multiple seasons it will provide job security and career growth particularly for Auckland-based crew. There are more than 16000 workers in the screen industry now generating $3.3 billion in revenue last year. This new investment will help the industry grow even more. And on top of that I want to quote the International Visitors Survey which showed that in the year ending June 2019 approximately 800000 visitors to this country said that they were here for the purposes of visiting a film location. That's up from 120000 in June 2013. I fully expect that the Lord of the Rings TV series will grow that number even more.Dr Deborah Russell: What other reports has he seen on New Zealand's attractiveness to the global screen industry?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I've also seen news that Netflix will film its new series Cowboy Bebop in Auckland. This is projected to employ 400 locals and is another shot in the arm for the Auckland screen production industry. Our Government is proud to support our local film industry as we move to an economy that is sustainable inclusive and productive."
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Part 2 is a very small part. There are some minor changes. The transfer of transport functions between territorial authorities and regional councils is enabled by Supplementary Order Paper 323 and it's done through consequential amendments to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 1974.I just want to confirm the statements made by my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford that there is no existing provision to enable the transfer of responsibilities between regional council and territorial authorities. So in terms of the interjection that was made by a member of the Opposition I just want to give that confirmation because in Hamilton too the debate did ensue around the aspiration of the city council to lead on transport functions and not regional council but the provision wasn't available—unless of course what that member was referring to was that ministerial power should be used to make that decision. We don't think that's a way forward and actually a simple amendment such as this—the one that we're proposing—will enable those conversations to take place within a region as to who is best placed to make these types of decisions.The reason for the conversation in Hamilton was around actually services out further afield to districts like Raglan and there was a sense that the trade-offs in communities like Raglan needed to be better factored in in the development of a public transport framework. There were tensions between the city and the regional council about who could best provide the reliability of a service and also ensure that Hamilton City was well catered for once people got into the city.Can I say that that's a local debate. What we're trying to do is not answer those questions however they may occur across cities and regions; we're just enabling not only for the conversation to be had but some actions and decisions to be taken to enable the transfer of certain arrangements between regional councils and territorial authorities. That's the reason why we've introduced this simple amendment in Part 2.There's not much more in this particular part. This is fundamental. It's something I think that is practical and the Minister of Transport certainly agrees. I hope that we can pass it very quickly.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to just take a brief call on Part 2. I specifically want to talk about Schedule 3 Part 2 where it talks about the application to the commission—so page 92. Before subpart 2 insert the following: (b) a report from each affected local authority adopted by that local authority that records—" and in subparagraph (ii) it says—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry are you on Schedule—which one?JAMIE STRANGE: Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 page 92 "New subpart 1B of Part 2." CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK—I thought you said you were on Schedule 3 which would be out of order.JAMIE STRANGE: Sorry Mr Chair—Schedule 2. The point I'd like to raise there is that the SOP states that "(ii) the public consultation undertaken by that local authority;" and then also what also needs to be presented to the commission are "(iii) the themes and outcomes of that consultation."So what we have here is a group of local authorities submitting to the commission the public consultation they've undertaken. My question to the Minister is if she could please elaborate around what type of public consultation needs to be presented to the commission. Is there flexibility for those organisations first of all to choose what type of consultation—whether that's meetings online submissions or whether that's a range of consultation? Also do they need to submit every aspect of consultation? So for example say if hypothetically they had 200 people submit do they submit all 200 submissions to the commission or do they give the commission a broad range of that consultation?So the first question is what type of consultation—the stipulation there—and the second one is: does the local authority need agreement from the residents unanimously or is there a percentage something like 90 percent of those who submit being in favour? Is that enough for it to be accepted 95 percent? Is there any sort of stipulation there on those local councils who are submitting to the commission around the level of agreement they need when they undertake the consultation?I'll leave my questions there for the Minister on Part 2. Part 2 is a short part so we don't need to talk too long about it. As a Government we're certainly very keen to pass this piece of legislation. The local councils have been looking forward to this and I'd just like to leave a couple of those questions there with the Minister. Thank you."
