edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Madam Speaker. I will also take a short call because I would like my friend Greg O'Connor's bill to go through tonight. What I would like to do is acknowledge that those stories that have come up from people in the House who've had a direct and personal connection with this issue will be the tip of the iceberg. This is a significant issue that basically takes away many children's childhoods.It is really nice in this bill to see and acknowledge that that is not something that we can other" when it comes to places like Thailand and all the places that people go to use children in this way. So I am extremely pleased to see this. I've recently spent a journey with Greg—a bus journey—and it's always interesting but it's also rather traumatic because you hear many many a story of the real life of somebody who has earned the right to be here through doing very hard work and actually having to face the reality of evil. It is something that we can never forget about. We might want to but we cannot forget about it.So I thank him for putting such a pragmatic bill to this House that will hopefully help some of the children that are in the world. It will not be the only step that we have to take. I would love to see in the Budget tomorrow some money go into making our net safer for our children and stopping a lot of the stuff that comes into New Zealand by putting money into the safety of our net—and let's see whether it happens; it's the kind of thing that should be cross-party.I thank the Greens for coming around on this bill and supporting it. I think it's very significant that we are doing this in a way that is united across this House. It shows that we take the impact on children of this kind of behaviour extremely seriously and it's been a sober and interesting debate. I thank you all."
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to rise to speak on this bill and I'd like to commend Greg O'Connor and the Hon Erica Stanford for the work they've done in getting this bill to the House to date and to the stage that we have. I listened with a great interest to Greg O'Connor's contribution to this bill. Given his background in law enforcement he obviously brought a lot of knowledge and experience to the table.To me it's also great to see the level of unity across the House on this occasion. It's relatively rare that we get everybody agreeing and it's just great to see that the Greens have reconsidered their position and have rejoined and made it unanimous. This helps send a strong message that New Zealand takes its responsibilities in terms of child sex offenders very seriously.One of the things that I don't think has been touched on quite as much tonight has been the whole aspect of the victims in these horrible crimes. Because this is one of the things we're trying to prevent—more victims. I know somebody who in their younger years was affected by an offender. To this date it still effects them; it impacts them regularly. You see it when they bring it up and you see it in things and the way they deal with issues and the way they deal with life. So anything we can do—which is what this bill helps to do—to help prevent any further sex offending is I think to be taken; it would be really well accepted and I think it's a really good thing.So I think having made that point and saying what a great thing it is that we do this—[refers to notes] getting lots of instruction here—and the importance of getting this right so that we have people when they travel we know where they are and where they're going is really important. With that then I'd like to commend this bill to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker I think the House is relatively in tune tonight and all of the previous contributions have clearly outlined what this bill does. So I'm not going to take my full allocation—I think it would be quite fitting and a nice gesture for this bill to pass its third reading before we hit the dinner break. So in acknowledgement of that can I just say a couple of quick remarks.I too like many other people would like to acknowledge Greg O'Connor affectionately known as Greg O" who has done a lot of work to ensure that this bill has been shepherded with very much care through this process. As has been said it's only a small change but it is definitely impactful and that is not to be overlooked. I think that's testament to the breadth of knowledge that the member who has shepherded this bill through has via his professional life and the acumen to recognise when something small can be changed that makes an impactful difference and can actually therefore prevent harm. So I heard Mr O'Connor mention earlier on that this is the first member's bill to pass through the 54th Parliament so I'd like to acknowledge again the work that he's done to ensure that that has happened. Also the submitters the officials the two Justice Committees who have done the work.I think one of the enduring pieces of contributions that were made tonight was a reminder to us that sex offenders almost exclusively but certainly to a high proportion are known. That's not the "stranger danger" that we may have grown up with a couple of decades ago. It's something that when we acknowledge that we can make those small changes and we can do something that is meaningful and prevents harm. So I have no hesitation in commending this book to the House."
