edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mitchell ClaytonOMBUDSMEN (PROTECTION OF NAME) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 21 November.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. What a great pleasure to see such fantastic progress moving through the House this evening with some passionate contributions being made from around the House this evening on some much needed legislative changes that we've all been so desperately waiting for.We're only a few sleeps away from Christmas now. We can count down those days. But the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation for some—respecting the word and the name and the brand ombudsman" and yet enabling the role to be regarded by the public and giving it a certain je ne sais quoi a certain respect and understanding that the role that it plays is very important.The ombudsman does play a very important role. It's the place that we go to when we feel like there is no other place that we can go to—an overarching body that can give an impartial completely independent view on a situation. It can judge Governments it can judge individuals and it can give opinions and have power to invoke positive changes for public interest's sake and for individuals and for certain issues. The Ombudsmen protection bill for that brand is very important. We have seen the use of the term "ombudsman" in other countries to be overused and prolifically under-utilised therefore reducing its power and equity within a community. We in New Zealand believe that that should be protected in New Zealand which is why we are ring-fencing that term and giving it a very serious high profile position that it does deserve. We do believe that this bill is important. Some people think that it doesn't require the amount of time and effort and energy. I'm not going to give it a huge amount of time but we do commend this bill to the House because it deserves to go through and the people of New Zealand need to understand that the very important and well-respected brand of ombudsman has a very strong role to play which is why we will commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee
Dyson RuthCREDIT CONTRACTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 10 December.Part 1 Amendments to Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members we now move to further consideration of the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill. When we were last debating this we were up to something really interesting and I'll just find out what it was—hold the line please caller. When we were last debating this bill we were considering Part 1. The Hon Kris Faafoi had the call and he has four minutes remaining should he wish.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 412 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill without amendment the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill with amendment the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill with amendment and the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. In fact as I said in the second reading of this bill this was work that the previous National-led Government initiated because we saw some need for work to have financial assurance around any potential offshore spill which I think not only would every New Zealander agree with but the operators who have offshore installations fully accept their responsibility and part to play in ensuring that our environment is protected.Just the other day—I think it was yesterday—the Hon Julie Anne Genter proposed a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) SOP 417 which would enable those certificates of insurance to be altered. Obviously this is applying to one particular company. We feel that there is some sense in that—that those companies do want to comply with the intent and spirit of this legislation. So we support that SOP and we think that of course all of these are rational provisions put in place to ensure that the environment which we love is continued to be cared for and protected and that every element is put in place to mitigate any risk.That's all I really want to say at this point in time because I think that's the only change that's really come this way. But can I just assure as I've had conversations with the sector regarding that SOP that there is commitment to that. Thank you Madam Chair.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 417 in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter to clause 7 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Brownlee GerryParts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You're welcome.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do appreciate your instruction on exactly what we're talking about here. I'll take just a very short call indicating that this is a bill that we are supporting. It is one of those bills that probably falls in line with a great deal of the work that gets done in this House where there is generally agreement. It is making provisions that should be accepted that are sensible in the law. With those comments I think I will now resume my seat.
Genter Julie Anne; Dyson RuthMARITIME TRANSPORT (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. So we're speaking to Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 on the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I think the previous speaker Simon O'Connor makes a good point. The title does not describe this bill. It should be the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders—If the Criminal Terrorist Agrees) Bill" because so much in here is a complete compromise on the statements that are made in the bill by the conditions that are also in the bill for the criminal terrorist to have a view about whether or not those control orders should apply to them. Even the Schedule in the bill that sets out the process for how the bill works is said right at the start of the bill to be a diagrammatic of decision-making control set out which of course is intended only as a guide. So there's nothing in here that's fixed—nothing in here that is permanent. This is very much a sort of optional arrangement.It is an incredibly weak bill. The title is misleading and it should be altered to reflect the perilous position that the country still remains in should any of these people manage to slip through the borders with one of these weak control orders put upon them where of course they're not even going to be monitored; they're just going to be wondering around the place. The title should reflect the fact that the benefit of the doubt largely goes to someone who in the first place has been identified as being formerly involved in criminal terrorist activity. Actually the only part of the bill that's right is how that's described."