Tolley AnneCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I do warn members we've now had over 20 calls on this part and we are starting to be much much more repetitive. So I will be tough and you will stick to the topic.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move That the question be now put.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. And I'd like to quickly cover off one part of Part 1 that hasn't been spoken to in much detail and that's in terms of the role of the Local Government Commission (LGC) in terms of government reorganisation. We all know this is an incredibly sensitive area in some parts of the country with the question of amalgamation hanging over the heads of some regions. There have been some really big concerns around councils losing their autonomy or not being able to have control over the areas they want.So what the Supplementary Order Paper does is it changes in terms of the first stage of that reform programme and the local government—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We have had quite a lot of debate on this so the member is at risk of being repetitive.GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry Madam Chair I hadn't spoken on this yet—but sure.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We've had an hour and a half already on this. You may not have spoken on it but others have.GINNY ANDERSEN: OK. Right. I'll get to the point. Sure.The current framework for local government reorganisation is not fit for purpose and this is really enabling—particularly I'd note between 2012 and 2016 five large-scale reorganisations were proposed and they did not proceed because of the real lack of community support. And these were costly and divisive and they also were very much opposed locally and caused a lot of concern. So in terms of what this proposal undertakes it removes that threat of amalgamation by constraining the LGC's role in large-scale reorganisations and I commend that. This is done by simply removing the ability of the individual to request reorganisation investigations and also by restoring the requirement for support of those electors. Removing the enhanced powers of the LGC and the accountability measures of the central government will also have an impact in the sense of enabling a reduction of the number of commissioners and that should be a reduced workload in that space. So that was the only other point that I wanted to cover off for Part 1 of the bill. It covers off the two key areas which are the council-controlled organisation and also the LGC in local government reorganisation. So thank you Madam Chair.
Points of Order — Speaker's Rulings - Parliament TV
Speaker's Rulings — Oral Questions - Primary Questions — Parliament TV - Use of Official Footage for Political Advertising
Brownlee Gerry; Mallard TrevorPOINTS OF ORDERSpeaker's Rulings—Use of Parliament TV FootageHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of the previous discussion and your new direction to the House with regards to the use of video from the House if I were to myself put up a video of me asking the question—or putting the leave I should say—for that bill to go to the top of the Order Paper so that the suggestions from the Deputy Prime Minister can be given life do I need to have the Government's permission to put their decline in that video?SPEAKER: No because it doesn't show the Government it shows me and the member. The member could ask me but he doesn't need to because we're such good friends I'm always happy for him to have me featuring in his videos—with a limit; with a limit.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee Gerry; Mallard TrevorBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 15 October. In that week legislation to be considered by the House will include the first reading of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill the committee stages of the Corrections Amendment Bill and the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill and the third reading of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2).Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Has the Leader of the House been asked to set aside time when the House resumes in two weeks' time to pass a bill that would enable all remaining stages of the Rugby World Cup to go free to air in real time as promised by the Deputy Prime Minister?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course that bill currently sits on the Order Paper. It is a members' order of the day and I think when the members opposite stop filibustering another bill listed under the members' order of the day they might finally get to it.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for item No. 8 on the members' order of the day Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill (No 2) to go to the top of the members' day agenda for the next members' day?SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is.
