edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
3. Question No. 3—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) released on Friday showed New Zealand's manufacturing sector expanded in October recording a reading of 52.6 back to the levels of April this year. The result was off the back of strong new orders the highest since May 2018 and solid production. We know that there was a softening of the economy in the September quarter as global headwinds intensified and impacted. However BNZ economists said that the October PMI expansion raises the prospect of the manufacturing sector's recent negative influence on economic growth coming to an end in the final quarter of this year.Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the performance of the services sector of the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Atu kōrero pai—more good news. Yesterday the BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Services Index (PSI) reported faster expansion in October. The October PSI was 55.4 up 0.9 points from September one point above its long-term average and the highest result since January this year. The key sub-indices behind this result were new orders and sales both recording solid gains in the month. This represents a positive result for the services sector in what BNZ economists have described as [shaking] off a mid-year slow patch" and bodes well for the economic growth as we head into the new year.Kiritapu Allan: Has he seen reports on how New Zealand's results compare with international peers?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Strangely enough I have. According to the BNZ - BusinessNZ reports both New Zealand's services and manufacturing sectors expanded at faster rates than our international counterparts. New Zealand's manufacturing sector expanded faster than those of Australia the US and China at the same time as the UK the eurozone and Japan all saw manufacturing contract. Our services sector expanded faster than those of Australia the US China the eurozone and the UK while Japan saw its services sector also contract. What this shows is that New Zealand's solid economic fundamentals are surviving in a difficult global environment. Despite global headwinds we remain resilient and continue to outperform many of our international peers."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he currently involved in negotiations with Auckland Council to end the land occupation at Ihumātao?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): No as is quite obvious I'm currently answering questions from the member.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister capable of only doing one thing at once?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When it comes to answering questions from the member I am focused solely on him.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is he considering using taxpayer money to settle the land occupation at Ihumātao?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is indulging in speculation and I think he should take some time to breathe deeply and listen as we heard earlier to what his colleague Nick Smith has said in the past about the role that Governments have in facilitating discussions from time to time. That's what we're doing. That's what a responsible Government does.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does the Government mean when it says to landowners When someone occupies your land we will focus on a 'by Māori for Māori solution.' "?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That's not a characterisation of the Government's position.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that widespread public support for the Treaty settlement process would be undermined if the next generation succeeded in opening them up again?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One of the principles that we are using in helping to facilitate discussions about Ihumātao is to protect the mana of the Treaty settlement process along with ensuring that we understand the concerns of mana whenua and indeed of Fletcher's as the owners of the land. It is balancing all of those things together that means that the Government is involved to help facilitate discussions.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he surprised that investor confidence is so low in this country when one company trying to build houses has been kept in limbo for months on end after his Government intervened to stop the law being upheld?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've been working closely with Fletcher's and they in fact asked us to be able to help them facilitate an enduring solution."
Russell Deborah; Dyson RuthDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I can see this is going to get a little bit broken up by the bells so I will begin my speech with the thankyous just to record them first of all. Thank you of course to Minister Kris Faafoi who has worked and continued to work and will continue working on this bill and he has done a great job in getting this bill through to the House. But the second thankyou is to someone who is not in this House. It is to Mr Andrew Shann who worked with former members of this House to develop members' bills that would restrict high-cost lenders and several times he nearly got it over the line but it was voted down at the last moment. So I believe he supported a bill with Charles Chauvel which was drawn from the ballot but was narrowly dismissed in 2010 and in 2014 he had similar legislation drafted into a Supplementary Order Paper for a bill for Carol Beaumont but again it was very narrowly defeated. So this bill we have before us today continues the work that Mr Andrew Shann started and we owe him our thanks for doing it. I'd also like to thank Jenny Brash a former Mayor of Porirua for bringing this history to my attention. Of course I'd like to thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who worked hard on this bill with me. In particular on the Opposition side I'd like to thank Mr Brett Hudson and Mr Andrew Bayly who as ever worked hard on the bill along with the other members and of course all the members on the Government side—but in particular my colleagues Dr Duncan Webb and Greg O'Connor who worked very hard on this bill too—and oddly enough I have some thanks for David Seymour. David Seymour took one for the team. He took one for the team in a most curious way. During a select committee meeting we were discussing how these contracts get under way and how these operators get their lenders in place and Mr Seymour actually contacted one on his cellphone to make a query about getting one of these short-term high-cost loans. He didn't go through with it—that might be a metaphor—but the curious thing was that that particular high-cost lender within 20 to 30 minutes or so started besieging him with texts started sending him messages tried to get him to take out a loan—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. The end of this story will have to come later. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
O'Connor Damien; Dyson RuthHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): I seek leave for all remaining parts to be taken as one.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sort for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.Part 2 Schedules 1 to 5 and clauses 1 and 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 410 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to Schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 410 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to Schedule 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 Schedule 1 Schedule 2 as amended Schedule 3 as amended Schedule 4 Schedule 5 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) with amendment and the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment.Report adopted.