Carter KahurangiKAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Madam Speaker thank you. Today we are all here because we stand united in our pursuit of protection of children in Aotearoa and across the world and we have to hold on to that unity and everything that unites us.The Greens know that our tamariki are our taonga. They are the future of our Aotearoa and we must use all the knowledge and tools we have to protect our tamariki. We know that there is so much more that our Government can do and must do to protect children than just this bill. And of course all my learned colleagues here are invested and committed to Te Aorerekura—the all-Government prevention-focused Tiriti-centred strength-based community-led and whole-whānau embedded strategy to eliminate violence over the next couple of generations.Again we can hold on to the unity that everybody across Government believes in Te Aorerekura and all of the communities all of the agencies all of the experts who came together and collaborated to make this incredible document that will guide us.The Green Party remains strongly invested in that enduring work to ensure that children are safe. Now before the committee of the whole House we were informed member Erica Stanford's amendment to strengthen the bill and provide clear improvements to the bill were accepted. We were really happy to hear about this because at the Greens we welcome robust and considered debate when we're making decisions and our caucus was able to take those amendments and consider the arguments to change our position which does leave our House united today.Everybody in this Chamber wants to protect children from any kind of harm. With these amendments which clearly lay out how this bill will operate and be effective—basically allowing for more information sharing between Customs and Police—adds the substance needed for us to support the bill. The Police will now tell Customs when a child sex offender is travelling and Customs can use the resources and tools at their disposal to alert the other country or monitor the offender closely. This makes the bill more effective at achieving its intent to reduce harm and prevent the horror of child sex tourism.My colleague and I listened closely to the member's answers in committee of the whole House and heard arguments from across the House. Our caucus agreed to change our position to support and we are satisfied with these amendments and we will be supporting this bill. In committee of the whole House the member provided more information particularly around rehabilitation. We know rehabilitation is a vital part of protecting children and ensuring members of society are functioning and we have to believe that people can improve. We have to believe that people can get better that they can become better versions of themselves and then make the world a better place. The Greens will always advocate to prevent violence and keep children safe. Kia ora.
Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I think it is about time we got this bill passed. So with that I commend this bill to the House.
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): This bill would make us better placed to deliver better environmental outcomes so I commend this bill to the House.
Butterick Mike; Kuriger BarbaraMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Speaker. This bill is a good bill. It's a win for in the environment. I commend it to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): There's something truly bizarre about a Green Party that is railing against a piece of practical prudent environmental legislation that is designed to entirely fund exactly the sort of thing they're complaining about like the Fox River disaster that occurred in 2019. Now I'm delighted on behalf of this side of the House to commend this bill to the House because it represents everything that is good about a blue-green approach to environmental-practical approach.
Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I agree completely with some of the things which have been said around the importance of waste minimisation the importance of reduction reducing and recycling. We also all agree I think about the importance of restoring and looking after the environment.I think the Opposition have two key issues. One which they're clearly confused about is: do they want the levy to go up or do they want to keep it down? They seem quite confused about that. The second thing I'd say in terms of that levy is that Kahurangi Carter talked about 1.6 billion plastic containers and of course those got put on a policy bonfire by the Labour Government at the beginning of February last year.The other thing to mention is that we have an infrastructure deficit—yeah we agree with that. But we have an infrastructure deficit across every single class of infrastructure whether it's roads whether it's railways whether it's water or whether it's landfills. We have an infrastructure deficit right across the board and that is why one of the reasons in this Budget we have $1.5 billion to fix some of the infrastructural deficit in education. I commend this bill to the House.
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Well that was a vapid speech from Kahurangi Carter. This bill provides incentives to reduce waste through a levy. It expands the scope for activities which can be supported to support positive environmental outcomes and therefore social outcomes today and into the future. I commend this bill to the House.
