edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): First can I just thank the members for their contributions this evening. All of the members who contributed and others who did not worked collaboratively and really quite well during the Health Committee stage to ensure that this bill presents as it does this evening. So I want to acknowledge that if I can. There were a couple of things mentioned by Mr Woodhouse with regard to this bill and I think they are worth just touching on very briefly in my contribution. He is right; this isn't an overly controversial bill. It is a good bill that came through a strong process. He talked about the fear or the need to not overprescribe a particular pathway forward for the organisation and I want to touch on that because I think that's an important part to allow this organisation the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service to carve its path to strategise as it moves forward. We know that joining the two services—it was a good fit in that it helps with efficiencies and economies in terms of the administration of both services. And I want to touch on another thing too. While I know a lot of the focus in the bill is on the need to increase organ donation—in fact donations right across the board as blood plasma and individuals joining the bone marrow register are needed as well—I hope and I'm optimistic that the relationship that I've had to date with both services will allow us to have a good strategy moving forward; one that is better aligned with the increasing deceased organ donation national strategy 2017 a strategy that came out that actually initiated quite a significant part of this bill. I'm really excited in particular as a Māori and for our Pacific Island peoples as to what the opportunities are in this space for organ donation and for blood and plasma donation. We know that those communities are high users in this space but low donors. And one of the challenges—touching on the point raised by Mr Woodhouse about being over-prescriptive in this process or at least in the pathway forward I'm really looking for some innovation in how we are able to increase those numbers how we're able to encourage more people—in particular Māori and Pacific peoples—to consider themselves for this great cause a cause greater than themselves.I don't wish to delay the progress of this bill too much longer but once again I endorse my thanks to the committee also to those who currently donate also to those who have donated in the past and a big thank you to those who will hopefully through this legislation and the pathway forward for this service consider donation into the future. This is a good bill and I'm really proud in my short time as a Minister to be the lucky recipient of such a solid bill to help progress it through the House. I look forward to it passing through seamlessly and then getting on with the work with the new service. Kia ora tātou.
Henare Peeni; Dyson RuthORGAN DONORS AND RELATED MATTERS BILLIn CommitteeHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Shaw JamesParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Yeah thank you Mr Chair. I thought I'd just start off the committee of the whole House process by thanking members for their support through the entire process to this point. The end is within sight and I think the stage that we're about to enter into is extremely important because we get to really address some of the I guess unaddressed concerns that have been raised during the passage of the bill into and through the House.Just very briefly Part 1 of the bill inserts the main content of the bill which is related to the Climate Change Commission and emissions reductions and adaptation. The purpose of the bill is to provide a framework by which New Zealand can develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies that contribute to the global effort under the Paris Agreement to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels to allow New Zealand to prepare for and adapt to the effects of climate change. The intent of the bill is to help to keep our planet safe for future generations.To achieve this purpose the bill includes four key elements. First of all a Climate Change Commission will be established to provide independent advice and to monitor progress. Second of all a target for 2050 set in the legislation which gives certainty about how much New Zealand's emissions must reduce by. Third a system of emissions budgets and emissions reductions plans to act as stepping stones to the target and to provide a framework for planning. And fourth adaptation measures to assess and address the risks from a changing climate.
Shaw James; Rurawhe AdrianCLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE (ZERO CARBON) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I seek leave for all parts to be tabled as one debate with the questions taken separately.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Motions — Guru Nanak Dev Ji 550th Birthday Anniversary—Leave Not Put
Brownlee Gerry; Mallard TrevorPoint of Order—Answers to Primary QuestionsHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you have an ongoing quest to try and make question time better. When we ask questions from the Opposition particularly on notice there are constraints around what may be put in that question. I just ask that you have a look at particularly today several questions that were answered by Ministers that were highly inflammatory in much of the content of those answers including the last one quite frankly and Julie Anne Genter's one earlier in the afternoon. I think it's reasonable that once we get into a supplementary question and answer there might be a greater traversing into those sorts of general political flicks but surely not in a response to a question that is on notice. I just ask that you have a look at that—SPEAKER: I will have a look at that although I will warn the member that you know he can't totally take the politics out of Parliament. Especially I think we need to take a little bit of care when we have sometimes some pretty political supplementaries. I think when that occurs then there's likely to be a political response. But I do agree with the member that those political responses to straight primary questions are not desirable and I will watch out for that.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghWEDNESDAY 6 NOVEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSGuru Nanak Dev Ji 550th Birthday Anniversary—Leave Not PutKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and debate to congratulate the Sikh community on the 550th birthday anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji.SPEAKER: Sorry can I just check that that has the normal whips' approval—that it's been around the House for agreement?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: No.SPEAKER: Has it been asked for and rejected?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes.SPEAKER: I mean I want to be very careful here because it's clearly a cultural issue for the member concerned but we have well-established processes in this House after a series of disorderly approaches of this type in the past. I can't remember if it was in the time of my predecessor or the predecessor before that: the House came to an agreement that members who wished to seek to debate notices of motion would before they sought approval consult with the whips of other parties in order for it not to be put in a position like this.Now that is a convention of the House. It is not a Standing Order but it is a convention that is very important to in my opinion stop the level of disorder which can disrupt the House. Some members will remember on one occasion dozens of members sought to have such a point of order. Now having said that I am going to put it to the House because I believe it is the right in the end for any member to seek leave even to breach a convention.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Mr Speaker if that's the case I'm happy to withdraw it.SPEAKER: OK.