National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Commitee
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 409 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Parts 1 to 3 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) — In Committee
O'Connor DamienFARM DEBT MEDIATION BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I'd like to rise to ask the leave of the committee to take the committee stage in one for the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2)—I so move.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK so you just have to read that.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. At the bill's third reading I say this is great for our motor vehicle users; this is great for our consumers. Motor vehicle users and consumers in general are the winners. I must congratulate Minister Kris Faafoi and thank him for prioritising this bill because as my colleagues who spoke before me have correctly acknowledged this issue has been ignored for too long. And of course there were reasons behind the neglect. Probably someone on that side believed that parking was no more than a trivial matter—Kieran McAnulty: They don't care. RAYMOND HUO: —they don't care—or it may be the case that they believed wheel clamping was nothing more than business as usual. But as those submitters such as the New Zealand Automobile Association (AA) Wilson Parking Consumer New Zealand and other submitters raised during the select committee process this is not a trivial matter at all; this is an important matter that has affected a large number of Kiwis. As the AA's quarterly rolling survey showed 7.9 percent of its members have received a parking ticket in the last six months and wheel clamping is particularly unpopular among its members—and I reckon among the general public as well. The AA has 1.7 million members nationwide and I would say this issue affects a significant number of Kiwi consumers around the country. And the sector is unregulated. So this bill will not only be good for our consumers in general but will also provide certainty clarity and regulatory standards for the sector. At the committee of the whole House stage members raised and addressed a number of interesting and valid points. For instance the Hon Peeni Henare used his experience from his constituency and raised a question in terms of the definition of motor vehicle". He asked whether it's a better idea to include a trailer and my colleague Kieran McAnulty who spoke earlier in his usual witty contribution also reflected on his own experience from his own electorate and raised the question as to whether it is a better idea to license the sector. In a similar vein AA New Zealand in its submission stated that this bill should go a little bit further by imposing minimum signage standards for the operators of privately owned public car-parks. A common cause of so-called unauthorised parking is nothing more than inadequate signage and it is not fair to penalise motor vehicle users in that situation. Another problem is that for motor vehicles in that situation there is no way for them to challenge the penalty other than going through the usual tribunal and other formal processes which are costly and time-consuming. So I'm very glad to report that this bill will protect motor vehicle users from unreasonable fees and protect consumers in general from overzealous operators. The Government is committed to protecting consumers from predatory unreasonable behaviour and the Government is strengthening consumer protections across a range of different areas and issues. I commend this bill to the House. Bill read a third time."
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Oh Madam Speaker I've waited all seven days to hear the member's speech on this bill! It's a pleasure to speak at the third reading. We've been here twice before. Last Thursday we were here and it was five minutes to six. I was about to follow the member there Kieran McAnulty and we got five seconds into his speech and he had to end—so really good to hear him and his entertaining speech. Brett Hudson: Which wasn't correct. DAN BIDOIS: Which wasn't correct. I do want to just clarify things even though it's going to be a very brief contribution from me. Look National as we have heard in this third reading is supportive of this bill but unlike the member over there I did sit in on some of the oral submissions for this bill. There was a discussion about the level at which the fines should be set and there was discussion on the National side that $100 wasn't too low. We heard submitters who actually said that they're not going to be able to operate on a $100 maximum fee that could be charged. I just want to correct the member over there Kieran McAnulty who loves to get up and say he's read the bill or not but there was one thing that he said that I want to clarify and that is who this applies to. Now this bill applies only to private parking and that means that if you're in a council or territorial-related parking then they can still charge whatever they like. So it's another big promise that this Government's not delivering on. Matt Doocey: No he's proposed the bill to change. We should vote on that. DAN BIDOIS: Yes exactly. He's read the bill and apparently he was misinformed on this matter. Brett Hudson: He misinformed himself. DAN BIDOIS: He misinformed himself—oh this is great. But look on a serious note you know we want to enforce the law and the laws are pretty simple with respect to parking. This is really about enforcement of the law and we want to encourage a private market in this place. As we heard on the select committee $100 I think was a bit too low. In a free market we want that to be a little bit more balanced but nevertheless it's a fair and reasonable bill and on this side of the House we're supportive of this in the third and final reading. I commend this bill to the House.
