edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close. 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. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 4 in Part 1 to replace dates with 31 July 2024" and "31 December 2024" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's tabled amendments to insert new clauses 4A and 4B be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 4 in Part 1 to replace dates with "1 July 2024" and "end of September 2024" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments 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 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Part 1 agreed to."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move That debate on this question now close.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Yesterday in the evening—or today in terms of our urgency clock—I asked the Minister about what part these tax reductions in this bill play in the increase in Government debt from $174 billion to $243 billion in the forecast period. The Minister said that was a question that should be put to the Minister of Finance under the Budget rather than be answered by him in respect of his contributions on this bill. I don't think that is a sufficient answer with respect because it is this bill that has the major tax reductions outside of the tax breaks for landlords that do cost a significant amount in fiscal terms. I'm going to put the question to the Minister in a slightly different way and I think it is incumbent upon him to give us an answer as to the substance so that we can get to the bottom of this.In the prior Government there were years prior to COVID where we ran surpluses of 1.9 1.5 2.4 percent. Then COVID hit and the subsequent deficits as a percentage of GDP were 1.3 percent 2.7 percent 2.4 percent and this year if we include that as a Government year 2.7 percent. Every one of those was criticised by the then National Opposition as being fiscally irresponsible. Yet the forecast for this coming year is a deficit that is larger than any deficit except for the COVID year of 3.1 percent—a deficit of 3.1 percent of GDP—which is one of the reasons why this Government has the increasing Government debt that I have referred to.Now by my calculation Minister these tax cuts here of about $2.5 billion per annum that are covered by this bill are the equivalent given that GDP is about $400 billion of 0.5 percent of GDP. So I want the Minister to either deny or accept that the fiscal effect of these tax cuts is to increase the deficit from 2.6 percent—which it would have been otherwise excluding the tax breaks for landlords which would have been in the vicinity of the 2.7 percent that the prior Opposition always criticised—and instead push it up to 3.1 percent according to page 156 of (B.3) the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. So of that 3.1 percent deficit which is an enormous deficit against the background of the deficits that we had to run post COVID in the context of the increased expenditure that flowed from both COVID and the inflationary pressures that followed all around the world and in New Zealand—how can it be responsible to bring forward tax cuts that in that context are going to increase Government debt?Isn't the real game here what we just heard from the speakers at the Child Poverty Action Group post-Budget breakfast—that I've just returned from—to increase the deficit to justify the austerity that you are going to visit upon this country in future Budgets as you drive the economy into dust driving up unemployment cutting public services and increasing Government debt?
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. Just in response to the questions around distributional impact from the Hon Megan Woods and also from the member in regards to the number of households that have been impacted potentially that will not benefit the regulatory impact statement does include a number around 8000. Subsequent to that our analysis indicates that number is probably less than 5000. The average impact on those households primarily is those that are part-year beneficiaries. So to be clear: no one on the benefit will receive less of their benefit as a result of what's happened. There's going to be no change in that. Where the implication occurs is where people are on part-year benefits and part-year working. There are 5000 in that group; about 0.3 percent of taxpayers. As I say $1 is the average impact going up to a maximum of $2. So you know while that is not zero it is small in regards to the consequences there.The other questions in regards to more broader distributional impact I have answered already last night.The implications around the tax cuts and the focusing on Arena Williams' question in regards to targeting—we are deliberately targeting the lower three thresholds to make sure that the impact hits low and middle income households; those of their households that are being significantly impacted by the impacts of inflation.In terms of the redistribution impacts quite clearly we are deliberately targeting that group because those are the ones who will be impacted.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam chair. First of all I would like to echo what our colleagues have just said that a lot of these would have been teased out during the select committee stage but alas here we are trying to tease out some of the details around the regulatory impact statement. I have two questions for the Minister of Revenue on this. The first question was a question from Ricardo Menéndez March which was left hanging at the end of last night around the 8000 households—is this part of the distribution analysis of options. In there it was stated that there are 8000 household who according to this would literally be in the red as part of this assessment. What the Minister didn't have the opportunity to respond to last night before the committee rose was a breakdown of who these 8000 households are and what support has been given for these who—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask the member—because we've just had a fairly extensive question around that and we're trying to stick to new material if possible. Thank you.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sure; of course. Thank you Madam Chair. So my second question follows on again from the question yesterday around seniors but this time I would like to kind of draw the attention around subclause 1 of clause 7 when it comes to the amendment this time around students and particularly for students who are on student allowance. Now we know that for students who are on student allowance they're also not getting anything out of this. So I would like to know from the Minister what sort of modelling and impact assessment has been done for students particularly those who are on student allowance. This is in relation to those who are currently—and particularly for us—constituents of Auckland Central and also of Wellington Central from Tamatha Paul's and Chlöe Swarbrick's electorates. I think in this case it will be really vital for the Minister to provide some clarification around the support that students will be seeing as a result of this tax balance. On top of that it would be good to know what other approaches the Minister will consider or the Cabinet has considered around the support for those on the lowest salary level and particularly in instable and infrequent salary—for example like what I just mentioned those who are not getting consistent salary and consistent wages throughout the year. So it would be really good to get some clarification from the Minister on this.
McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill — In Committee
12. Question No. 12—Economic DevelopmentGLEN BENNETT (Labour) to the Minister for Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 12—Economic Development12. GLEN BENNETT (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does she agree with her statement I think we need to get on with the job of delivering for New Zealand"; if so what actions has she taken to deliver for New Zealanders?Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes as delivering for New Zealand is what this Government was elected to do. This Government has an ambitious target to double the value of exports over the next decade continue to support major events increase foreign direct investment and improve the Government procurement system by reducing red tape and bureaucracy.Glen Bennett: Why did she allow the cancellation of Industry Transformation Plans given it was a tool to work alongside industry to accelerate the growth and success of New Zealand businesses?Hon MELISSA LEE: That was a coalition Government decision and it was cancelled.Glen Bennett: What does she say to the forestry and wood-processing sector after their plan was axed given their overwhelming support for the plan to create high-value jobs and low-carbon products here in New Zealand?Hon MELISSA LEE: There are many decisions that this Government makes and one of the things that we are actually trying to do is grow the economy and some of the decisions that that Government put through were actually a bad idea and we cancelled them.Glen Bennett: What does she say to members of the tech sector who contribute $13 billion to the New Zealand economy like NZTech who have publicly asked the Minister to—and I quote—"please retain the industry led Government supported framework to enable collaboration and alignment across this rapidly growing part of the economy."?Hon MELISSA LEE: The tech industry is very well supported by this Government and one of the great Ministers Judith Collins is actually very focused on that.Glen Bennett: How can industry sectors have faith in her performance and economic development plan if all they can find is cuts to investment into their industries?Hon MELISSA LEE: One of the things that we are very focused on as I said is doubling the value of exports over the next decade continuing to support major events that bring investment and tourism dollars to the regions increasing foreign direct investment and improving the Government procurement system by reducing red tape and bureaucracy. That will get New Zealand back on track. One of the things that I can tell that member is that I have been travelling up and down the country including to his electorate of New Plymouth—well actually he's a list member so it's not his electorate—last week to hear their concerns and find ways to support them to achieve their economic success."
11. Question No. 11—Building and ConstructionDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 11—Building and Construction11. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made in building and construction?Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Government is bringing forward a review of earthquake-prone buildings to provide greater certainty for Kiwis. While this review is under way all current remediation deadlines will be extended by four years. Of course some building owners who have already planned on making improvements will be in a position to continue this work motivated by considerations such as private insurance arrangements or the ability to tenant buildings. But we have heard in many cases across New Zealand that buildings were not going to be remediated within the original time frames anyway because of barriers such as crippling cost and heritage status.Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why are these changes needed?Hon CHRIS PENK: Our Government is focused on rebuilding the economy. The current earthquake-prone building system was put in place in 2017 in good faith and required buildings considered to be earthquake-prone to be remediated before set dates. Nearly 500 deadlines are set to expire over the next four years. Council and building owners across New Zealand have told me and other Government members that many buildings will not meet their deadlines due to the costs involved being much higher than originally contemplated and further complicated by heritage rules and other artificial constraints affecting residential housing.Dr Vanessa Weenink: What impact will these changes have?Hon CHRIS PENK: These changes from the review or at least the ones we contemplate will flow from the review we hope will provide considerable relief across New Zealand. The earthquake-prone building rules impact the entire country—not just Wellington—in small-town New Zealand and larger cities alike. Without change an increasing number of buildings could sit empty and derelict which would have a devastating effect on the economy across New Zealand—again in a multitude of different built environments.Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the next steps?Hon CHRIS PENK: Cabinet will soon agree to terms of reference for the review which will be informed by feedback from a wide range of affected New Zealanders. In addition a Building Act amendment bill will be introduced to give effect to the extension to remediation deadlines.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk. No papers have been delivered for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Billreport of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Standard Estimates Questionnaire 2024/25.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the report on the Standard Estimates Questionnaire is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Visitors — American Council of Young Political Leaders
Brownlee GerryVISITORSUnited States of America—American Council of Young Political LeadersSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to join me in welcoming visiting delegates from the American Council of Young Political Leaders on their exchange here in New Zealand. They are present in the gallery.