Tuesday 24 September 2019 - Volume 741
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Arms Legislation Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Arms Legislation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
10. Question No. 10—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 10—Justice10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with concerns about the Referendums Frameworks Bill such as from the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee that 'free and fair elections' are a fundamental constitutional principle. One component of free and fair elections is that they are administered neutrally and impartially. This tells against giving the Executive a broad power to procure referendums and to frame the wording for such referendums."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Ni hao Mr Speaker. In relation to that particular submission of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee there are some things in that submission I agree with; there are other things in it that I disagree with. What I do agree with is their statement that the power that the member is referring to is broadly similar to section 6 of the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000 which was a piece of legislation introduced by a National Government that that member was a part of.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee see a key difference in referendums that are held at the time of a general election in which the Government has got a vested interested to screw the scrum to try and win election unfairly?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If I just take the straight bits of that question and answer it in these terms: the only difference that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee saw with the Referendums Framework Bill is that the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act provides for referendums that are conducted by post as opposed to in conjunction with a general election. It was with all due respect to the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee an absurd statement to make.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the concerns from the Hon Peter Dunne who describes his bill as Putin-like saying—and I quote—it's "much more reminiscent of the plebiscite approach adopted in countries where" there is the thinnest veil of democracy?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the Regulations Review Committee including his own Labour colleagues that the bill gives Cabinet inappropriate Henry VIII - type powers?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Regulations Review Committee has made no submission on the bill.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the letter received from the Regulations Review Committee describing the bill as having Henry VIII - type powers.SPEAKER: The letter received by whom?Hon Dr Nick Smith: The letter was sent from the Regulations Review Committee to the Justice Committee.SPEAKER: I'm advised that the document has not yet been released. It is within the power of the House to seek leave for that. That does not mean that it will be made generally available. Is there any objection to that document being tabled?Hon Members: Yes.SPEAKER: Further supplementaries?"
7. Question No. 7—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements policies and actions regarding vaccination and the measles outbreak?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Yes in the context they were given.Dr Shane Reti: How long are the 52000 vaccines she has spoken about projected to last before they have all been used up for vaccinations?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That depends on the number of vaccines that are given each week but as the member knows there will be 100000 additional measles mumps and rubella vaccines arriving in the coming weeks.Dr Shane Reti: When will the additional 100000 vaccines she spoke about last week actually be distributed to health professionals?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: They will be distributed as soon as they are available.Dr Shane Reti: Under the Minister's actions is the current measles outbreak getting better worse or staying the same?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is clinicians and experts who are guiding the Government's response to the measles outbreak and I trust them.Dr Shane Reti: When she said vaccination is the only way to prevent measles" is she confident that enough is being done to prevent measles in light of reports yesterday that students were sent home from Wellington High School and Rangitoto College due to measles?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: To date this year over 180000 vaccines have been delivered. That's nearly twice the amount that were delivered in the same period the previous year and the year before that. I am confident that the clinicians who are delivering the vaccines are doing the absolute best they can particularly to prioritise the most vulnerable who are children under the age of five."
6. Question No. 6—FinanceDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 6—Finance6. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Friday the IMF released its latest annual review for New Zealand highlighting that economic growth picked up early in 2019 reflecting a rebound in private business investment growth. Looking forward it expects a pick-up in growth in mid-2019 through to 2020 supported by accommodative monetary policy and the near-term fiscal impulse from the Government's increased investment levels. The IMF report underlines New Zealand's strong underlying economic fundamentals. Unemployment is at an 11-year low and the economy is growing faster than the likes of Australia the UK and the EU.Dr Deborah Russell: What did the IMF report say about New Zealand's fiscal position?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF said that New Zealand's sound fiscal framework has been strengthened further by the Government. The IMF said the Wellbeing Budget struck the right balance between fiscal prudence and the Government's priorities of mental health child poverty Māori and Pasifika aspirations productivity and digital transformation. In addition the Government's shift to a target range for net debt of 15 to 25 percent after 2022 is prudent and maintains the fiscal buffer needed … [should any] … large-scale fiscal policy response … be required." It's refreshing to see the international view of the New Zealand economy and finances are positive. Despite some who will take a glass half-empty approach under this Government's solid economic management we're doing well against a backdrop of global uncertainty.Dr Deborah Russell: What did the IMF report say about the Government's policies to improve productivity growth?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF highlighted that within the Government's greater focus on wellbeing we have "a roster of policies to foster productivity growth" including introducing an R & D tax incentive; increased education spending including reform of the vocational education sector; the creation of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission to enhance procurement and delivery and to set up an infrastructure pipeline; using wage increases to further more inclusive growth including minimum wage increases and sector-wide collective bargaining; and fostering regional development through the Provincial Growth Fund and regional skills shortage lists.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that the IMF is no longer talking about the New Zealand currency being massively overvalued and damaging exporters but now at US64c or thereabouts that is enormously helpful to our export base in this country?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There's absolutely no doubt that the dollar at that level is indeed helpful to the export base and I believe that may have contributed in part to the fact that exports are around 28.3 percent of GDP at the moment. That's heading in the right direction unlike the previous Government who set a goal of 30 percent and promptly put the car into reverse."