Tuesday 5 November 2019 - Volume 742
Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill — Instruction to Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Motion agreed to.
Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 April 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee have authority to consider and if it thinks fit adopt amendments to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 relating to agriculture emissions pricing despite Standing Order 292.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
11. Question No. 11—Building and ConstructionPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 11—Building and Construction11. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has she seen about changing trends in New Zealand housing?Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Last week Stats New Zealand released its monthly building consents information showing a 45-year high for building consents for new dwellings and a 22 percent increase in the number of consents for high-density housing. This includes apartments town houses flats and retirement village units. This is excellent news and it shows the Government is delivering the right environment for Kiwis to build more homes and to build up. Paul Eagle: How does this level of building consents compare to previous years? Hon JENNY SALESA: The demand for high-density housing has contributed to this 45-year high for the total number of new homes consented. The figure of 36446 new dwelling consents is up 12 percent from the previous year showing real progress on delivering the homes we need. Each one of these consents represents a young couple or individual moving into their first home or apartment a family getting off the waiting list or an older person downsizing into something more affordable in their community. Paul Eagle: How's the Government delivering the right environment for the industry to build more and to build up? Hon JENNY SALESA: We're tackling the longstanding issues that are challenging the building and construction sector which include some of the following: amending the Building Act to allow more innovative and efficient building amending the eight sections in the building code—the HD eight—to improve support for high-density housing getting thousands more young people into the construction sector through apprenticeships and ensuring a pipeline of work which provides more certainty in the building and construction sector.
10. Question No. 10—Energy and ResourcesJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 10—Energy and Resources10. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Is the Government investigating geothermal resources for electricity generation on the West Coast of the South Island?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Investment in any particular electricity generation site is the purview of private electricity generation developers. However I do note the Government is supporting research in science into geothermal resources across the country through a range of funding mechanisms—including for example through the Endeavour Fund and GNS Science's $10 million programme on geothermal research. Alongside this investment we've also allocated $20 million into an advanced energy technology platform and $27 million into the National New Energy Development Centre based in New Plymouth. Both these investments have the potential to explore opportunities associated with New Zealand's geothermal potential. And of course any commercial business exploring geothermal resources can claim any R & D component through the 15 percent research and development tax incentive.Jonathan Young: So if there are proven fields on the West Coast of the South Island what confidence can New Zealanders and West Coasters have that a geothermal power station would be approved when a small hydro scheme on the West Coast was recently declined?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member will have to be more specific as to what he means by approved". Is it a question about a resource consent? If it is I suggest he put the question to the Minister for the Environment.Jonathan Young: Does she accept the argument that wind turbines or geothermal power stations have a greater visual and environmental impact than the recently declined Waitaha hydro scheme? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I would have to see some more detail of what the member is asking but I think what we do see is that across New Zealand we have a range of investment—in fact over $650 million worth of investment this year—that has gone into renewable energy projects. They are across a range of different sources geothermal and wind and I welcome them all. Jonathan Young: Well what does the Minister say to the West Coast community who want to develop electricity generation in their region in order to reduce what are some of the highest electricity prices in the country? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Any community can put together a community electricity generation plan and go through relevant consenting processes."