Tolley AnneLAND TRANSPORT (WHEEL CLAMPING) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 14 November. DEPUTY SPEAKER: We'll have another go at this shall we? When we were debating this last Kieran McAnulty had the floor and he has four minutes and 56 seconds remaining to speak should he so desire to do and it looks like he does.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move That the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill be reported to the House by 30 March 2020.
Luxton Jo; Rurawhe AdrianJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's with pleasure that I rise in support of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. Mental health is not a new phenomenon right? We've heard tonight from a couple of members—well several members actually—who've spoken about their journey and their experience either personally or of family members who have been affected by mental health within our society here in New Zealand. We've also heard that in the past mental health was something that we hadn't spoken about. It is not a new phenomenon. It is something that in the past was not spoken about. It was almost hidden under a cloud of shame if you like or people that had mental health issues were simply pushed away sent to institutions and were somebody else's problem. And as we heard from my colleague Jenny Marcroft what many of these people need is just time love care and support. So I believe that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that is going to be established being focused on improving mental health and wellbeing outcomes for New Zealanders will go a long way to working towards this. I like the fact that it is going to be independent from Government. It is going to hold Government to account.Something that the honourable Barbara Kuriger brought up with regard to a commission such as this in hoping that it will scoop up and work alongside other agencies—I read here that it says it will promote alignment collaboration and communication between entities involved in mental health and wellbeing. I think that's hugely important when I think particularly about rural communities because we know that there are a lot of agencies that work within our rural communities already and many people in our rural communities suffer from mental ill health. Not to say that those in all areas of New Zealand don't necessarily suffer from mental ill health but I note I come from a rural community and we've seen the impact that mental health has on many of our people particularly in the farming sector. We saw a lot of that with regard to when M. bovis broke out and the suffering of many people when going through the process of working through that.I think it's important that we should never assume that we know what somebody else is going through. And I like what Matt Doocey said about the fact that we are all in this together. There is no place for politics when working through mental health for the betterment of our people here in New Zealand. So without further ado I just want to commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Jo Hayes—five minutes.
Visitors — Australia—Hon Zed Seselja Senate
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Musterer—Green): I'll just add a brief contribution on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand thanking both the Leader of the House and the chief whip of the Opposition for their contributions. It's outlined in detail what it is that we're debating today. This is a common-sense move forward and I would like to acknowledge the work done by my forebear in the role of musterer—because in the Greens we have a non-violent kaupapa and do not abide by the use of the term whip"—Gareth Hughes for his work in this space on the Standing Orders Committee.Just to really draw out why this is so important for members of the public who may be listening I made the point and put it to some of the submitters when I did sub in on that committee that we have a bizarre anomaly in the Standing Orders at present where members of the media can have a camera up in the press gallery and point that on a member who is speaking in the same way that of course these cameras in the parliamentary Chamber are on members while they're speaking too. They can produce essentially the same identical content but that content which is produced by those media agencies and outlets can be used in any way shape or form whilst that which is produced by these cameras in the House on these walls cannot be. So as far as we're concerned in the Greens this just seeks to iron out that anomaly. It's a common-sense move forward.We also welcome the unanimity that we managed to reach on that process for where we do encounter what the Speaker of the time discerns is misleading use of that footage and think that there is a really common-sense move forward with regard to that appeal potential to the Privileges Committee. So too I think that it is high time we are moving to increase our adoption of technology in this place and it is important that members of the public have access to our robust debates in this place. It is crucial for an accessible politics.Just in summation as somebody who has recently become familiar with internet memes I think it is a really important thing that members of the public have greater clarity about how they may use the content of this Chamber. Kia ora.Motion agreed to."