Simmonds Penny; Kuriger BarbaraThird ReadingHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): I move That the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I am proud to be presenting this bill that will enable us to be much better placed to deal with some of the environmental challenges facing us and I think it is important that we have it in place as soon as possible. This bill as part of Budget 2024 legislation expands the scope of activities the waste disposal levy can be used for under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. In addition to minimising waste revenue from the levy will be spent on a wider range of projects supporting the environment. It makes sense to widen the use of the levy to address a broad range of environmental impacts. This is pragmatic practical and will lead to direct change on the ground.This is a worthwhile bill that will benefit communities affected by an earthquake or cyclone benefit reuse and recycling businesses benefit those living near contaminated sites benefit local authorities and benefit New Zealanders.I would like to thank most sincerely the Ministry for the Environment policy officials and legislative drafter for all the wonderful work they have done in preparing this bill so quickly. I commend the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Tuesday 9 April 2024 - Volume 775
Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Reo Māori e te Māngai o te Whare. Tuatahi ka tautoko ake ahau i ngā kōrero a te Minita e pā ana ki tēnei pire me te kī atu ki a Ngāti Hei ki te kāinga e haere tonu ana tēnei pire ki roto i te Whare kia whakatutuki ai i ngā mahi i tīmatahia ai e ō rātou mātua e ō rātou tūpuna i roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. Mai i te taima i hainatia ai te Tīti ki runga i te marae arā e Hōnore Christopher Finlayson tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Me te kī atu ki tēnei Whare ehara i te mea māmā kia whakawhiti atu tēnei kaupapa mai i tōna orokohanga i te tau 2017 ki roto i ngā nohoanga a te Pāremata 2020-2023 haere tonu nei.Nō reira e tautoko ana mātou o te Rōpū Reipa i tēnei pire me te hiahia kia tino tere ake te taenga mai o tēnei pire ki tōna pānuitanga tuatoru ki roto i te Whare. Engari e tika ana me mihi atu ki te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori nā rātou tēnei pire i kōkiri ki mua i te aroaro o te iwi o Ngāti Hei me ngā āpiha i tautoko ake i a rātou. I kite atu ahau i ngā pepa nei i hui tahi te komiti me ētahi rōpū. 11 te rahi o ngā rōpū i tae mai ki mua i te komiti me te nuinga o ngā kōrero e whakaae ana ki te mahi e kōrerohia nei ki roto i te pire. Nō reira ki a Ngāti Hei kei te kāinga e mātakitaki ana koinā tāku e mea atu ana e haere tonu ana tēnei pire me te tautoko i te kōrero a te Minita ā taihoa ake nei i tōna pānuitanga tuatoru. Kāre e kore ka kī mai tō tātou marae i te uri o Ngāti Hei. Ko reira ka whakawhānui ake i ngā kōrero ka kitea ki roto i tēnei pire. Nō reira mai i a mātou o tēnei taha o te Whare e mea atu ana e tautoko ana. [Māori please Madam Speaker. First I support what the Minister said with regard to this bill and I say to Ngāti Hei at home this bill continues in the House with the aspiration to fulfil the work that was started by their predecessors by their ancestors in the years that have passed. From the time that deed was signed on the marae by the Hon Christopher Finlayson right to this time. And I'd like to say to this House that it has not been an easy task to get this over the line from its inception in 2017 and in the sittings of Parliament in 2020-2023 and it is still going .So we of the Labour Party are supporting this bill and hope that this bill arrives speedily to its third reading in this House. However it is only right to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee that presented before Ngāti Hei and the officers that supported them. I saw in the papers that the committee met with interested groups. Eleven groups presented before the committee with the majority agreeing with the actions discussed in the bill.So to Ngāti Hei at home watching I want to reiterate this bill continues with the support of the Minister and soon will be read a third time. I have no doubt that our marae will be inundated with descendants of Ngāti Hei. There we will be able to elaborate upon the discussion included in this bill . And so from us on this side of the House we say we support.]