6. Question No. 6—HealthANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—Health6. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in improving access to new cancer medicines?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Good news. Cancer in New Zealand is our leading cause of death and improving our cancer care and control is an ongoing challenge. Yesterday Pharmac announced its decision to fund a new leukaemia treatment Venetoclax and just last month Pharmac confirmed that Alectinib will be funded for ALK positive advanced non - small-cell lung cancer and Kadcyla for HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer. That means three new cancer drugs have been funded this year alone and Pharmac is expected to make decisions on another two cancer medicines in coming weeks.Angie Warren-Clark: What are the benefits of Venetoclax?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Venetoclax is used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukaemia which is the most common form of leukaemia in New Zealand. I'm advised that it's proven to give people more time without their leukaemia getting worse—what is referred to as progression-free survival. It also has improved overall survival rates compared with currently funded treatments. This medicine will make a real difference to the quality of life of around 150 New Zealanders and their families in the next year and around 230 the following year.Angie Warren-Clark: How does improving access to cancer medicines fit into the Government's wider plan for cancer care and control?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Medicines are critical but they're not the only part of cancer care and control. Our Cancer Action Plan is comprehensive covering everything from prevention and screening to radiation treatment surgery medical oncology and palliative care. We want to ensure New Zealanders living with cancer have access to high-quality care no matter who they are or where they live. It is why we funded 12 new linear accelerators and are putting them for the first time into Hawke's Bay Taranaki and Northland and we're also making progress on strong central leadership through the interim Cancer Control Agency board who met for the first time late last month. Modernising our approach to cancer care and control will take time but we are making progress.
3. Question No. 3—Regional Economic DevelopmentMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 3—Regional Economic Development3. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements have been made?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Dunedin is now coming out of the cold. After an awful episode of rejection neglect it fell to me and my colleagues to make an announcement of $19.9 million towards Dunedin's waterfront development project and in addition to that a sum of $20 million dedicated to create a more vigorous hub for KiwiRail and to restore the fortunes of those people that unfortunately were sold out over the past nine years.Mark Patterson: What other projects received support?Hon SHANE JONES: I stand to announce and to remind the House that a sum of $10 million has been allocated to establish the Centre of Digital Excellence. On the question of excellence not only does Dunedin already have endowments of intellectual pursuits engineering traditions; this opens new vistas for the gaming industry and in addition to that a sum of $8 million in support for Scott Technology leading the way to improve the ability of technology to lessen the reliance in many of our agribusiness sectors on labour.Mark Patterson: What has been the response to these investments?Hon SHANE JONES: The university in the form of the deputy vice-chancellor and professor—a highly respected academic someone I have met—said over the period of time that the university welcomed the exciting opportunity for the Centre of Digital Excellence. Scott Technology managing director—a highly successful business leader in charge of an entity that earns nigh on quarter of a billion dollars the majority of it from export dollars; clear evidence that these two significant entities back not only the policy but the travails of the champion.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?SPEAKER: I just remind people of the rules while supplementary questions are being asked so that they will understand what's about to happen. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): More good news: Friday's ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence report showed consumer confidence rose four points in October to 118 with confidence rising in every region of the country. Consumer confidence in both current and future conditions lifted by two and six points respectively. [Interruption] There was particularly good news Mr McClay in consumers' perceptions of their current financial situation which rose to its highest level since 2007. I'm pleased to see New Zealand consumers are feeling more upbeat on the back of lower unemployment more jobs and higher wages under this Government. Kiwis are now finally starting to see a fair share of economic growth in this country.Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on businesses' confidence in the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Auckland chamber of commerce released its business confidence survey on Friday showing business confidence in the top half of the North Island has bounced back significantly" from the last quarter up 24 points. The biggest concerns identified by those businesses were global uncertainty compliance costs and the ability to find skilled staff. It's great to see businesses are joining consumers in feeling more upbeat about the economic outlook. If only members opposite could do the same.Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on employment in the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen a range of reports from bank economists previewing September quarter labour market statistics due to be released tomorrow. While bank economists' expectations vary the consensus is for a small uptick in the unemployment rate remaining around its maximum sustainable level. BNZ economists said "Even if the unemployment rate edges up to 4.1 percent from 3.9 percent it would still be a strong reading suggesting conditions underfoot remain relatively tight. We think this and recent tightness will keep upward pressure on wage inflation." We are committed to targeting unemployment of 4 percent in this term bearing in mind that we inherited unemployment of 4.7 percent from the so-called rock stars opposite."