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 1
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora Mr Chair—just to take a quick call on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) at committee stage. As has been canvassed by my colleagues there are Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table from the Minister and as a previous member of the inaugural Rodney Local Board of the first Auckland Council when it was amalgamated—I should actually say that I'm standing on behalf of the Hon Ron Mark who's in Timor-Leste this evening. He is the spokesperson generally for local government so it would normally be he who actually rises to take a call on this bill.As I said as one of the inaugural elected members of Auckland for example where there was a forced amalgamation on the Rodney area of what is now the super-city of Auckland—I don't know if people call it super" any more. It's been somewhat of a disaster under the previous Government I would have to say. Just to acknowledge the Minister in the chair Nanaia Mahuta who's doing her very best to try and right the wrongs and the disaster that was put into place by the previous Government—but if we go around to some of the Supplementary Order Papers that are sitting on the Table I have to say I'm very much looking forward to the contribution from the member from Rodney because I know that the Northern Action Group for example has recently put out an email on some of the Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table around the 10 percent requirement to change any of the settings around an amalgamation for example.I would ask the Minister at the most suitable time if she wouldn't mind speaking to the issues that have been raised by the Northern Action Group. But I'm sure the member from Rodney will also be raising those issues because of course he is the elected representative for that area. So I have no doubt that we will hear a contribution from him from the Opposition benches at some stage on this bill.But at the very least what I'd like to do is commend the Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for taking this initiative to try and work through first of all making sure that we don't have further communities like Rodney was dragged kicking and screaming into an amalgamation that they were never asked about that they never wanted that they weren't supported in. But I would ask the Minister if she has an opportunity before the House rises tonight—she may want to wait until the member from Rodney raises any other questions that he has around this issue that affects his electorate and that the Northern Action Group is actually asking for his support on but if she could at some stage stand and just talk a little bit about the Supplementary Order Paper she has on the Table there that there is a level of concern around which is requiring a petition of at least 10 percent of local electorates to proceed then I would be most grateful."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to make a simple point around the disestablishment of the Local Government Commission and severely reducing their powers to undertake amalgamations. It seemed to me that there was a theme throughout the Cabinet papers the discussion papers and the general advice provided to the Minister throughout the working up of this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 which sought really to reverse the good changes which had been proposed by the former Government. There was a very strong theme around the spectre of large-scale amalgamations and it did seem to me and to those of us on this side of the House that there was in effect almost a witch-hunt against the Local Government Commission and the good work that the commission was doing. So while this SOP simply reverses a number of good measures brought by the Government I have yet to see a proposal for what the roles of the commission might be in the future and I'd welcome some guidance from the Minister on just that point because it just seems to me that the Local Government Commission has its genesis—oh I just don't recall. But the commission has been established for quite a number of years and apart from its roles and responsibilities under the Act it has also over time been a well-respected and well-regarded body of commissioners who in my experience both in local government but also in my role as a parliamentarian were there as an independent commission obviously always in a position to provide guidance and support to councils. If you think about the local government environment and the local government view that Parliament is forever passing down the unfunded mandate—if I'm not straying too far from the bill but I'm making a general point about the commission. The commission and commissioners—a number of them over time have been former mayors with a vast array of experience—have provided outside of some of those statutory functions a really valuable service a lending ear perhaps to councils at times when they have needed that extra support and advice. I would be interested in the Minister's view on what shape the Local Government Commission might take in the future.