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (Senior Whip—National): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look the Minister and the House leader has clearly covered the clauses through so I'm not going to repeat those again. But I am going to acknowledge the submitters who came into the process. The submitters certainly gave largely a consistent view so that actually made it easier to work through. I also acknowledge the speedy way in which this was undertaken to achieve this sessional order in the time that the Standing Orders Committee was able to do that. I would also comment that it is good to have at least the sessional order in place that all parties can live with as we work our way into 2020 that it's important that we're able to operate in this way in our democratic system and that National is happy to support the motion. Thank you.
Smith NickQuestion No. 5 to MinisterHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: I hope the member's not going to refer to a matter before a select committee because if he does—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Sure—no I can assure the Speaker absolutely of that. The House is ultimately in control of its own destiny so I seek the leave of the House to table the minutes of the Justice Committee of 1 October that are very pertinent to the public discussion.SPEAKER: OK I'm not going to put that to the House. The member knows they are available on the website.
Brownlee Gerry; Mallard TrevorQuestions Nos 1 2 and 5 to MinistersHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to ask three things for you to consider on our behalf. The first relates to question No. 1 today and the question is: what process would the Prime Minister use if she does not wish to stand by answers that were given on her behalf in the House today?The second one relates to question No. 2 where although it was quite a humorous response the Hon Grant Robertson said he was currently involved in answering the question. If that were to become a standard way of answering a question that might otherwise pose a difficulty I think that's a real problem for the House because when you talk of a Minister being currently involved in the context of question time it almost definitely will refer—and must refer as you've repeatedly pointed out today—to the Minister's wider ministerial responsibilities.The third thing is the Hon Andrew Little in responding referenced his opinion about an activity in a select committee which is still under consideration. You did pull him up on that and thank you for that. But there was no withdrawal or apology which means that the accusation that was made which is not one he could sustain remains in the Hansard record.SPEAKER: I'll deal with them in the reverse order. I decided not to exacerbate either the comments of Mr Little or Dr Smith—sorry the Hon Mr Little and the Hon Dr Smith—both of which were out of order because I thought it was probably not helpful for me to facilitate in the House something which was clearly out of order and therefore I don't propose to take any more comment on that.On the question of the answer given by the Hon Mr Robertson I think it's just a matter of drafting. [Interruption] Mr Goldsmith will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: I think it is a matter of drafting. I saw the question and I knew exactly if I was a Minister how I would have answered it and it was a lot shorter than the way Mr Robertson did. I would have just said no. It was a badly drafted question.On the question of whether the Prime Minister—if the Prime Minister has a view that answers given in the House today were not answers that she can stand by then she does have the choice if she wishes to of issuing a correction. That is her responsibility to do. It of course remains open to members to ask the Prime Minister direct questions about that if they feel that that is appropriate.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSAustralia—Hon Zed Seselja SenateSPEAKER: I'm sure that members will wish to welcome the Hon Zed Seselja from the Senate of Australia who is present in the gallery.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Mr van de Molen when your own team's heckling you it's just time to give up. The poor bloke's pocket square was beginning to droop by the end of that.I was going to give this a full 10 minutes such is the significance of this bill but after the sheer psychic sclerosis that descended upon this Chamber in that last speech I don't think I could put my colleagues through it. I just want to say very briefly that this is a bill that's an example of a Minister in a Government that's not kicking the can down the road; it's making progress on the issues that matter and I was just talking to my colleague here the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway about the issue of the removal of the spousal deduction and issue that has bedevilled electorate MPs for years and years and years. Here we have a Government and a Minister that's finally getting on with the job and delivering progress for New Zealanders. That's what we're doing every day on this side of the House and I commend the bill to the House.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Mr Speaker. For the love of the people it is 11 p.m. on a Thursday night in the middle of the cold New Zealand winter and for those few people that happen to be listening to this debate out there across Aotearoa at the moment all they need to know is that that side of the House agrees to it this side of the House agrees to this bill. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you Madam Speaker. Given that this bill has clearly unanimous support across the House I won't delay its passage too long. I would just like to respond to the comments made by Ms Loheni and Tim Macindoe earlier as well just to sort of receive thanks on behalf of Gareth Hughes and I'll make sure that I pass that on to him. The Green Party of course is also supporting this bill. We supported it at first reading; we'll be supporting it at second reading and so on. Many of the provisions in here are ones that we have been advocating for for some time.A number of members have already made reference to section 70 and the sort of built-in inequity that's contained there and I know that there are some people who are queasy about the fact that the implementation of that has had to be delayed due to COVID-19. Just for the record—you know to make sure that it's in the Hansard—that is not because of policy reasons or any political intention to delay it but it is simply a pragmatic issue in terms of the execution. It's clear that every party here supports the change to section 70 and that the spousal deduction was one of the most egregious kind of anomalies that's contained in the current set-up and that we'll be moving as fast as we are practically able to do to fix that.In terms of the other provisions I mean the overall intention here you know it does simplify the superannuation and veteran support system. It does make it fairer through a whole series of different amendments and I think anything that modernises it so that it does reflect New Zealand society more—and Tim Macindoe I think made some very good points about just how much New Zealand society has changed since superannuation was first created and how sometimes a system gets ossified at a particular moment in time and society moves on. I think this bill does a great number of things to help to modernise it and to simplify it and for those reasons we support the bill and look forward to its speedy passage through the House.