Macindoe Tim; Dyson RuthHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. I was a little hesitant because I was hoping that either the Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta or a Government member would stand to seek the call. This is an important measure but perhaps the fact that I don't think I'm going to get a full call could have influenced their decision at this point.I want pick up where my very fine colleague the honourable member for Helensville has left off and commend him for the work that he is doing as National's spokesperson for courts. He has been leading the charge for our side on this particular measure. And as with everything he's touched in his two years here he has shown himself to be thoroughly professional and thorough in his treatment of the issues—and occasionally a little bit pedantic in his use of the language but that's OK.As the member for Helensville has noted National is opposing this bill. But we are a responsible Opposition and we take seriously the onus that rests with us to work to improve the bill. And that is why we have come forward with some amendments. But I just want to pick up on the fact that we are opposing the bill for some key reasons and I think it is worthwhile just to restate them.Our main concern is that this is a very expensive measure that we think is set to open the floodgates to anyone who believes that they may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. Now it is important that miscarriages of justice are dealt with but we have an appeals procedure through several courts. And it seems to us that this is setting a very low threshold and is an additional measure that is going to be expensive time consuming and which in many respects will have the effect of if not re-victimising those who are victims of crimes certainly adding to the trauma of some.Now I would have hoped that the Government by now would have spoken to their own amendments because the Minister of Justice has tabled Supplementary Order Paper 398 and it's just in the minute or so remaining—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm very sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Mahuta NanaiaCRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION BILLIn CommitteeHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I seek leave for this debate to be taken as one part.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): As one question.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill in its second reading. As the final speaker this evening I'll take a brief call just to sort of sum up what we've heard. The arguments have been fairly well traversed. The reason why we needed this bill is because we had nine long years of parking neglect by the previous Government—nine long years of parking neglect. We heard over the past nine years many many people calling for regulation but the previous Government didn't have the courage to do it. But that's OK because we are a Government who are taking action. This is just one example of us taking action on this issue here which is effectively—as we've heard from previous speakers—putting a maximum penalty on wheel clamping of $100. I'd like to acknowledge our select committee chair Darroch Ball. I'm a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I only—Hon Member: Very well chaired. JAMIE STRANGE: —very well chaired—recently came on to the committee so I didn't have the privilege of hearing the submissions orally but I have read the submissions. The submissions were generally of a mind that we needed this. There was a bit of conjecture around price. Some wanted it dropped to $50; others wanted it a little bit higher. But the aspect of settling on the $100 is an example of balanced and fair legislation taking all of the submissions into account taking all of the issues into account and settling on a point there which as we heard from Darroch Ball is in line with overseas jurisdictions—particularly the UK and Australia—and other aspects. So look I'm not going to take much more time but I do acknowledge that the aspect of wheel clamping is something that people out there in the public are very engaged in. It is an important issue. It's important that it's something that is not trivialised because it can affect any of us at any time. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. Bill read a second time.
Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I rise to take a brief call on the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. Firstly I'd just like to acknowledge Minister Kris Faafoi who's putting this through. It's a very good bill. The previous National Government in 2012 had a code of conduct for this. I also want to acknowledge previous speakers especially the hard-working MP for Waikato Tim van de Molen who's part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. He raised a very good point a very technical point around capping the maximum amount they should be allowed to charge. Basically what this means to anyone out there in New Zealand watching this debate is that you've got some interesting individuals and companies that charge huge amounts. There's a huge power imbalance for clamping vehicles. What they do is they often come in and charge $400 or $500 for a fee that should be only $10 or $20. This bill here makes it a maximum of $100 which I think's a very good piece of work. Secondly the other power imbalance you've got if you're there to pick up your car and someone's charging you $300 $400 or $500 to collect it is it's not exactly fair. You basically have to pay them off then and there to get a resolution—to get your car back. Some of these predatory behaviours are worse than say some of the convicts that were sent to Australia in the late 1700s or early 1800s. So it's great to see for the consumers out there that this is finally getting tidied up. I commend the bill.