Resignations — Hon James Shaw
Brownlee GerryRESIGNATIONSHon James Shaw Green Party of Aotearoa New ZealandSPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Hon James Shaw resigning his seat in the House with effect at 11.59 p.m. on Sunday 5 May 2024.
Brownlee GerryWEDNESDAY 1 MAY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
O'Connor GregHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Unkovich Tanya; Webb DuncanTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you. Now there's just one small amendment that we would like to make and currently it is the definition of children". Now the definition as it states at the moment says "A reference"—it's clause 1.1.17—"a reference to "children" is a reference to children and young persons of any gender under the age of 18 years old and is otherwise to be interpreted in its broadest possible sense". We would like to make an amendment for the clause to be replaced and made simpler by saying "a reference to children is a reference to children and young persons under the age of 18 years old". Now we just felt that the phrase "and is otherwise to be interpreted in its broadest possible sense" could have possibly been a bit of a concern due to its vagueness; could lead to misinterpretation and some potential bias. Now New Zealand First as a party—we have always campaigned on and we continue to address and meet with groups who are concerned about gender ideology and how it is now affecting language and the gradual creep that now seems to be appearing in legislation. So that is why we are recommending this change. We will continue to be a voice for those who feel unheard particularly women who feel that their identity is being abandoned. Hence we are tabling this amendment. Thank you.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the member for her contribution. The trust deed has been carefully reviewed and I don't think there is any lack of clarity in the proposed deed in clause 1.1.17. It is really just making sure—just making sure that although you've got a Trust which is predominantly for the protection of women in need that any child can fall within that regardless of whatever gender they are. So I really don't think it is an issue and I would suggest to the Chamber that that amendment is not needed and I won't be supporting it."
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Tanya Unkovich's amendment to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 40 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 8New Zealand First 8.Noes 115New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 6.Amendment not agreed to.Preamble clauses 1 to 7 and the Schedule agreed to.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I will just if I may make a few introductory remarks for members' benefit. This bill is really a bill which tidies up the purposes of the McLean Institute trust deed. It's a deed that's over a century old. It made reference to destitute women of good character" and really was not fit for purpose in a modern sense.The main objective of this bill is to provide an updated trust deed but at the same time it does a couple of other things. The main other thing it does is make it clear that should the trust deed need amendment in the future it need not come back to this House but by an amendment in clause 6 it's made clear that it's the same as any other charitable trust and that the objects and purposes of the deed and so on could be amended by application to the High Court rather than this rather cumbersome and pretty resource-intensive process.I'm hopeful I won't be challenged too much and that it won't be a contentious bill but—Hon Member: You never know.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —I never know—I'm happy to answer any members' questions that there may be."
O'Connor Greg; Belich CamillaMCLEAN INSTITUTE (TRUST VARIATION) BILLIn CommitteePreamble clauses 1 to 7 and ScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. We come first to the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move that all parts be heard as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that all parts be heard as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that the preamble clauses 1 to 7 and the Schedule stand part.