Thursday 11 April 2024 - Volume 775
Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bil — Second Reading
Trask LauraLAURA TRASK (ACT): Kia ora. I'd like to extend a mihi from the ACT Party to the iwi the hapū the whānau who join us today and the ancestors you have brought with you. We're glad to be able to support this historic Treaty settlement. The settlement contains acknowledgment of Crown breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles including the confiscation of land by the Crown the impact and operation of native lands and laws and Crown purchasing that left Ngāti Paoa virtually landless and undermined their economic social and cultural development.In October 1863 HMS Miranda shelled the Ngāti Paoa village Pūkorokoro. Later that year in December the Crown militia made a surprise attack on a group of 40 to 50 Māori which included Ngāti Paoa ancestors. Ngāti Paoa has constantly been forced to choose sides and face huge amounts of land confiscation and alienation. Their lands were confiscated their culture suppressed and their economic prospects stifled. No land had been returned to Ngāti Paoa.Today we get to hear the second reading of this historic bill and celebrate the return of 12 sites of cultural significance and financial and commercial redress valued at $23.5 million along with a wide range of other commercial cultural and relationship items. We hope that this redress allows the nearly 5000 members of Ngāti Paoa to come together support each other and heal from the harm acknowledged in this bill today.Let us honour the iwi their resilience their stories and their aspirations. May this settlement pave the way for healing unity and a brighter future. Let us remember that reconciliation is not a single act but an ongoing commitment. We are glad to see this bill moved through the House. We understand it has taken far too long for this reconciliation to take place and ACT is proud to support this bill. Kia ora.
Tuesday 13 February 2024 (continued on Wednesday 14 February 2024) - Volume 773
Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteDEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is—[Interruption] Votes will be taken in silence please. The question is that the motion be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill.
Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Water Services Acts Repeal Bill — Third Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Pugh Maureen; Kuriger BarbaraCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: As has been mentioned the Government has indicated to me that it does not wish to continue in urgency. Therefore this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m. (Wednesday)
Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1 (continued)
Pugh Maureen; Utikere TangiIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We will resume the committee stage. We are up to the questions.The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendments to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 14 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni's tabled amendment to insert new clause 5A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agree to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 1 agreed to.TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave to reopen debate on Part 1.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any opposition?Hon Members: Yes.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We will now move to Part 2.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. The point I want to raise is that I did seek the call on more than one occasion from the Chair and I had new material. So the key point seems to be here around that new material. There were members on this side of the House seeking the call and I sought the call twice and intended to continue to seek the call because I did have questions to put to the Minister that had not been asked by any other member on this side of the House. As other members have pointed out we did not have a select committee process. And so I actually came to the House specifically with some questions for the Minister to ask and I would still like to have the opportunity to ask them. So Mr Speaker I do urge that you take into consideration the fact that multiple members from the Labour Party and from other parties of Opposition sought to take the call and did not receive an opportunity to even take a call. So it's difficult to ascertain how you could make a judgment that we were being repetitive when members with different items that they wished to interrogate weren't even given the opportunity to take the call.
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I'd just like to reflect on the fact that while there's two arguments being put forward—one that we felt that questions were being not answered. But the second point I think it's important for you to be aware of is that we genuinely felt that debate was prematurely concluded. As an example of that as the associate spokesperson for Labour I did not have an opportunity to speak on this bill and I think at the very least it's important that you give key spokespeople an opportunity to ask questions of the Minister on this bill particularly given we don't have that opportunity at select committee.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Given that my contribution was the last one before the Chair attempted to close down or closed down the debate I think it's important for me to stand up and speak to that. I did repeat questions because—and you can revisit the Hansard and check whether you feel this is the case—I very genuinely do not think that the questions I asked which were very important were answered. We received new information in this committee that contradicted the modelling that follows the actual bill. So I asked very specific questions about the implications of that on certain things and I didn't receive that information. But I didn't even receive a response to say that the modelling had not been updated. It wasn't addressed at all and so I was trying to get those questions answered. I actually had other questions. Again not an attempt to filibuster but trying to wrap up that particular area of questioning was difficult. And to have that closed down by the Chair actually is not fitting with what committee of the whole House stages should allow us to do when scrutinising a bill in the way we're expected to during committee stages.