Dyson RuthCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Hang on what about Schedule 2?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No it was my error and Simon O'Connor got an added bonus. We don't have a debate on the Schedule but we do have a debate on clauses 1 and 2. My apologies but I—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well Madam Chair that's quite unreasonable. I would've taken a call on the Schedules had it not been for your instruction to the committee. That's not at all satisfactory.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I really appreciate your guidance.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Schedule 2 be agreed to:after Is the court satisfied that the relevant person poses a" insert "real".Amendments agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): There is no debate on Schedules. It was my error. There will be no points of order while I'm taking a vote. Simon O'Connor asked me—my error—and I allowed him to spend five minutes making a contribution because it was my error in calling."
O'Connor SimonSchedules 1 and 2SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. This will be a—also this is on Schedule 1 Part 1 isn't it? Now that I've risen to my feet. Schedule 1?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's correct.SIMON O'CONNOR: Just Schedule 1 rather than Schedule 2 as well? We do those as separate discussions?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's correct.SIMON O'CONNOR: Fantastic. Just making sure; I don't want to intrude. Look I'll only take a short call on Schedule 1. I think it's probably important just to draw attention I suppose it's twofold to an appropriate provision here to ensure that everything that's happened before this Act becomes law if that's not presumptuous can be used.I suppose it does sit within the wider realm of this particular piece of legislation which is that we are trying to rely on a non-evidential framework in order to provide if you will evidence to bring about the control orders. I think it's prudent that this has been put in here. It's more usual that Schedule 1s have a much larger transitional setting as is put down here—the person's conduct before the commencement of the Act may be relied on". I suppose we just want to get some surety from the Minister that "may" is strong enough. It in some ways must be relied on. We are very keen on understanding their conduct. Fundamentally as a civil rather than criminal bill there are no evidential standards here in New Zealand no evidence that can be applied so we will absolutely be relying on the person's conduct.I suppose it's also wanting some assurances from the Minister in what will be a short call that with the—well the very nature of the Act; the Minister himself has indicated this is a response to things which are happening. We do know—and we won't go into the numbers in this committee here but for those of us we know of the numbers that are returning. We will be absolutely reliant on that.So I suppose it's really just a very short and simple call on this one to affirm—good to see it there—and just to ask the question of whether the word "may" really should be "must"; that the person's conduct before the commencement must be relied on fundamentally particularly those coming back early. That will be the key evidence that's required. So that's just my contribution on Schedule 1."
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you Madam Chairperson. My contribution this evening is in support of the eight Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that the National Party proposes on the basis that the safety of New Zealanders is paramount to National and that we undertake our national security obligations very seriously. I would like to comment also on the debates that have been happening tonight in that I see that both sides are seriously concerned about making sure that no terrorist activity again happens in New Zealand and that is why the passions are high on both sides. We are all wanting to achieve the same level of protection for all New Zealanders and that is why we have proposed these SOPs that only seek to strengthen the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. To me it seems unfortunate that there has been a blanket voting down of these SOPs 418 and 419 referring to the age of potential terrorists coming into New Zealand as being youthful which is globally supported by evidence in many countries already that this is happening. We are living in an increasingly complex security environment. It is vital that our legislation be effective and fit for purpose. So again pointing out that the SOPs are meant to do this to make it more effective to make it more fit for purpose; there is simply no leeway for experimentation and getting it wrong. In particular I speak about SOP 424 as it relates to SOP 423—which is in my name—as we seek to amend clause 24 of the bill. SOP 423 proposes to require that the registrar of the High Court give notice to the Police Commissioner of all expiring final control orders that are about to expire and that the notice must be given by the registrar to the Police at least two months before the date when that final control order is to expire.The object is quite clearly just to ensure that a new application can be made and that there is sufficient time for an order to be issued. This is actually very similar to what the Hon Mark Mitchell was referring to in that when a person arrives and we are not aware that he is a terrorist or that he is not on our record as a terrorist there is insufficient time for the courts to be able to issue a control order even given a minimum of four hours to be able to do so once the control orders are applied for. So this is a similar situation where a control order is coming to its expiration date and there is a need to ensure that there is ample time to apply for a new one. It does not mean that the control order will be renewed. It still needs to be justified and considered necessary. We simply do not wish to place New Zealanders at risk and I think this is a common goal for everyone. I ask members to think through towards strengthening this legislation and voting for these SOPs 423 and 424. Thank you Madam Chair.