Mooney Joseph; Webb DuncanJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. I don't rise to say too much to be frank because I think this is a matter that we're in agreement with. It is updating a will that was settled nearly 120 years ago. Maybe I'll just give the member an opportunity to elucidate for any of those watching in the Chamber just what the intention is in terms of expanding it from its original purposes to who it can support—those changes that this bill will allow.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm very happy to just respond to these questions as they arise. The original trust deed had two classes of women who were able to be supported: one in respect of the majority of the assets was women of good character and high social standing who had fallen on hard times and the other was destitute women—basically the lower classes. Clearly in the modern world that's not appropriate. The new deed in modern language simply says any woman who's in need of financial support can be supported by the trust fund.JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm just confirming that the charitable purpose has been expanded to assist any women in the Canterbury area who are in need of support regardless of social status formal education or other characteristics.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Yeah that's exactly right. The deed itself refers to the region and you're right: the region is the Canterbury region. The trustees are various dignitaries including I think the Bishop of the Anglican Cathedral.
Edmonds Barbara; Willis Nicola; Tuiono TeanauHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Yeah thanks Mr Chair. So going back to some earlier questions to the Minister of Finance in relation to the Treasury work that they are doing in relation to measurements of productivity—in particular in reference to the previous speaker David Seymour's comments Treasury did confirm under the annual review that they are going through a work stream in a project around the terms of units produced per worker. My question is to the Minister: how is this work progressing? How does she intend the units of measure per worker? What other measurements are there so that this Parliament can hold the Government to account in relation to those measurements? The Minister said an indicator is results against the better Public Service targets. There is no target in there around increased productivity. She also said one of the other measures was tax less or more—basically the measurement of the revenue that's going to be received. So again I'm just wanting to understand what the types of measurements are that she will be using in relation to the Treasury work which was covered under the annual review because they said they were doing a big stream of work in relation to this—in particular how are they going to measure New Zealand's productivity in terms of units produced per worker?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm glad to hear another question from the member Barbara Edmonds. For a bit there I thought she was going to follow her leader's lead and let Chlöe Swarbrick do all the talking—but a question none the less. So the question is about productivity and I am pleased to inform the member that the Treasury will actually very shortly be publishing a working paper on productivity and its analysis of what's been going so badly wrong with productivity in the New Zealand economy in recent years.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members the committee is suspended for dinner and will return at 7.30.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Edmonds Barbara; Willis NicolaHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Given the Minister has failed to address my question about what are the quantitative evidence measures she's going to use I will quote from the Treasury economist Dominick Stephens. So New Zealand's been as identified by international organisations a top performer on flexibility business strategies GDP per capita has lagged yet outcomes have actually are among the top as well."So my question—and I go back to the Minister—what measures will she be using given she has changed her objectives under the Budget Policy Statement recently? What measures will she be using? What are the statistics she will be using to provide such evidence?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well I will happily direct the member to the Budget Policy Statement which on page 1 sets out our Government's overarching goals for its term of office being to "Build a stronger more productive economy that lifts real incomes and increases opportunities for New Zealanders."; "[Delivering] more efficient effective and responsive public services to all who need and use them—in particular to restore law and order and improve health outcomes and educational achievement."; to "Get the Government's books back in order and restore discipline to public spending." Those objectives will guide our Government's Budget decisions." And we view that they are therefore "the Government's wellbeing objectives [because] meeting those objectives is the most important contribution [we] can make to the long-term social economic environmental and cultural wellbeing of New Zealanders."So what will we be measuring? Well we will be measuring the results against the better Public Service targets which our Prime Minister has set; we will be measuring to see whether New Zealanders are being taxed less or more on their personal incomes; we will be measuring whether we can set out a path to return to surplus; we will be measuring whether we deliver meaningful tax reductions; whether we identify enduring savings across Government departments and agencies; whether we are improving public services by shifting spending to higher-value areas and focusing on results; and whether we are being careful to deliver a long-term sustainable pipeline of infrastructure investments.It's all set out in the Budget Policy Statement; it's all very real tangible stuff. I'm sorry if the member couldn't quite relate to it because it didn't have as much verbiage as normal but we're focused on things that New Zealanders can experience in their bank accounts see in their homes and experience in their communities."