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I stand to speak to this Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill in its first reading tonight. I understand that my colleague Dr Jian Yang referred to it as a poverty of ideas from the Government. I refer to this as Space Invader". It's really just filling the gaps of the Order Paper in order to give this Government something to do in this House because they are actually impoverished when it comes to legislation on the Order Paper. This bill is proposed to make it easier for applicants who want to apply for the Rates Rebate Scheme. But in support of my colleague Ian McKelvie in my time in local government I have never had anyone who has complained about the process they need to go through in order to get their rates rebate. I think what we have to remember is that this money is actually taxpayers' money that we are redistributing to people and the least they could do is provide some accountability for their declaration of the financial means to prove that they do qualify for a rates rebate.Hon Tracey Martin: Why don't you like old people?MAUREEN PUGH: That is a very small action—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just remind the member that New Zealand First gave up their speech. You could have had a say.MAUREEN PUGH: —to undertake in order to give accountability to the taxpayers of New Zealand.There is absolutely no cost to an applicant in having a statutory declaration signed. We know that JPs do it for free. They are spread across this whole country. They are provided in every public facility in libraries in council buildings in their private homes and I know they are spread to the four corners of this country. It is not a difficult process to get a statutory declaration signed and all it does is confirm legally that something you are stating on that paper is in fact true. It's not a big ask. But we have this bill before us and I know it's been raised already tonight but we have heard that the Productivity Commission delivered its draft report in July of this year and it's actually going to recommend that this scheme be replaced. So in eight weeks the final report will be delivered that will be recommending that very thing. So I have no idea why we are here debating this bill when the Productivity Commission is actually going to recommend that it is replaced. This is a complete waste of the House's time. I'm not going to waste any more of it either."
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd dearly love to ask the last speaker a question too but I don't have time. I see my whip looking at me very sternly. Now interestingly this piece of legislation first came to this House in 1973 and probably I'm the only one that can remember that—oh apologies Madam Speaker. The interesting thing about it is that I've never once in my public life which extends beyond most of you as well had a complaint about the way the Rates Rebate Scheme operates for those it operates for. The only complaints I've had about it are the people who struggle to access it for various reasons. Now the Hon Ruth Dyson did fix one of those with a member's bill a year or two ago but the other issue that I get a lot of is people who are living in trust houses who don't have access to the Rates Rebate Scheme. That's a real challenge I think for some people but I think the Rates Rebate Scheme in itself—it would be wonderful if we didn't have to have a rates rebate scheme because frankly that would mean everyone had enough money to pay the bills; they don't have and so it's essential to have a rates rebate scheme. I want to make one other comment on this though and the other interesting thing about this is that I don't think that the alternatives to a rates rebate scheme are solutions that would work in society. We've seen various banks try I guess to find other ways of effectively mortgaging rates and I don't think that's a good solution at all because effectively what happens is that people go into those schemes not really knowing where it's going to end. The interesting challenge now of course is that as life expectancy grows and grows and grows your ability to pay the rates could very well end before you get to the end of your life and so it's a flawed scheme. So the Rates Rebate Scheme is a good scheme but as I said I've never seen once in my time someone who was eligible for the Rates Rebate Scheme struggle to access it because of the changes that are being made in this bill. So for that reason we don't support the bill because I think that if you're going to get a handout from the Government whatever your stage you at least should be accountable in some form and that's what the current system of applying for a rates rebate—it just gives you some accountability and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. So we are not supporting the bill for that reason basically and I commend the bill to the House.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): First of all I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the previous speaker the honourable member Chlöe Swarbrick on your member's bill passing through the Governance and Administration Committee. It's a very good bill. The previous speaker mentioned that this is a relatively small bill and that the purpose is to make this society a more accessible society. I want to say this bill is actually smaller than Chlöe Swarbrick's bill because this is a very very small piecemeal bill indeed. That bill also tries to make it more accessible to people to participate in elections. That's good—yes a very good bill. That's why we have unanimous support for that particular bill.Now this bill itself as I said is very small and also there's no need—as our previous speaker Kanwal Bakshi just mentioned—really for this particular bill because the Productivity Commission is going to release the final report in just say over months. The draft report has come out and has suggested that we need to somehow abolish this particular scheme and therefore there is no urgency to do this particular bill. But why is the Government doing this?Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Because they don't have anything to do.Dr JIAN YANG: Yeah—because they are living in poverty: poverty of ideas. They don't have ideas—exactly. They had so many working groups but in the end—in the end—there are no ideas. So they are trying to filibuster their own bills. This is very ironic.I have to say my fellow committee members like Ginny Andersen and the Hon Peeni Henare and also Jamie Strange—oh he was here—and some others and Paul Eagle—these are very good members. I love to work with them but tonight they are trying very hard to filibuster their party's their Government's own bill. Good luck to them and I would like to see them tomorrow in high spirits. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. My main reason to stand and oppose this bill is because of what Jamie Strange wanted to know—two reasons I'll give him on why are we opposing this bill. First of all we know there was a draft report by the Productivity Commission in July which said that they will be coming up with the final report in November about this issue. So we could have waited till November to know what the Productivity Commission is saying and that is the first reason. The second reason is that the Government doesn't have enough legislative programme and they are just trying to filibuster these kinds of bills to fill in the time. We are seeing that the MPs from the Government's side they are just filibustering this bill. The speeches could have been wrapped up in two minutes—said why they are supporting it—but they're filibustering it. So these are two reasons that we can see why the Government has introduced this bill. We oppose this bill.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much Mr Speaker for the chance to talk to the first reading of the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill. The scheme is a central government - funded rebate for low-income ratepayers. Applicants as we know apply to local authorities who then grant the rebate and then there's a subsequent refunding by central government. And those of us who've been involved in local government and indeed as MPs for statutory declarations know well—quite well—this particular scheme. So what this bill is doing is taking away the statutory declaration obligation and allowing for officials to rejig the application form. So quite straightforward but our issue on this side of the House is the very curious and strange timing of this bill. The reason we find it's very strange and curious for the timing is that the Productivity Commission's draft report recommending that this whole scheme be abolished and come back in another form as a national rates postponement scheme that particular draft report is due out just but two months away—the end of November just two months away. So why are we doing this right now? It's a complete puzzle to us that you would head into what is clearly strange timing when you've got the Productivity Commission and they are looking at of course the inquiry into local government funding and financing. They recommend that this scheme be replaced and their draft report is coming out. The Minister of Local Government knows this. So on this side of the House we're saying your timing's off. It makes no sense. It certainly is an absolute indictment for nothing other than the Government filibustering its own bills delaying on a deficient legislative programme. And the last speaker before me Willow-Jean Prime taking up the full 10 minutes is nothing short of an example of exactly what—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will now start addressing the bill.DENISE LEE: Mr Speaker we oppose the bill.
New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill — Third Reading
Hudson Brett; Rurawhe AdrianBRETT HUDSON (National): I seek leave without notice to move to give the committee the power to examine any provision schedule or legislative instrument included in the Arms Act 1983 and report recommendations to the House that may otherwise be considered outside of the scope of this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I move That The Arms Legislation Bill be reported back to the House by 10 February 2020.Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill (No 2)—Leave to Set Down as Goverment Order of the Day No 1
Bridges Simon; Mallard TrevorBROADCASTING (GAMES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)Setting Down as Government Order of the Day No. 1—Leave DeclinedHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for members' order of the day No. 8 the Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill (No 2) to be set down for first reading as Government order of the day No. 1 today.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that occurring? [Interruption] It's one of those areas where there would have been objection even if the Government didn't object.