Tolley AnnePart 2 Control ordersCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Colleagues that brings us to Part 2 debate on clauses 11 to 34 and I say to the Hon Mark Mitchell that that's where his questions to the Minister properly lie. I call the honourable—Hon Andrew Little: Andrew Little.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Andrew Little.
Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. We're in support of this bill and the details which we traversed yesterday so we understand the intent the purpose and the urgency that brings it here to the House and the collaborative point that we've reached. Again I want to acknowledge Universities New Zealand and those who potentially had the most to lose in this bill considering they were exempted from the Residential Tenancies Act when they came to the Education and Workforce Committee and said they understood the need for legislation. I think it was clear that really even those who might have felt most aggrieved were on board with the need for this. I think that's a good thing.I'd like to continue the discussion that at some point in the future we might be able to bring the international code and the domestic code into one form albeit that there may need to be a position potentially for children—a code for children. But this has been futureproofed so I think our interests are allayed in that way—that the legislation we're enabling has the ability to futureproof those desires. I think thirdly what has been most reassuring to us in the development of the code which now passes to officials—so we're just enabling the code to be developed—is the fact that it's a disallowable instrument. And that was sort of a safety net underpinning it for us with the privileges that a member of the Regulations Review Committee has to bring this back to the House—or indeed any member in a slightly more protracted course. I think that was reassuring and gives us some faith that officials will do their best and diligent work. If we have any concerns we could bring it back and debate it but I think that's been a very reassuring part—bearing in mind the urgency that we've somewhat all agreed to to propel this bill and move it forward—that it does have that underpinning it. So we're supporting this bill and are pleased with its content as it progresses this far. Thank you.Clauses 1 to 5 and the Schedule agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Hipkins Chris; Dyson RuthEDUCATION (PASTORAL CARE) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I seek leave for all provisions of the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Well I've got the last say and that's always a good thing and it's always a very difficult topic to talk about. We're much more humble and have humility on this side of the House. We're here because we're privileged and honoured to be here and the rest as such. But look I remember when I was chair of the Performance Review Committee for the chief executive officer of the Wellington City Council—always difficult; the ratepayers always got a little upset when you had to adjust things to certain levels and some outfit told you that this is how much you had to pay and then we paid it and of course great uproar. So we're a bit more smarter I think in central government and we're going to give that discretion to the Remuneration Authority. They'll do a good job—different criteria—and I think we'll await the results. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and to be the last speaker from the National Party on this bill. There have been a lot of points that have been traversed today into this bill. So just to summarise some of those points: MPs by and large don't do this for the pay. On this side of the House if we were doing this for the pay we'd be in the private sector. We do this because we earnestly want to make a difference and improve the lives of New Zealanders.This is about valuing the contribution of MPs. I know that that's very subjective. My own late father suggested that members of Parliament were overpaid and then there are other people that I've spoken to who have said we're underpaid. So this is very subjective but I believe in the Remuneration Authority and giving the Remuneration Authority the authority to actually do this and to assess MPs' pay is important. National supports this bill and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): It's a delight to stand and talk on this Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2). I wasn't a member of the Education and Workforce Committee and I have not up until very recently reviewed the legislation. Quite simply I see this bill as having no fixed formula a review set to the electoral cycle so that at the beginning of coming into Parliament you know what your salary will be for the next three years and consideration for the authority to put the value of personal benefits in. I think that this bill is very practical. It's very sensible. I acknowledge there are different opinions in the House; however I commend this bill to the House.