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I thank the chairperson Stuart Smith for his chairing of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and his report. I also thank the member for her first question which I think is incredibly symbolic because Governments have a choice about how they measure and how they record their contribution to people's living standards and wellbeing. The previous Government made an art of very lengthy quite glossy descriptive documents with huge amounts of words and verbiage about what they intended to do and the sum of the grand intentions and how that would sum to wonderful outcomes for New Zealanders. But then at the same time as having these wonderfully lengthy descriptive documents—which killed a lot of trees and took a lot of policy analysts a lot of hours—they oversaw a period of some of the highest inflation we have seen in a generation which delivered in substantive terms a cost of living crisis which saw New Zealanders' real purchasing power eroded thereby grossly undermining their wellbeing. At the same time they oversaw a significant increase in real tax levels by allowing fiscal drag and bracket creep to push New Zealanders to higher tax brackets so that they were in literal terms paying a high proportion of their wages in tax and at the same time oversaw the magnificent contribution of increasing Government spending by 80 percent. Yet I am still to find a New Zealander who can point for me to an area of public life that they thought got 80 percent better. Because it certainly wasn't waiting lists for operations it certainly wasn't educational achievement and it certainly wasn't an 80 percent reduction in crime. And all of this—Hon David Seymour: What about consulting to Government departments?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well perhaps there may have been in several agencies an 80 percent increase in the number of public servants certainly not on the front line. All of this leads me to this conclusion which is: you can stamp your Budget with the word wellbeing" as nicely as you like and you can write as many pages of verbiage about wellbeing as you like but if you don't deliver low stable inflation fair tax and effective spending then none of that is worth the paper that it is written on. I am proud to be part of a Government and to be a Minister of Finance who is going to cut that crap and focus on results and isn't going to focus on pages and pages of reports about wellbeing because frankly it was just talk. We're going to walk the walk."
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to echo the sentiments of the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee the Hon Stuart Smith and thank the Treasury and the Minister for her time in presenting to the committee. One of the things that we talked about or we asked Treasury questions about was their performance over the year. They had said that they had met a number of key achievements including the provision of high-quality advice on tax settings macro-economic and regulatory frameworks. They were also very proud to talk about Te Tai Waiora their first wellbeing report which presented robust quantitative evidence and analysis on the state of wellbeing in New Zealand across a range of dimensions. So my question to the Minister is: given that the Budget Policy Statement's wellbeing objectives have changed will that—Te Tai Waiora; what is her plan for ensuring that there is robust quantitative evidence; what are the measures she will be using to compare to a previous measure of wellbeing; and what type of statistics will she be looking for to ensure the robustness of that evidence?
Fleming GregGREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.][Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana. Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise this evening as the Labour spokesperson for oceans and fisheries to take a call on this Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. This is a change that has been a long time coming. Initially it was started in early 2015 and I know that it has been more than one Minister that has been responsible for the passage of this bill up to the stage in the House this evening—I want to acknowledge the Hon Rachel Brooking who is a former Minister who had that particular distinction as well.Since that time of around 2015 Māori involvement in aquaculture resources has been somewhat limited and constrained in some parts of the country. So this bill in essence is a significant improvement around that at a time where access to resources—in particular aquaculture and fisheries resources via the fisheries settlement—could be seen as in some respects a little bit curtailed.I do want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee of the previous Parliament for the work that they have done in bringing this bill back to this House. It's a bill I think that is in a position where it can be reported back with some agreement and there's obviously been extensive involvement by iwi as part of this particular process.When this bill was last before the House it was disappointing to hear that the Minister was considering some changes. I think it will come as no surprise to the House that it's likely that those changes will relate to clauses 37 and 25. But he none the less did give an undertaking to engage with stakeholders as part of that. So I'm sure that members on this side of the House will be interested to see how that progresses when we move through committee stage so there is some solace in that.This is a good piece of legislation as reported back from the Māori Affairs Committee and I commend it to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill this evening. Labour supports this bill the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill because it ensures iwi have a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their fisheries assets improving benefits for all Māori reducing costs and improving efficiency. And I acknowledge the previous speaker our chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in this term Dan Bidois because speaking about rangatiratanga the importance of governance for Māori and iwi to play in the future of Aotearoa New Zealand is very important. Co-governance of course is one way we can achieve that. There is not one particular way and so it's good to hear the National Party open to those sorts of opportunities in the future governance arrangements of this country.It wasn't so long ago that this was before the Māori Affairs Committee—one year if I look back rightly. It was debated at that particular time. I know there were some amendments that were proposed at that particular period enabling representative Māori organisations to vote to appoint and remove Te Ohu Kaimoana directors clarifying levy-making powers and clarifying who can hold shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Limited. But this is a good piece of legislation and anything that improves the lives of Māori as greater contributors to our country to our economy and fisheries is an important part of that. But ultimately the recognition of rangatiratanga for Māori within this country is a good thing so I commend this bill to the House.