Mallard Trevor; Huo RaymondTUESDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.PRAYERSSPEAKER: Because it is Chinese Language Week I've asked Raymond Huo to say the prayer in Mandarin.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): 万能的主对主赐予的福泽我们心怀感念.抛开所有私利我们报谢女王祈祷为我们的践行带来指. 让我们用智慧、正义、怜悯和谦逊处理国会事务为新西兰的福祉与和平做出奉献. 阿门.
Thursday 19 September 2019 - Volume 741
Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
12. Question No. 12—Treaty of Waitangi NegotiationsHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi NegotiationsQuestion No. 12—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations12. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he agree that Treaty settlements should be full and final?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the land at Ihumātao in an area covered by a Treaty settlement? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The land at Ihumātao has been the subject of a number of settlements. It has been referenced in the Waikato-Tainui raupatu claims settlement. It has also been referred to in the settlements relating to a number of other hapū and iwi—and that includes Ngāi Tai ki Tāmiki Ngāti Tamaoho Te Kawerau ā Maki—and is currently under negotiation in relation to Te Ākitai Waiōhua. Each of those settlements that have been achieved have made reference to those lands. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he give a clear assurance that his Government will not undermine the principle of full and final settlements in any arrangements at Ihumātao? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he believe that every generation has the right to reopen past settlements? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I trust that the iwi who have reached agreements to settle historical Treaty grievances will stand by those settlements. Those who are yet to conclude negotiations or even to commence negotiations and to reach agreement on settlement will also I trust stand by those agreements. Chlöe Swarbrick: Has he seen as reported yesterday that when delivering news of consensus of mana whenua Kīngitanga stated—and I quote—Mana whenua agreed the return of the land is outside of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process and therefore requires an innovative and modern solution that does not financially disadvantage iwi."? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It certainly has been very encouraging that Kīngitanga has exercised I think a very good leadership role in dealing with what has been a very difficult dispute between iwi and between hapū and between mana whenua. So yesterday's statement and agreement between those parties I think was a very positive step forward but the Crown maintains an interest if only for the sake of peace and good order in ensuring that there is a final resolution to the issues surrounding that piece of land. That is consistent with maintaining the integrity of the Treaty settlements achieved so far—and there's about 88 of them—and those remaining to be achieved. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he concerned that there is a risk that public support—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I apologise. I thought the member had finished before. The National Party has used all its supplementary questions. Hon Grant Robertson: Not very well. SPEAKER: Order! Grant Robertson will stand withdraw and apologise. Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise."
10. Question No. 10—WomenDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 10—Women10. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Women: What progress if any is the Government making on increasing the proportion of women in leadership positions in the State sector?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I'd like to acknowledge that today is Women's Suffrage Day and acknowledge all of the women throughout the history of Aotearoa New Zealand who have led the social and political progress of our country. The Government has set a target of 50 percent for women's participation on boards and committees in the State sector by 2021 and we are well on our way to achieving that with women currently holding over 47.4 percent of these positions as at December 2018.Dr Deborah Russell: What progress is being made in the Public Service?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The Minister of State Services and I launched the action plan to eliminate the Public Service gender pay gap in June last year which included milestones for women in leadership. There has been some great progress made in this area with the number of women chief executives exceeding 50 percent for the first time. In addition to meeting this milestone more women chief executives have been appointed to larger jobs which is a fantastic sign of the kind of progress that we want to see.Dr Deborah Russell: Why is this work important?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Having more women and diversity in leadership is not only the right thing to do; we know that diversity helps organisations function more efficiently. More women in leadership means better decision-making better organisational resilience and better performance. It opens up more opportunities for women to succeed and influence and it is essential to a more inclusive and fairer society. We want the boards that are governing in New Zealand to look like the communities they represent.Dr Deborah Russell: What about the private sector?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: There have been some small gains for women in the private sector as of June this year—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to rule that out because that doesn't relate to the primary question.