Willis Nicola; Dyson RuthNICOLA WILLIS (National): Madam Speaker—David Seymour: Got to be in to win.NICOLA WILLIS: —I rise to support this bill and eagerly await the member David Seymour's contribution which he's clearly enthusiastic about making.In starting my contribution I want to give a bouquet to Gareth Hughes a member in this House who I don't often agree with and a retiring member who has had a lot of time to reflect on matters in this House. I think he is correct when he says that members of Parliament should be incentivised to make sure that the median wage is rising and that we as members of this House aren't getting so removed from the typical New Zealand worker that we're not incentivised to see those wages increasing. In fact here on the National side of the House we think it is a fundamental role of any Government to ensure that average wages are rising and that they're keeping up with the cost of living and in fact that people are getting ahead.All of us when we are making policy decisions in this House when we are determining which way we do things should be thinking about the impact that policies will have on the wages of typical Kiwi earners. So I appreciated that contribution. National supports this bill. We support the independence of the Remuneration Authority to determine MPs' salaries based on criteria. We support linking the reviews to the electoral cycle and we support restoring the requirement for the authority to consider the value of the personal benefit of entitlements. Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I understand this is a split call—David Seymour.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill because what this bill is going to do is return discretion to the Remuneration Authority in terms of sitting MPs' pay rather than having to rely on a strict formula which ended up inadvertently with very large pay increases for MPs. So instead what it's going to be doing is allowing MPs' pay to be based on a range of different criteria and they include relativity but also the prevailing economic conditions. So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Lee Denise; Dyson RuthDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I was privileged to be on the select committee that took this particular bill through to this point the Education and Workforce Committee. I take some of the points from the previous speaker Gareth Hughes but the problem fundamentally that I have with what he said is he's purporting to have the ideal solution. What we found out through the select committee process is that there are a gazillion ideal solutions when it comes to MPs' pay. Everyone has a different solution and we were quite surprised as pointed out by Dr Parmar that only six people submitted on this. We really genuinely thought that we'd be facing a much longer hearings process.Here's an example of how wide and varied opinions can be on this topic. One particular submitter wanted us to define fair relativity" a phrase used in the bill when it comes to MPs getting fair relativity in regards to levels of remuneration received elsewhere. As a select committee team the officials—and good luck to the independent authority that decides all these things. The term "fair" is such a subjective concept so it's so fitting and right that this be taken out of our hands and into an independent authority.I'd just make one more comment and that is that we support the bill and we also believe that it's a good thing that the review will be once every three years following an election so we don't have what some may call tweaking—we don't have that on a sporadic and erratic basis; we have consistency. That's exactly what this bill is aiming to achieve. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): This is a split call—Dr Liz Craig."
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm absolutely fascinated to see how quickly the Government is now moving through its business. I honestly think that this week they have completed more business than they have in the previous three months. For most of this year of course they've been filibustering their own bills and now finally they've decided they want to get on with it—maybe it's because they recognise that the public sees what a joke the year of delivery has been and they better at least deliver some legislation.Be that as it may I am very pleased also to take a short call and to express my support for the bill not least because in my experience the public appetite for hearing MPs talk about their pay and conditions is probably akin to a two-year-old's appetite for beetroot and brussels sprouts. Whenever we talk about the subject there's a sort of general condemnation that we're all overpaid we're all a waste of space—and there may be some truth to that in some cases.Nevertheless there are two serious points that I want to make. One is that I am very happy that we have a Remuneration Authority because it is very important that we have no control over the way in which our salary is conducted; if we were to do so there would then be some genuine reason for the public to express the sort of contempt and mirth that we so often hear. So I appreciate the work that the Remuneration Authority does and I just hope that they can find a formula that continues to be fair and minimises the anger of the public about the fact that we might ever get an increase in our salaries.The other thing I just want to point out—and Madam Speaker I'm sure you'll be familiar with this as well—is that I'm constantly surprised by how many people think that the old parliamentary pension scheme still exists. People say Oh well you've completed your three terms as a member of Parliament now so therefore you automatically qualify for a pension." Well for anybody listening who's labouring under that misapprehension that scheme was abolished more than two decades ago—Madam Speaker might be able to tell me exactly the year it was but I think it was around about the time—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I came in.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —yes it was; well you're a very young woman Madam Speaker—that MMP was introduced in the mid-1990s. There is a different scheme but we all have to contribute to it. I'm not going to explain it other than the fact that you do not automatically qualify simply by completing three terms as a member of Parliament and I'd hope that the public would welcome that as well. This is a good bill; I'm very happy to support it."