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): It is always a pleasure to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in my support of this legislation the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I'd like to begin my contribution by acknowledging—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Tim's mum.JENNY MARCROFT: Tim's mum—happy birthday. Tim's parent's in law congratulations on your anniversary. Anyone that happens to know Tim it is wonderful to see such a jolly superannuitant in the House.Back to the bill. It's really great tonight that we've heard from the member opposite Tim Macindoe who's just resumed his seat without giving us a lecture—it's been most pleasant indeed to listen to your contribution this evening.New Zealand Superannuation and the veterans pension legislation how important is this to all of our seniors? It is extremely important. We can't underestimate its value. For those of us who have parents in the ripe old age of receiving their superannuation that's a wonderful thing. If my father had lived he would have received a veterans pension so I'd just like to acknowledge him today on the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War on 25 June 1950. My father was in the 16th field regiment and served two terms with the K Force Korea. He also firstly though started his military career in the J Force at the end of World War II. So I take just a moment to acknowledge all of those in this House who have served New Zealand and all of those others across New Zealand who have given of their time their bodies their hearts and souls in service of our country. The Korean War is also known as the forgotten conflict that shaped the modern world but we will remember them particularly those that have fallen in their service.I'd just like to come back to the bill to say that I think that it is important that we are modernising and simplifying through legislation and so I don't want to hold up this bill any longer. I commend it to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand in support of this bill and I commend this bill to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to rise and take a call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to simplify and modernise the New Zealand superannuation and veteran's pension schemes which provide financial assistance to our older people. It was an absolute privilege to be part of the select committee that considered this bill and can I at this point given that this is a second reading just acknowledge and thank all those who submitted to our Social Services and Community Committee. I also acknowledge the officials who provided us with advice and I also commend the Minister for Social Welfare the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for her work on this bill and more broadly within the social development space as well. Now the Minister has mentioned a few amendments that were suggested and that have been passed through the select committee as well. This is basically at the heart of a bill that hopes to improve the system and to make it a little bit fairer. I'm not going to go into all of the changes that have been proposed or the changes actually that this bill will make once it's passed into legislation but I will draw attention just to the fact that it stops the spousal deduction off the New Zealand superannuation or the veteran's pension. Currently what happens is that the amount of the person's New Zealand superannuation or veteran's pension could be reduced if their partner receives an overseas Government - administered pension. This is a change that many in the sector have called for for a long time and I'm incredibly pleased that this bill will make that change. I commend the bill to the House.