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. From our perspective as the only tangata w'enua party here and the way that Māori are going to be impacted we did expect to be able to have some speaking time. We weren't able to be heard at all. To be fair we also are rushing as a small party to try and collect ourselves on everything that's coming down in a state of urgency. So with respect to our Chair we were hoping to ask questions. We weren't repetitive; we weren't heard at all. Kia ora.
Davidson MaramaHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. My inquiry is a genuine one into the well-established tradition of ensuring that points are covered and that when there is dispute as to whether things were getting repetitive—but even so what is the convention about ensuring equitable speaking across members? Because then it becomes about not just traversing new material but also equitable speakers across a really crucial committee stage of the House. We are impacting on people's lives here and I would have thought this House can give it the fullest committee stage that we possibly can.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Acknowledging the comments by Tangi Utikere that this is not done lightly I would invite you to review the Hansard record because part of the challenge that I had particularly with the point around new questions is for example I asked a question around wage gaps and the impact of wage scarring and that was subsequently used to labour the point that there were no new points being asked. I find that concerning because like I said those questions were in good faith—it was not filibustering. So I just would invite you to look at the Hansard record to review the nature of the questions being asked to evaluate whether we were being repetitive or not.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I first acknowledge this is an extremely rare situation that often members refer to. The position of the Labour Party is that this is the only step that was made available to us in light of a number of calls that were being sought by members that were not taken up. There was an instruction or a view of the Chair that she was looking for new information. We took one call following that instruction where the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni made some rather salient points and suggested that the Minister in the chair may wish to take advice around that after which there was no further opportunity for any other member of the Opposition to take any calls on a bill that is currently progressing through the House under urgency without any select committee scrutiny. So on that basis we felt that there was no other option but to seek to recall the Speaker to ensure that members of this House have an equitable opportunity to raise the questions as part of scrutiny that many New Zealanders would expect us to be doing on this side of the House.
Pugh MaureenHouse resumed.Speaker RecalledCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker we have been debating Part 1 of the bill. There has been some challenge around the fact that I took a closure motion. I had listened to the debate in my office. My colleague prior to me in the Chair had taken detailed notes about the content of speeches. I had alerted members that I was looking for new material. There had been quite a lot of repetition in the information that I was hearing and on that basis I took the closure motion.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): The reason I have to keep asking this question is because it has not been answered. I asked specifically now that we have the numbers around what wage growth is going to be versus Consumers Price Index (CPI) how that changes the modelling in the supplementary analysis report indexing to main benefits. It is important because the Minister in charge of this bill Hon Louise Upston has said publicly that in the first year they will be better off and in the long term she has acknowledged that they would get less than what they would do when benefits are indexed to actual wages. So it's important that she clarifies.Now I understand that these figures sometimes come out late and she may not have received them until recently. And it could be that the officials have not had time to update the modelling. It could be that the officials have not had time to revisit what the long-term fiscal savings are going to be for the Government and then the inverse of that is of course how much beneficiaries are going to miss out on. It could be that they haven't had a chance to update the modelling with respect to child poverty impacts. If that's the case then that is what the Minister should tell us here in the House and we would expect to get that at some point when the ministry have had time to update their figures. But the Minister can't just answer the question in a way where she's not actually responding to what I'm asking. I'm asking now that we have the actual comparative figures of CPI and average wage growth—now that we have those those are going to determine what the general adjustments are—so what does that do to the modelling in terms of the cost savings for the Government and the implications for child poverty? I think the question is really clear. I'm going to give the Minister a little bit of time to think about that. Maybe the officials want to slip some advice to the Minister.The other thing is I asked earlier around whether or not there were any ramifications—legal ramifications—on the Government passing a bill that clearly states We will have increases in child poverty." given we have legislation that enshrines child poverty reduction targets in this House. And I didn't get a response to that question right at the beginning. I have other questions to ask but I need to get appropriate responses to the questions that I'm asking otherwise I'm going to have to keep asking them. And I think that they are fair and reasonable questions. This is our only opportunity to interrogate this bill during committee of the whole House stage and we want to do justice to the general public by doing that properly."