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise slightly unexpectedly to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this bill. I see that Clayton Mitchell was due to be speaking on this but he's headed for the hills and allowed me to take the public wrath of essentially voting on my own pay rise. So this is perceived sometimes to be a contentious issue with the public but I think the levels of submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee suggested that I think there is an understanding that a formula and an independent process—and perhaps returning it to that original formula—is a good one. It is probably quite a hard profession if you could call it that to evaluate in terms of where the appropriate setting should be. So that independent process and that independent formula that had worked pretty well prior to those 2015 submissions is the appropriate formula and New Zealand First does support that.I did sit on the select committee through this. It was non-controversial and as I say having it sit in an independent process is where it should be. So New Zealand First supports this bill to the House.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) at this reading. I just want to commend this bill to the House on behalf of the National Party and to acknowledge firstly the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee Dr Parmjeet Parmar for the work that she's done and also the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Iain Lees-Galloway.This is a bill about MPs' pay. It's one of those issues which gets a lot of interest in the community. Essentially what this bill does is restore the independence of the Remuneration Authority to be able to set the pay for members of Parliament and that's a principle which I believe is going to lead to fair and reasonable pay remuneration for members of Parliament something which will ensure that it isn't something that varies depending on whether public sector pay is going up down or faster than the other and something which allows members of Parliament to have nothing to do with what that determination is or the formula which creates it. I think that's the appropriate way that it should be set and so I commend this bill to the House.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to briefly rise to commend the bill to the House. I think this is a very sensible bill which puts the setting of MPs' remuneration back within a framework that delivered moderate and appropriate increases. I think that the previous regime that was set up under the Key Government was well intentioned but in tying MP remuneration to public sector increases it actually had the reverse outcome. Incidentally I think there's an interesting little lesson in there which is: Why might that be?" Primarily it's because public sector has retained a very strong level of collective bargaining across the economy and have been able to therefore argue for and successfully have higher pay increases. So that's a good lesson there for workers about a good way of increasing your pay: join your union.But in this case I think the House is of one mind which is that we want to see a more moderate and appropriate level of increases for members of Parliament. The formula the set of criteria previously considered by the Remuneration Authority achieved that and this bill will take us back to that point as well as having the very sensible reform of setting pay once every three years which I think has a range of benefits instead of the annual process and some of the difficulties that arise from that. So I commend this bill to the House."
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm taking this call to support the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) in the second reading. This is a bill which in the Education and Workforce Committee we decided to not amend at all. So you can see the kind of support this bill received from all sides. For some reason I was expecting a lot more submissions for this legislation because when we talk about MPs' salaries for some reason there is a lot of interest amongst people. But we received only six submissions on this legislation. We didn't hear from any submitters. So nobody appeared for an oral submission to the select committee but that doesn't diminish the value of their written submissions. All I want to say is that this has been very non-controversial legislation in the select committee process and the recommendation that we made in the select committee process for this bill for the report back to the House is that the bill proceed without amendment. I have rarely seen this happen: when a bill goes to the select committee and we don't make any amendments and we say that the bill actually should go through without any amendments. This legislation clearly highlights that MPs come to this job not for financial reward; MPs come to Parliament to do better for New Zealand to do better for their communities because they really believe that they can make that difference. So they don't come here for financial reward.What we saw in 2015 was that because of the system that was followed at that time MPs were getting an increase in their salary of 5.5 percent and we thought that was not justifiable. So that's why we decided to review two Acts: the Remuneration Authority Act and the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act. Through that review what we did was link MP salary increases through a fixed formula to public sector wages. So this legislation now actually repeals that change that we did in 2015. So we are going back to giving that independence to the Remuneration Authority not linking it through the fixed formula to public sector wages but using that criteria that is listed in the legislation.I also want to highlight that we have realised that going back to the system that was there before 2015 actually would be better in our current circumstances because if we look back to the increases that we received from 2011 to 2014 the average increase was around 1.7 percent and if you look at the increase that we received from 2015 to 2018 that ranged from between 2.5 percent to 4 percent. Also at the start of 2018 we realised that the increase that MPs—us that we will get in our salary will be around 3.3 percent. We want to make sure that the increases that we get in our salaries are justifiable and that's why we think this is a bill which should go through and we support this legislation. Thank you.