Bayly AndrewTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2020-21 FEASIBILITY EXPENDITURE AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 24 June.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I would like to talk on this bill and I was talking on it as you correctly referred to last week and I basically summarised it but I think for many people today if they are tuning in—and perhaps for some of my colleagues more particularly across the way—that it might be useful just to help summarise what's in this bill.The first thing I've got to say is that National will be opposing this bill and the reason for that is that the first and primary objective of this bill is around setting taxation rates for the coming financial year. Whilst there is no change in the rates specified in the bill we are concerned that New Zealanders are paying too much tax that has occurred as a result of inflation and the result of that is that their wages go up in line with inflation and they also slowly creep up and eventually go into a higher tax bracket. This has been a problem for some period of time and National actually took the bull by the horns and announced that we are going to inflation index incomes for New Zealanders every three years to reflect the impacts of inflation. That's a $660 million package that will save New Zealanders $660 million a year and that is why we're opposing it because we would have liked to have seen this in this bill.Also we are very concerned that this Government whilst it's stating it's not going to increase direct taxes has a history—a long history—of introducing indirect taxes and you only need to live in Auckland to know what that means whether it's an increase in fuel tax or the other—and I think there are about seven of them that the Government has introduced over the period of nearly three years in Government and we think that's wrong. Shifting tax from a direct tax base to an indirect tax is the same thing and I think that issue needs to be exposed more often and that is why we're opposing this bill.So this bill is wide-ranging particularly around research and development and the write-off of feasibility expenditure. It makes provision for a $10000 write-off if you're looking at a new venture. Obviously in the committee—and this is the first reading obviously—we will be looking at that threshold of $10000 to make sure the rules will be workable and whether in fact that derives significant value for businesses. It includes a number of changes around property particularly where there's common shareholding it picks up the issues around leases and it also deals with making sure that transactions are accounted for between seller and purchaser in the same way. And so it's going to be an interesting process in select committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 50New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I think the debate went a little bit off track so let me clarify. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Get in line. Thank you Madam Speaker. I just wanted to speak briefly on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill and just to pick up a couple of points in the spirit of this being a parliamentary debate from leaders of the Opposition. It was interesting just contrasting some of the speeches from the push me pull you of politics the National Party because they were saying completely the opposite things. Alastair Scott said the bill does a number of really quite good things Simeon Brown said the bill doesn't do anything at all—which I would have thought as a conservative who is always seeking to preserve the status quo he would've found quite pleasing. But nevertheless I think it's a very good bill. It does roll over the existing tax rates it does close some loopholes and some other technical changes. I think it's a very good bill on balance and it should be endorsed by all sides of the National Party whichever diametrically opposed position they take. Thank you.
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): The New Zealand First Party as an integral part of the great coalition Government will support this bill.
Lee MelissaMOTIONSKorean War—70th AnniversaryMELISSA LEE (National):I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to acknowledge the 70th anniversary of the Korean War outbreak taking place today 25 June 2020.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.MELISSA LEE: I move That this House acknowledge and recognise the 70th anniversary of the Korean War outbreak and that this House further acknowledges 6000 Kiwi service personnel who served in the course of Korea's freedom and the 47 who never returned home to their families and thank our Korean War veterans for their valiant service.Motion agreed to.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Look I just want to draw your attention to some of these Speakers' rulings in relation to interjections—and we've heard a constant barrage of interjections from that side of the House.SPEAKER: Order order! The member will resume his seat. The member hasn't been in the House that long but that is certainly not a point of order. Anything to do with excessive interjections is a matter for me to deal with and not for him.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you. I appreciate and accept your ruling of course. It wasn't quite the trajectory in which I was going. So I'd like to continue elaborating with what I was proposing to discuss under my point of order which was in part the interjections the volume of which is your decision to rule on of course—and Speaker's ruling 59/3 makes it clear what the expectation is around that barrage of interjections—but also the fact that the member was enticed by comments made on that side to comment on particular aspects and so engaged in that debate from that perspective.SPEAKER: Order! I'm now going to interrupt the member again and give him a final warning that he is trespassing into an area which is my responsibility. It is for me to call it and not for him and it is certainly not for him to call it after the event.
Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSESPEAKER: Members we have taken a decision I think for the House to have questions at 2 o'clock. If that is the case there would be a requirement under urgency for the House to report progress at 12.55 p.m. in order to head into the lunch break. Can I suggest that we by leave have a sensible solution and I will seek the leave to take a slightly early lunch break at this point to return at 2 o'clock for questions and then after questions to put the House into committee on the next piece of legislation. All this will be done in order to one preserve the urgency and two ensure that the Opposition has the right to have questions. Is there any objection to that process being followed? There appears to be none. I declare the House suspended until 2 o'clock.Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment 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.