Davidson MaramaHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Oh it's me? It was me. Thank you very much. I was just making sure I heard the right name. Thank you Madam Chair.Look there was a speech given by my colleague on the Māori Affairs Committee from the Government bench Minister that I think I want to pick up on because I actually authentically believe that there are people on the Government benches particularly in the new crop that do understand the importance of upholding dignity and questioning the fact that this legislation proposes to reduce increases across the broad benefit groups that will disproportionately impact on women Māori children disabled people Pacific people and so on.Then I have a look at this—what's this thing called the supplementary analysis paper?—and it's clear that there has not been any current review evaluation or research to inform this bill Minister. So I know that's what it says in the paper but I do ask directly on certain groups: has there been discussion with the incredible work of organisations like Child Poverty Action Group with any of the former Welfare Expert Advisory Group members?I feel that you have openly just in a previous answer declared that this is simply a general election commitment. Is the Minister then saying that this is simply ideology with no basis in evidence or research or evaluation from especially those groups who will be most impacted in a negative way by this bill?
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you Madam Chair. So I want to address the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni's question first around the impact on child poverty. Obviously it's been a subject of earlier readings in this debate and I want to be very clear about the fact that our Government is absolutely committed to continuing reductions in child poverty. When you look at individual advice on a piece of legislation it is just that; it doesn't take into account the broader commitments that we have already made and that we will deliver on in this coalition Government around child poverty. So if you look at our work around the cost of living crisis that will have a direct impact; addressing issues around housing will have a direct impact. Actually the thing that will have the biggest impact is reducing the number of children growing up in benefit-dependent homes because 60 percent of them currently grow up in benefit-dependent homes.I wanted to just confirm for the member that in terms of our Government's focus on child poverty while the statements are related to very narrowly just this piece of legislation our Government is committed to reducing child poverty and the other measures that we are working on—which include things like income tax relief and the tax credits for working households—will have an impact on child poverty.This is a very narrow bill and the change isn't a significant one in terms of how this practice has been delivered in the past. So I do want to just indicate in answer to the Hon Grant Robertson that in terms of the way the calculation is worked for the Consumers Price Index (CPI) and wages there is no change—there is no change from how Governments previously have calculated it. The time frames as per previous Governments: CPI is taken from 31 December of the year previous and at 7 February the date of the wage rate was 5.3 percent and that's publicly on record.
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Speaker—Camilla Belich: Point of order. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. I've got a point of order.Camilla Belich: Apologies I tried to take this point of order at the end of the member speaking so as not to interrupt them. I just wanted to draw your attention Madam Speaker to the Speaker's rulings around interjections—that they should be rare and reasonable. And specifically to Speakers' ruling 65/2 which talks about The practice of members engaging in a constant barrage of interjections amounts to heckling; it is intolerable in a debating chamber." Just to draw your attention to that because I felt that at times during this debate that practice has been occurring.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your feedback. My gauge was that we could all hear what the speaker was saying at that time. If it does get too noisy we will ask the noise to be down. We're in a tense period where the legislation is actually quite tense in the House and so I think we just need to be mindful of the noise. The interjections I think are going to keep coming and we've had them from both sides of the House this morning. So thank you.RIMA NAKHLE: Throughout the course of the debate so far I've heard words thrown around like "cruelty" "dehumanising" and "cruel joke". And I just think back to a few months ago when the Minister in charge of this bill Minister Louise Upston made her way to Takanini visited us over there in South and East Auckland. We were about to get in the car to go visit some other people and a gentleman approached us knowing who we were a gentleman that shared his story that he has been suffering with bipolar and schizophrenia for most of his adult life. This gentleman was in his early 50s and he shared that he always has wanted to work. But there are difficulties around his health condition—because I hear that term thrown around as well; do we reflect on the health conditions of some people. He spoke about the health conditions that he has that makes it difficult for him to maintain a regular sustainable job. He went on to share—and it really touched me—that for that election last year he really took the time to look at policies. And he said for the first time in his life he'll be voting National because he saw that National gives people a chance in the sense that we believe in people.So I'm not going to accept that we are not maintaining dignity. I'm not going to accept that our policies are dehumanising and I'm not going to accept that we're shameful. Because what's shameful is the woeful record in child poverty that happened in the last six years. So no Madam Speaker we have aspiration for our people and I commend this bill to the House."