Lees-Galloway IainREMUNERATION AUTHORITY (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT REMUNERATION) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)Second ReadingHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move That the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.I thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their consideration of this bill. The select committee has not recommended any changes. In light of this it is my intention to very briefly set out the intent of the bill. It is critical that public money is spent responsibly. The formula that Parliament previously put in place was intended to rein in significant pay increases for members of Parliament. Unfortunately it has not had that effect at all and MPs' pay has outstripped inflation significantly. The 2015 change removed the Remuneration Authority's discretion in setting the increases as these increases were determined by a rigid formula. Since the 2015 changes MPs' salary increases have ranged from 2.46 percent to 4.06 percent per year compared to average increases of 1.7 percent for the four years prior to the 2015 changes. In absolute dollar terms the increases since 2015 have also been higher. The repeatedly high annual increases in pay set under this formula call into question whether the settings for determining MPs' pay are fit for purpose. This bill amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013 to establish a new process for how the authority sets the salaries of MPs. The bill restores the authority's discretion to determine MPs' salaries based on criteria. The criteria system is currently used by the authority to set the salaries of judicial officers the Governor-General and elected local authority officials and has resulted in lower pay increases compared to members of Parliament. Although the circumstances of each role are different this discrepancy suggests that the criteria-based system is a more appropriate one. The bill also restores the requirement for the authority to consider the personal benefit arising out of MPs' entitlements when setting their salaries. The bill requires the authority to make this year's determination of MPs' pay under this restored system. Finally the bill will link future reviews to the electoral cycle so that the authority would conduct one review after each general election and would set MPs' pay for the entire term of Parliament specified on a year-by-year basis. This bill establishes a new process for how the authority sets the salaries of MPs. This new process will strike a better balance between the interests of New Zealanders and those whose remuneration is being assessed. I commend this bill to the House.
Jackson WillieHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Mr Speaker just a short call to say that the double-talk coming from the opposite side is astounding—you know they double-talk all the time about the bill not being on target but they're 100 percent behind it—because they created the hole that our New Zealand First member was talking about earlier. A hole in the New Zealand economy? Absolutely no doubt about that. A hole created because of the nil investment in terms of the New Zealand economy over nine years. And that's why we've got a great investment from Minister Robertson.David Seymour: What does the purpose statement in the bill say?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We're talking about a $12 billion investment Mr Seymour in terms of infrastructure—a fantastic investment from the Minister of Finance—and Mr Seymour should know as the Opposition should know that it's not just about numbers numbers numbers. It's about people people people—something that the National Party forgot about a long long time ago. Basically the National Party are a disgrace and the reality is that they support us because they're double-talkers. The public know that and that's why they're going to lose next year's election. I'm very happy to support this bill. Kia ora.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Mr Speaker. I am really proud to rise and talk about the Venture Capital Fund Bill. So everything the previous speaker said I totally disagree with and I think exactly the opposite basically. This is a business-friendly bill. I commend this to the House.
Yule Lawrence; Rurawhe AdrianLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's my pleasure to take a brief call on the third reading of the Venture Capital Fund Bill. I do reflect on what the previous speaker and our finance spokesperson have said. This was really the only positive growth item in the Budget and National is supporting it. Three hundred million towards a venture capital growth fund is a good thing to do but as the Hon Paul Goldsmith said the real question is how it's spent and the efficiency of it.I'd put that against some of the stats we're seeing. Even today some stats were revealed that show that the economy is not doing as well as it was. When this Government came into power job growth was 10000 a month. It's now down to 3000. GDP growth is now down to 2.1 percent—2.1 percent. But at the end of the day there are some things that can be done for businesses as they transition in a growth phase and as they go from a small company to a larger company. If we don't want them to go offshore then there is an ability to help. Three hundred million sounds like a lot of money and it is; 220-odd million is coming from the super fund; 80 million is pretty much a new investment.We have raised some issues about how in fact the Minister can direct the governors of the super fund as to how they manage things. We think that's dangerous but on balance our side is supporting it. I support it. I think it is a useful addition to the New Zealand economy and I'm happy to commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call David Seymour—five minutes.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to stand and speak to the Venture Capital Fund Bill. I think this bill is going to have a huge impact and significantly help grow the New Zealand economy so I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister
Martin TraceyAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 12 to MinisterHon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): I seek leave to correct an answer given during question time today.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In answer to a supplementary question to question No. 12 today I answered that the Government has invested an extra $5.9 million into early intervention. It is actually $51.9 million the Government has invested in early intervention.
Venture Capital Fund Bill & New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — Third Readings
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Well he is often verbose but I still like him—Andrew Bayly the member who was just speaking across the House. I think that the 10 minutes it took him to say they agree with what this side of the House is doing and that they are going to support the bill is probably far too long to say exactly that. So in light of the remarks that have been said it is a privilege to support and commend the bill to the House.