Jackson WillieHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I commend this bill to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): The Government's vision for a public finance system that supports intergeneration wellbeing for New Zealanders is important and I'm proud to see this bill in its final reading achieve that by reintroducing the Living Standards Framework and its four capitals: human financial natural and social—important things for humans in New Zealand as well as our economy. I commend this bill to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's an absolute shame that the Rt Hon David Carter who spoke just before dismissed the wellbeing concept as fluffy nonsense and we also had the weak arguments that we heard from Alastair Scott the previous speaker who just took his seat. What they may not know is that back in 2009 the then French President Sarkozy commissioned a report by leading economists like Amartya Sen and like Joseph Stiglitz whom many of us have a lot of faith in and who said in their final report that we need to look beyond GDP as a measure of a nation's progress and that we should put wellbeing at the heart of policy making. That's now what we're doing through this bill. What's news is that our Government is actually doing it. Thank you Mr Speaker.
AppointmentDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Thursday 14 November 2019 - Volume 742
9. Question No. 9—EducationDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 9—Education9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to the Fees Free policy?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely. I stand by the policy that last year meant that 47000 students and their whānau saved an average of $5800 each as a result of not having to pay fees.Dr Shane Reti: Will he correct the statement he made in the House yesterday when he said there has been a slight reduction in the number of people who have failed their first-year course" when 990 failed before fees-free and 1080 after?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. In fact if you look at the numbers the numbers are consistent. So if you look at them in percentage terms 81 percent of people completed their courses: 81 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds in 2017 completed their courses and 81 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds completed their courses in 2018. In fact if you compare the completion rates to those who had fees-free with those who didn't have fees-free in fact the completion rates were higher for those who had fees-free.Dr Shane Reti: Did the first year of fees-free have less learners than before as stated in written questions?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member means "fewer" and in fact yes enrolments have been trending down for some years. I think that's no great secret.Dr Shane Reti: Did the first year of fees-free have more learners not complete courses than before as stated in written questions?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It depends on which particular demographic you're looking at.Dr Shane Reti: How much of the $49000 that the Tertiary Education Commission has spent on animal homeopathy this year was fees-free funding as stated in written questions?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't have that particular number in front of me. I note that the animal homeopathy courses that the member refers to though pre-date this Government.Dr Shane Reti: How much fees-free funding has been spent on human homeopathy this year when his reply to written questions addresses the Ministry of Health not funding homeopathy due to insufficient evidence?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority don't approve or otherwise of the science of any particular course. For example they don't determine which religions they think are true or not in deciding which of them to fund.Dr Shane Reti: When he described in the House yesterday not even turning up to a first-year university course and failing the paper was that paper "Rational thinking in education"?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No it was a French paper unfortunately but it hasn't done me much harm in the long run.SPEAKER: Yeah I will leave my comment on that for my former staffer."
8. Question No. 8—Māori HousingRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Associate Minister of HousingQuestion No. 8—Māori Housing 8. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): Has the papakāinga housing programme improved outcomes for whānau; if so how?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Oh yes. The gains are real and tangible as papakāinga housing is central to lifting a range of wellbeing outcomes for whānau. Reconnecting to whenua building financial literacy amongst whānau encouraging whānau in intergenerational planning for their future training and employment supporting the local community and marae enterprise opportunities have all been linked to the success of papakāinga housing programmes led out by Te Puni Kōkiri.Rino Tirikatene: What investment in whānau capability has been made to support positive housing outcomes?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. Firstly I want to thank and acknowledge the partnership that Te Puni Kōkiri has with the Commission for Financial Capability to deliver Sorted Kāinga Ora. It's a programme to strengthen whānau financial planning and other skills. Our feedback from workshops has been positive and transformational as whānau understand their financial position and their ability to save understand debt and leverage towards their homeownership aspiration. But one of the most significant investments has been where Te Puni Kōkiri partners with community providers have delivered a repairs and maintenance programme to ensure safe warm houses for whānau in places such as Moerewa West Auckland Masterton Tākou Bay Ruātoki and Waimana just to name a few.Rino Tirikatene: How has her approach towards papakāinga informed broader wellbeing aspirations of whānau?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The wellbeing of whānau is essential for thriving communities and economic development. Whānau who have successfully completed their papakāinga development report they feel more confident about setting other goals such as building their own business developing their whenua and planning a more secure and sustainable future. The Government is building on this approach to contribute towards whānau whenua and kāinga outcomes to improve opportunity and reduce disparity. This is a different approach and I'm pleased to see that our Government is picking it up and taking it forward.