9. Question No. 9—HousingANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 9—Housing9. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing: How many houses has the private sector built in the last 12 months and how many has the Government built?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Data on all completed homes is not centrally recorded. However drawing on consent data to the end of July 2019 the total number of new homes consented in New Zealand was 35472. According to Statistics NZ that is a record number of consents since the mid-1970s. Of this 2116 consents were to central government agencies including Housing New Zealand. That figure does not include KiwiBuild homes built by private developers. I'd like to point out to the member that the Government consents have more than doubled from June 2017 to June 2018.Andrew Bayly: Will developers be less likely to buy land and build new houses if there's a possibility that iwi will renege on full and final Treaty settlements and attempt to claim back land?SPEAKER: Order! The member's going to have to relate it to the primary question.Andrew Bayly: Will developers be less likely to buy land and build new houses if there's a possibility that iwi will renege on full and final Treaty settlements?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise of the question.SPEAKER: And I should have also rejected the question. It's got nothing to do with houses built in the last 12 months.Andrew Bayly: Has she asked for or received any advice on any potential chilling effects from reneging on full and final Treaty settlements that would have an effect on new developments in the last 12 months and going forward?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again I reject the premise of the member's question.SPEAKER: Well I just want to say to the member that I'm glad he could understand it because I couldn't. It was looking both backwards and forwards at the same time which seems very hard.Andrew Bayly: What does she think is a better use of Ihumātao: building affordable houses for everyone or returning the land to be used as a reserve?SPEAKER: Order! That has no relationship to the question.Andrew Bayly: What does she think is a better use of Ihumātao: building new houses on that land—building new houses on that land?SPEAKER: Even with the extra bit at the end it still didn't get there. Does the member have another supplementary?Andrew Bayly: Has she had any advice on how many houses will now not be built on Ihumātao that were planned—SPEAKER: Order! I'm now convinced that that member is being deliberately disorderly. He will stand withdraw and apologise.Andrew Bayly: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Further supplementary.Andrew Bayly: Will she visit Ihumātao?SPEAKER: Order! The member will leave the House.Andrew Bayly withdrew from the Chamber.Hon Shane Jones: Haere rā.SPEAKER: And the member who interjected then will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise.
8. Question No. 8—FisheriesRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of FisheriesQuestion No. 8—Fisheries8. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Fisheries: What recent announcements has he made about helping the aquaculture industry deliver economic growth and jobs for the regions?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): Good news. Yesterday I announced the Government's strategy to work alongside and support the aquaculture industry to become a $3 billion industry by 2035. The strategy looks to maximise the performance and value of existing inshore farm footprint and to enable industries to sustainably extend farming into an open ocean and to modern land-based facilities. Aquaculture contributes significantly to regional development. It generated over $600 million in revenue in 2018 and employs around 3000 people. We are on track to reach a billion dollars in annual aquaculture sales by 2025 but we can deliver more and this Government is committed to helping the aquaculture industry do so.Rino Tirikatene: How is the Government investing in building a productive aquaculture industry?Hon STUART NASH: The coalition agreement recognised the path aquaculture has been on and the potential for the sector to further deliver economic growth for the regions. Thanks to the investment by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones the Provincial Growth Fund has so far invested around $30 million into aquaculture for the regions. That includes $20 million for a mussel processing facility at Ōpōtiki and around $10 million to establish the National Algae Centre and an artificial intelligence institute both based out of Nelson. We need an economy where more New Zealanders get to experience the benefits of economic growth and by investing in aquaculture we are supporting towns like Nelson Akaroa Blenheim Thames and Bluff where aquaculture is set to thrive.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How has the Minister been allowing the application for Farm Switch to sit on his desk for more than two years when it is the greatest opportunity for growing aquaculture in New Zealand?Hon STUART NASH: I haven't.Rino Tirikatene: How does the aquaculture strategy balance economic growth and the environment?Hon STUART NASH: At the heart of the strategy is sustainability. It sets actions to reduce waste and emissions across aquaculture production and a plan for how the industry can adapt to climate change. Aquaculture is a primary industry leading environmentally sustainable practices across the value chain. Because of this aquaculture is well placed to be a bigger part of our future low-emissions economy that advances New Zealand's wellbeing.