Fleming GregGREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): E te Māngai ko tēnei te wā tuatahi i tae mai au i tēnei Whare whakahirahira mai anō i tāku kōrero matua ki tēnei Whare nō reira tēnei te mihi ki te Whare.[Madam Speaker this is the first time I have arrived in this magnificent House since my maiden speech to this House and so I acknowledge the House.]This is my first time speaking in this House since my maiden speech. In my maiden speech I sought to lay out my desire to want to listen carefully to āta whakarongo. If the people of Maungakiekie were going to send me here to serve them and the wider the people of Aotearoa then surely I would have much to listen so I have listened carefully this morning to this debate.Can I say to the members opposite that I do not believe that we disagree in terms of our motivations. The reason that we have all come to this House is because we want to see all people flourish and that includes helping those people who genuinely need help and we know that there are thousands. We know that there are tens of thousands of people in New Zealand who need our help and that is why we have our benefit system. So what is not on trial today is the motivation for what we are doing.What is on trial today is our different approach to how we help those people and one of the fundamental differences here—and the point was acknowledged by the previous speaker Hon Jan Tinetti—is the focus that this side of the House has on work. We do acknowledge absolutely that there are many people for various reasons who are not able to work. But it is important that we have a distinction in income between work and benefits because it provides amongst other things an incentive.When I speak Takutai Tarsh Kemp to your invitation—and I share your wero ki ngā tāngata i tēnei Whare [challenge to the people in this House]—to go to the front line and to meet the whānau that you serve admirably there at the Manurewa Marae. I would say that that is what I have spent much of my career doing with an organisation there called Te Whakaora Tangata. And of all the work that we do with those whānau there is virtually nothing that brings more hope and more dignity to those whānau's lives than when we help them find a job. I commend this bill to the House.
Bidois Dan; Kuriger BarbaraDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I'd like to focus my brief contribution on one number: 67000. That's how many extra people on a jobseeker benefit there are under the last six years of Labour—67000. That is the challenge that we face to turn things around. In fact the number of young people on a benefit is up 50 percent under the last Labour Government. So I'd like to just reflect on a couple of comments. The first is from Marama Davidson how we end poverty overnight. We can end poverty overnight by getting these people into a job and things like Mana Motuhake. This is about actually getting them into a job. Tino rangatiratanga is about getting them into a job. Dignity is about getting them into a job. Progress is about getting them into a job. That is the focus that we have on this side of the House: to move those people into jobs so they can make their lives better; they can live independently. That is going to be our focus. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Jan Tinetti.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I have to take a deep breath. The 31 years of indexing the main benefit to the Consumers Price Index (CPI)—31 years—says that a lot of effort has been put into attacking the challenge of balancing what beneficiaries can be given what the country can afford to give and encouraging beneficiaries who have the choice to work to be out there and working.Much has been said to disparage the statement dignity of work". Dignity of work does not constitute saying to someone else who may be working less or not working at all that they have no dignity. There is dignity in poverty as well. You know I'm a father of four daughters and the primary reason for not using labelling in the household is that it has real grounded benefits and I think that while we can speak about labels and use words that attack other people that has no place in a discussion like this. The bill that we have is really meant to achieve that balance that the 31 years of indexing the main benefit to CPI has been trying to do across parties and that is what we are trying to do as well. I commend this bill to the House."