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I'm pleased to speak in support of this bill at its second reading. I want to acknowledge the Hon Kris Faafoi the Minister who has brought this bill through to the House and I want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. As we've heard from contributions from members they have given very good consideration to this bill and certainly the improvements that have been reflected in the amendments make this bill ready to be enacted. We know that a key piece of this legislation will actually be the regulations which will expand on more of the detail which will be necessary—particularly when clarifying grey areas as to what is a reasonable time for which an operator must respond to actually remove a clamp—and those other more technical areas which the committee considered but ultimately thought were left better by putting into regulations which could be modified. I'm just going to take a brief contribution but I am interested in the impact that this legislation will have on wheel-clamp operators. Clearly we want to as a House curtail the predatory behaviour that they exhibit but it will be interesting to see the impact that this will have on their business model as operators and also whether it might be a boon for the tow industry—who knows? That's why mention has been made about perhaps consistency across parking enforcement to the level of penalties that are applied. As a whole this is a very welcome piece of legislation. There is a void in this area. It's not adequately serviced by either common law or just in practice. There is a need for Parliament to actually put in place some sensible legislation around private parking law enforcement. I think in particular the work that the committee has done has put a very good bill in place. We want to ensure that operators are not preying on people that use private parks but we also need to balance that again with the rights of the private business owners. I think ultimately the key to this is to ensure that the vehicles that may be there illegally or clamped are removed because ultimately you want parks to be used and for the actual premises which those parks service to be able to get use of those parks. So I'm sure this piece of legislation will achieve that by achieving a good balance between the rights of the operators and also the rights of those who are impacted by clamping activities to ensure that they have a reasonable fee and can also swiftly have those clamps removed. If not then the police can intervene and provide appropriate penalties to those operators. Thank you ma'am.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill in the second reading here tonight. The bill of course amends the Land Transport Act 1998 to regulate the maximum fees charged by wheel-clamp operators. As outlined earlier the Transport and Infrastructure Committee received and considered 25 submissions and they heard in person from seven submitters. It is a shame that it wasn't a big number. I am personally a little surprised that those in the industry didn't show up en masse considering this could very likely affect let's just say the livelihood that they've become accustomed to. But this is addressing the fact that many have considered that what they're accustomed to is too much and we have rightly gone through a process of hearing from the public on what is an acceptable level of a maximum fee that can be charged before you're then in breach and it becomes an offence. I've had a quick few discussions with a couple of our caucus members who may or may not—I can neither confirm nor deny—have fallen victim to the clamping cowboys. Simeon Brown: Shocking. DENISE LEE: A very shocking turn of events. Yes I can neither confirm nor deny. I too want to pick up on the signage issue. The reason I want to do that is that in my prior life I was an Auckland City councillor and I know from alcohol-related regulations and even from fisheries and so on that signage becomes very important for a number of issues. One is that I think you need to communicate very clearly when there are parameters and when there's a framework that you must adhere to but also it serves as a deterrent. So if you're planning on something or even not planning on something seeing something visible can often be a very good deterrent. So it is a shame that the select committee process has unearthed the out-of-scope nature of addressing signage in this bill. They have agreed that future legislation could address this and I really think that Parliament should look into that and address the signage issue once and do it right. We support this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker. We look forward to its further passage in the House.
van de Molen Tim; Dyson RuthTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. Now when this bill was going through select committee it seemed at face value to be a pretty straightforward piece of legislation. Putting a cap on wheel clamping—how complex could that be? Well was I mistaken—goodness! The complexity that arose as we worked through this was quite impressive actually and we've heard already some of that touched on by other contributors this evening. But one for me that stood out was around the cap and we've heard around whether that was an appropriate limit or not—whether $100 was too high or too low depending on who was submitting. But actually what it also raised was then the potential issue from the wheel-clamper's perspective which is If $100 was the cap then perhaps we can't operate a successful business at that level." So therefore maybe the owners of those car parks would have to look at other enforcement options and of course the two other options available to them are either breach notices or towing and potentially that could result in a higher cost to the consumer than the $100 cap would be. So that was raised but actually we'd also talked around potentially having caps on those other enforcement