SpeechSPEAKER: We'd normally have one more speech now but those who have indicated that they were going to speak have all spoken and therefore I propose to conclude the general debate now. I also want to acknowledge and place on record my thanks for the four members who have been in the area and have made a contribution to this debate today both for what they have done up there—which has been absolutely fantastic it's been reported back to me—and for their contributions to letting members know privately on things which would not be appropriate to share and their contributions to the House today. Thank you all. The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Tuesday 10 December 2019 - Volume 743
Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a second time.
11. Question No. 11—HealthANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 11—Health11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How is the health system responding to the tragedy at Whakaari / White Island?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): All our thoughts are with the families and loved ones affected by yesterday's eruption on Whakaari / White Island. Our focus since the tragedy has been on supporting the victims their friends and families. I do want to take this opportunity to thank all of those involved in the rescue effort and particularly the first responders. The priority for the health system is to provide the best possible care and treatment to those injured by this incident. I'm advised that 31 people remain in hospital with injuries ranging from moderate to critical. DHBs and the Ministry of Health are working closely with a number of agencies to ensure our response is well coordinated.Angie Warren-Clark: How are district health boards working together to treat victims of the eruption?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: At times of emergency we all rely on the skill and professionalism of our health services. The nature of this incident has required patients to be sent to DHBs across New Zealand so that they can get the best possible care and burns treatment in particular. I can advise the House that currently we have patients in a number of hospitals across the country including Whakatāne Tauranga Waikato Auckland Middlemore Hutt Valley and Christchurch. There are still some patients being transported between hospitals to ensure they receive treatment from the most appropriate healthcare team. The numbers at each hospital may therefore change during the day.Angie Warren-Clark: What is being done to help support people who might be experiencing mental distress following the eruption?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The last 24 hours have been incredibly traumatic for all involved—victims their friends and families tourism operators first responders and the wider community. DHBs and the Ministry of Health are working closely with Victim Support Red Cross and other agencies to ensure there is appropriate psychosocial support in place. We want to make sure there is appropriate support in place for everyone and I would remind the House that the Need to Talk? 1737 service and helpline are available all day every day.
10. Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer AffairsBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs10. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements relating to the Commerce Commission study of the fuel sector?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Yes.Brett Hudson: In light of his reported claim that Government changes could bring down prices by 18c to 32c a litre would he be surprised to learn that petrol companies currently have an average margin according to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment of 25c a litre of which only 3.5c a litre is profit?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: My comments last Thursday following the release of the Commerce Commission report were a gauge of what has already happened when competition does come to town. The two examples that I used were first Gull when they arrived in Wellsford where they saw locally the petrol price drop by 18c per litre and Waitomo when they entered Upper Hutt offered a price of 34c lower than when they arrived and mysteriously every other petrol company dropped their prices instantaneously. The overwhelming thing that came out of the Commerce Commission report was that the wholesale market isn't set up in order for there to be good competition at the retail market and we intend to do that.Brett Hudson: Is he aware that the retailer margin is what pays for the wages of people who work at petrol stations and if so is he concerned that decreases in the margin could have an effect on jobs and wages?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: What I am concerned about is that the Commerce Commission had found that for about 10 years the margins that the petrol companies were receiving were well above what they thought they should have been in an effectively operating market essentially meaning that New Zealanders were paying too much at the petrol pump.Brett Hudson: Isn't the easiest way to drop prices and stop New Zealanders being fleeced at the pump to stop putting additional fuel taxes on New Zealanders?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: That question has already been asked of the Government today but New Zealanders also like driving on modern and maintained roads.Brett Hudson: Which one of cancelling the regional fuel tax or introducing legislation to implement Commerce Commission recommendations would lead to petrol price decreases sooner?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: What would lead to petrol prices dropping for New Zealand consumers who purchase about 7 billion litres of fuel is a Government taking the issue seriously the Commerce Commission looking into the issue and then changing the law in order for the wholesale market which has historically prevented competition in the retail market—and that is exactly what the Government will do.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You've indicated that we just lost two supplementary questions. What was that for?SPEAKER: Because two members interjected while Mr Hudson was asking his supplementary question—two members including one right next to you.