Kemp Takutai TarshTAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): What we are seeing from this Government is that they are making life harder and to be honest I know exactly how hard that is because I've seen it every day all day at Manurewa Marae. They do not leave and our whānau are going to continue to line up requiring benefit support requiring kai on the daily and it is going to be our people that are struggling the most and hit the most. First they came for workers' rights then they came for workers' pay; now they are creating a beneficiary State. The only people that will benefit from this bill are their rich mates. Māori always bear the brunt of these bills. First in the door last to leave at the Ministry of Social Development—and in fact first in the door at the marae last to leave the marae with the support that they need because they need manaakitanga.Here's a real solution: Te Pāti Māori are not here to reduce poverty; we are here to eliminate it. Get a wealth tax put on land tax remove GST from kai. Whānau can get seven weeks' free kai. Raise the minimum wage to $25. This will be better for our whānau. Double baseline benefits. I encourage this Government to get out and actually from behind your chair go and see the organisations that are front-lining and seeing our whānau get hit the hardest. Go to Manurewa Marae go to Papakura Marae go to the Manukau Urban Māori Authority. There are many Māori organisations. Actually Auckland City Mission is another one—go there and see the whānau that are struggling.This bill will continue to make it harder and our whānau worse off. You know what? I can still see the struggle on the faces of our whānau. I see the whakamā in their eyes I see the sadness in their āhua in their wairua and this is going to make it even worse for our whānau. Our whānau deserve better and that's why we will not be supporting this bill. Kia ora.
Patterson Mark; Pugh MaureenHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): New Zealand has been unmoved by the protestations across the House during the first reading and we'd just like to reiterate for those watching on telly or those trainspotters that will read through the Hansard that we are actually talking about guaranteeing increases indexed to inflation to our main benefits.One of the things about getting a bit older is I'm old enough to remember a time when the Labour Party stood up for workers. We know that the Greens get all their votes from leafy suburbs and have never stood up for workers. But what hasn't been said in this debate is: what about the moral hazard here? What message are we sending to those hard-working Kiwis that get up every morning get in the traffic or go out roll their sleeves up on a farm or whatever they might be doing in the meat works or down the mines—what are we saying to them? When they have their hard-earned wage increases that's something they've done off their own backs through their own productivity and those hard-working Kiwis have to pay their taxes and increasing taxes.If we simply just say that that increase should flow through to people that are not doing that—and we've heard from Dan Bidois: nearly 70000 extra people on the jobseeker benefit. There is a degree of people that are choosing not to go to work and we heard that from employers up and down the country. I think where there is some merit we're talking about people with disabilities and getting them into work and I agree that there is an untapped pool of resource there. I know through this full unemployment period that employers are looking more to tapping into that workforce and I think that is a trend we've very much got to get in behind.But it's more getting to the root and branch of it—stuff like what we're doing around economic development around the fast-track legislation to absolutely unleash and turbo-charge economic activity particularly in our regions and create high-paying jobs. That is the thing that will move the needle for these people that are on the benefits and getting them in the dignity of work. It is this Government's role to create the opportunities for employers to employ and pay good jobs. So it's more about getting the regulatory settings—this is how we're going to approach this problem over here—for business so that the country as a whole can be successful drive higher incomes drive more employment get some of those extra 67000 New Zealanders that are on a jobseeker benefit into the dignity of work. That will be our approach on this side of the House. That is what New Zealand First will support so we commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call. I call Takutai Tarsh Kemp.
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. That was a very interesting contribution. It seems like the member Ricardo Menéndez March thinks—they because we don't think like that—that the system doesn't treat people on benefit respectfully. We do treat people everybody with respect and this is their thinking not our thinking.The other thing which I understood from that speech that the member was giving just now is that the member thinks there is a problem if people—those who are on benefit—get into employment. We don't see that to be a problem. We want people to get into employment because that is how people will have better lives. But we do support the benefit system because we want to see that people are getting enough sufficient to survive and also we don't want to see people slipping into poverty. So these are the two—if I have to simplify—main reasons for our benefit system.So it is not a system that people can take for their whole life. If they can go out and work they should be going out and working. And that is what this Government is focused on and ACT is focused on. And the arguments that I've heard so far from members on that side is that just because they had this approach of linking main benefit to wage growth that is the right approach and any other approach is going to be a wrong approach. We don't agree with that. I haven't seen any logical reason from their side. The ACT Party supports this bill. Thank you.