options too. That was deemed to be outside the scope of this particular piece of legislation so I would suggest that perhaps the Minister might want to consider that in future around whether it is appropriate to therefore bring in a cap on what the maximum amount charged for towing can be and also for a breach notice if either of those alternative options for enforcement was being used other than the clamping option. So that's one aspect that we could see a bit more work on. Now we had also seen a lot of commentary from submitters around the signage. Just picking up on what Gareth Hughes the previous member said in that regard again it was an area that was not necessarily considered not relevant but more so considered to be outside the scope of the bill. So again that would be an area that I would suggest get tidied up a bit in the future because a number of people rightly or wrongly would claim in their defence for being parked in an inappropriate place that they didn't see the signage—there was no sign it was too small it was obscured by trees or foliage or whatever the excuse may be. So having some clear rules or regulations around what the signage should be seemed appropriate but unfortunately that was considered to be outside the scope of this. So that's one area that I think would be important to get tidied up as well. On the face of it though we do need to see a cap and we've reached the point where $100 seems appropriate. I suspect that perhaps that might need to be reviewed in time and perhaps it's too low. We do want to ensure businesses can still operate from a clamping perspective and at the end of the day the consumer who is parked there has parked there unlawfully so there is some liability around that. But at this stage we are supporting the bill and I look forward to seeing it progress. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): This is a split call."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well it's not the select committee that I sat on and this piece of legislation while it might not seem too weighty does have an impact on many people. I particularly know of the mobility parks around which are on private property predominantly which are often abused. People want to park right out in front of wherever they want to go shopping and that's where the mobility parks are and it must be quite galling if you are a person who suffers from a disability and who lacks the mobility to have those parks taken up by people that don't have the right to be there and as it's on private property this bill applies to it. Clamping of course is the ultimate sanction I guess in this regard and of course as we know some of those clampers have been quite extortionate. It actually is quite ironic that we've had two climate change bills tonight and a bill on terrorism and now we have one on clamping. I guess you could relate car clamping back to climate change in that you're not burning any fossil fuels while they're clamped and if you're the victim of having the clamp on you might say it's terrorism. So it's quite ironic that these three bills have all come up tonight. But I think it's a very serious issue to deal with and I'm not trying to make light of it at all. I agree with my colleague Matt King that $100 does seem light. I don't know the economics of the clamping business and I have no intention of ever finding out but I suspect that if it is not enough at least there's power under the regulations to make a change and adjust that through the process. I think that's the right way to go. I guess that if it isn't enough then the businesses would have to foot that cost or they won't have any clamping businesses to operate that deterrent. So with that I commend the bill to the House.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Madam Speaker it's a pleasure. It's why I came to Parliament to speak on these sorts of bills: the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. A big shout-out to the insomniacs out there. It sets a few rules around wheel clamping to get rid of the cowboys. There's not going to be a Facebook post about me on this one that's for sure. One thing—Michael Wood: No there never is. MATT KING: Oh that hurts—that hurts. I'm on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee with Raymond Huo and we did some great work. I wouldn't say it was one of the major bits of legislation that this Government's brought around but hey look setting up a $100 maximum was an issue. There was only one submitter—one poor wheel-clamper—who came in and made a submission that $100 is not enough and I acknowledge that in some cases a $100 limit is going to put some wheel clampers out of business. I'm a former owner of a business that had people illegally parking out the front of my shop. I really wish that I had had the opportunity to clamp some of them myself. We came to a figure of $100. I didn't agree with it but we're on a select committee and we all had a vote and I lost the vote. I would have made it a little bit more than that just to keep some of them in business. But the rules around it needed to be put in place. There is some good TV about wheel clampers with rogue ones causing grief and charging a lot of money and acting illegally and without justification. So this bill does cover that. I like the fact that we've included in there that if a wheel-clamping operator refuses or is not available to remove the clamp there is a facility in there for the vehicle owner to be able to remove the clamp themselves and not be liable as long as they minimise damage. I also like the fact that police can be involved. It gives them powers enforceable by police. In the past police have turned up and not been able to deal with the situation. This gives them the authority to deal with those problem situations. So everything's been well traversed. It's another piece of major legislation by this Government. I commend the bill to the House.
Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill — Second Reading
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on this the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill a bill that as the previous speaker has just said is going to be supported across the House. Fundamentally this bill does two things. It sets up a national organ donation agency. Fundamentally what that does is it transfers the care responsibility policies and procedures and indeed some funds from Auckland District Health Board (ADHB) who have been managing the organ donation service to date. I want to extend our thanks to them for the work they've done in maintaining the service. But the desire was to form a national organ donor agency. It was thought to be best sited inside an existing Crown entity and the Blood Service was deemed to be the most suitable. I agree. In fact if I recall the headquarters of the Blood Service is about a hundred metres off Park Road so within vision of ADHB. So it will be an easy transfer of policies and procedures to this organisation. The first part of the bill does that. The second part really just seeks to make it easier to donate. The previous legislation said that the donor and recipient needed to be located in New Zealand but in fact we want to be able to facilitate and support approved overseas donation programmes so this legislation looks to change that. We found that there was some rigidity in how we'd set it up—I was fortunate to sit on the Health Committee when Chris Bishop's excellent 2016 bill came through—and the 12-week period which the compensation applies to there's some rigidity in that if you were to return to partial work and then that didn't work and you had to go back to full work. You're sort of locked in. So what this bill does is allow for some variability of the compensation depending on your ability to return to work or do reduced hours over that 12-week period. There's no doubt that that Act's been successful. In the first year 100 people received full compensation for organ donation. I just want to support the voices of others across the House and say look our donors are heroes. On one level they're kind enough to donate literally a part of them and give someone a different life and we believe a better life. So we're very supportive of this bill of this legislation and again we congratulate those who bring this bill to the House and who actually initiated the organ donation member's bill in 2016—I think that's when it came through—and we're going to support this bill further. Thank you.
McAnulty Kieran; Mallard TrevorKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.SPEAKER: No one else went for the call but—[Interruption] Is anyone else going for the call? Then we'll just proceed straight to the motion if that's all right with members.
Williams PotoTERRORISM SUPPRESSION (CONTROL ORDERS) BILLInstruction to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade CommitteeHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to speak against this motion of the select committee timings that have been outlined. The issue from our perspective is the similarity in the approach that is being proposed in this select committee timing regime to what we had in the previous select committee process around the zero carbon bill which from our perspective and as we have spoken and mentioned today was we felt unnecessarily truncated.We think the risk is that we will not provide the opportunity for appropriate considered deliberation of what is as the Minister said himself a particularly technical and challenging piece of legislation. And the tendency to be able to meet the time frames will be to I suspect separate into a number of subcommittees to enable it to happen. The experience that we saw unfold through the select committee process on the zero carbon bill is you end up with too few MPs trying to grapple with particularly technical details of law and not giving the appropriate due consideration of the technical submissions that are before them. Thank you.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I move That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 April 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee have authority to consider and if it thinks fit adopt amendments to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 relating to agriculture emissions pricing despite Standing Order 292.I understand that this is a debatable motion so I wouldn't mind just saying a little bit about why I've moved for unusual sitting hours. I have to point out that the report back date of 2 April 2020 is within the Standing Orders but the reason I'm asking for essentially the unusual hours which are debatable is because the bill—as has been pointed out most eloquently by the Hon Nathan Guy when he lifted up the regulatory impact statements—is quite complex and quite technical and I think will take some getting through.If I had the option then we would take more time but the issue is there are a number of things that are time-bound which this bill would give effect to when it passes into legislation. For example we are setting up an auctioning system for units inside the reformed emissions trading scheme which is due to start at the end of next year. In order to start auctioning at the end of next year we need to have the regulations in place. In order to have the regulations in place we need to have the legislation in place and we also need to actually build test and roll out the auctioning platform. So for those reasons I am asking for the unusual hours to be given permission of the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: The question is that the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority be agreed to. Those of that opinion say Aye to the contrary No—the Ayes have it.Hon Member: The Noes have it. Party vote.SPEAKER: A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote. [Party vote commences] Mr Seymour you voted oppose"—is that right?David Seymour: Well I'm in favour of the amendments; I'm opposed to the reading.SPEAKER: Who called for the division?David Seymour: I did.SPEAKER: When I declare the Ayes have it if the member supports that he's not meant to call for a division.David Seymour: Well I wasn't aware that you were unable to.SPEAKER: The member is premature. The Ayes have it.Amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority agreed to."
Speaker's Observations — Chamber Audio—Reminder about Microphones
Twyford PhilORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 9 to Minister 22 October—Amended AnswerHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I rise to correct my answer to a supplementary question in question No. 9 on 22 October.SPEAKER: The Minister seeks leave to make a correction. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The Minister may proceed.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I was asked whether I stand by my statement that no one on the New Zealand Transport Agency board asked to stay on. At the time I recalled that I had asked Mark Darrow to stay on the board until February 2020 in the interests of continuity; so I answered yes". Since then I have reviewed my correspondence and in May in response to my request that he stay on the board for a short time Mark Darrow said he would be interested in staying on for a second term."