Abel SteveMĀORI FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 28 March.STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. Thank you Madam Speaker. The Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill second reading—we the Green Party support this amendment bill. We support the iwi need to lead determination of governance arrangements and have mana whakahaere as the rangatiratanga guaranteed through the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 now 32 years old.This bill has been through a lot of debate and a lot of discussion many hui dialogues including with iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana and we feel that if there is any delay on the part of the Minister then that should be a very brief delay because let's remember it has taken a long time to get to this point. We're happy to support the bill on the grounds that it does build on the settlement Act. It principally does so by amending the Act to improve the governance arrangements; change the entity's governance arrangements to make them consistent with standard corporate governance practice; and it empowers rangatiratanga encourages mandated iwi organisations to take more direct control of Te Ohu Kai Moana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd by removing intermediary decision-making bodies and finally to redistribute the shares of Te Ohu Kai Moana in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd which of course owns 50 percent of the shares in Sealord. This will simplify the process for trading settlement quota assets within the pool of fisheries settlement and commercial entities.I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. We need to remember in the fisheries space the voice of iwi is vital. One of the important things we acknowledged in the impact of loss of fisheries is the loss of a vital basis for the economy and the Māori economy and so the settlement which ensured that it recognised the importance of fisheries to Māori. We absolutely support that principle. And any means by which we can improve the governance and the expression of rangatiratanga is a thing that we support and so we commend this bill to the House.
Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Butterick Mike; Kuriger BarbaraMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Speaker and I promise I won't mention the Brynderwyns once in this call. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's once. MIKE BUTTERICK: This bill is quite simply about fairness and equity. It supports a system where irrespective of the type of vehicle you drive you should be contributing to the maintenance and improvements on our roads just as every other vehicle is required to do so. This is simply about road-user charges (RUC) and if I use the Oxford Dictionary meaning for each of these words I might simplify it for those on the other side of the House that are feeling confused or aggrieved or feel that they shouldn't have to contribute for whatever reason they might believe exempts them.A road" is "a wide way leading from one place to another especially one with a specially prepared surface which vehicles can use." and while it might be argued that some of our roads might not be that wide I think that's a pretty fair definition. Tom Rutherford: What's "user" mean?MIKE BUTTERICK: Next is "user"—thank you. It's "A person who uses or operates something"—pretty self-explanatory—and "charges" is a price asked for goods or services. So in simple terms this bill is about ensuring those who use our roads help to pay for them regardless of what their vehicle model make or type is. It doesn't matter if your car is red—I prefer blue ones myself—or if it goes faster or it's a people-mover used by parents to taxi their children from place to place or it's a commercial van or truck delivering our much-needed goods and services that earn our export income. Everyone using the road should contribute to the maintenance and upkeep and not be that person who's happy to use something without paying at the expense of someone else.There's a myriad of reasons why people don't own electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. Maybe they just simply can't afford them or they can't afford to upgrade or replace their vehicle. Maybe they're not able to source a vehicle to do the job required of it especially in a commercial sense such as those tradies and farmers who need utes to do their job—and who by the way are now not forced to pay thousands of dollars extra because we got rid of the ute tax. Maybe it's because they live somewhere that prevents them from being able to plug in—the last time I looked there weren't any chargers at the bottom of a tree or in the middle of nowhere let alone on our country roads—or perhaps there's no parking on the property or their power source isn't able to go. This Government sent a very clear signal that we have a priority to build and maintain our roading network and that we will reverse the blanket approach to speed limits and make sure there's a common-sense approach to how we get things done. There's plenty of common sense on this side of the House. I commend this bill to the House and would finish with three final words: up the RUC."
Brownlee GerryURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDBudget Policy StatementSPEAKER: Members I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Megan Woods seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Budget Policy Statement. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. However the Standing Orders provide a mechanism for debating the Budget Policy Statement after it has been examined by the Finance and Expenditure Committee—Standing Order 340. In light of that fact the Budget Policy Statement is now before a select committee and it will be debated in due course. It is therefore not appropriate to hold an urgent debate today. The application is therefore declined.
Urgent Debates Declined — Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty 1982—New Zealand Deployment to Monitor
Brownlee GerryURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDEgypt-Israel Peace Treaty 1982—New Zealand Deployment to MonitorSPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Marama Davidson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the role of the New Zealand deployment to monitor the 1982 Egypt—Israel Peace Treaty. Not every ministerial announcement will give sufficient grounds for an urgent debate. I do not think that the two-year extension on such a long-term commitment warrants setting aside the business of the House today. The application is declined.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Steven Price requesting that the House impose mandatory cumulative sentencing for the killing of more than one person.petition of Bex Howells requesting that the House urge the Government to pay a stipend to people while they train in healthcare education and social work professions.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Archive New Zealand Report on the State of Government Recordkeeping 2022-23Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement May 2024SPEAKER: I've received the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Strengthening government procurement: Lessons from our recent work. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Economic Development Science and Innovation onthe committee's scrutiny plan for the 54th Parliamentthe Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill andthe report of the Controller and Auditor-General Inquiry into Callaghan Innovation's procurement processreport of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Billreport of the Environment Committee on its scrutiny plan for the 54th Parliamentreports of the Governance and Administration Committee onthe briefing on the work of the Office of the Auditor-Generalits scrutiny plan for the 54th Parliamentthe report of the Controller and Auditor-General Auckland Council: Preparedness for responding to an emergency and the report of the Controller and Auditor-General Insights into local government: 2021report of the Health Committee on its scrutiny plan for the 54th Parliamentreports of the Justice Committee onthe Corrections Amendment Bill andthe committee's scrutiny plan for the 54th Parliamentreport of the Māori Affairs Committee on its scrutiny plan for the 54th Parliamentreports of the Primary Production Committee onits scrutiny plan for the 54th Parliament andits review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of Outdoor Access Commissionreport of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on its scrutiny plan for the 54th Parliament.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The scrutiny plans the briefings and the report of the Controller and Auditor-General are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaTUESDAY 28 MAY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Tatou ifo ma tatalo. Le Atua Silisili ese e matou te sulaina lau Afio mo fa'amanuiaga ma tofi ua e fa'au'uina ai i matou. E lafoa'i ni o matou lagona ma manatua ta'ito'atasi i le amana'iaina o le Masiofo o Peretania. Matou te tatalo ina ia tonu ma fa'amaoni fuafuaga ma fa'ai'uga uma i totonu o lenei Maota Fono. Ia talosia ta'ita'i o lenei Mālō ina ia maua le tōfā mamao le fa'apalepale ma le agamalū auā le manuia ma le filemū o Niu Sila. O le matou tatalo lea e ala atu i le suafa pele o Iesu Keriso Amene.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions—there are none? CLERK: There's one.SPEAKER: One? OK.CLERK: Petition of Lance Priestley requesting that the House regulate how much profit Woolworths and Foodstuffs and the supermarkets they operate can earn in a financial year.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Papers—none today. Select committee reports? CLERK: Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:Reserve Bank of New Zealand Financial Stability Report November 2023Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement February 2024report of the Health Committee on the Ministry of Health Long-term Insights Briefing 2023reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on thepetition of Hope Cottonpetition of Juliana Carvalho.SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for second reading. Other matters for consideration—introduction of bills.CLERK: Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill introductionConsumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for next sitting day.
Bishop ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 30 April. In that week the House will consider the first reading of Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill the second reading of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill and will begin the 10-hour annual review debate. On Tuesday there will be a 60-minute debate for the House to acknowledge the passing of Efeso Collins.
Kuriger BarbaraTHURSDAY 11 APRIL 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.PRAYERS/KARAKIABARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Visitors — Samoa—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
Brownlee GerryVISITORSSamoa—Speaker of the Legislative AssemblySPEAKER: I'm sure members would wish to welcome the Hon Papāli'i Li'o Oloipola Ta'eu Masipa'u Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Samoa who is on my left and his delegation who are present in the gallery.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 9 APRIL 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.