edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): If I may refer to the first two contributions that have been made the background to this bill of course is that the last Government the National-led Government realised that there was more flexibility able to be introduced into the child support payment system as a consequence of the upgrade to the computer system which was started under the last Government and is just about finished now. So they commenced some policy work as to whether the settings were right and one of the viewpoints that was expressed and known I think to political parties across here is that the penalty regime has been so harsh that people give up because the penalties become such a substantial part of the debt. Andrew Bayly's reference to that is acknowledged. There is some truth in that—that the penalties regime was so harsh that people gave up and therefore there were lower rates of compliance because the penalties were too harsh.Now that we've got a flexible software system we can actually if Parliament wants to change those settings relatively easily because it's a much smaller task to change the administration of the child support payment now that we've got a decent computer system—and I'm sure if officials think I've got any of this wrong they'll hand me a note. In respect of what the bill does as it comes out of select committee—because there does need to be an incentive for compliance which is created by a penalty regime for people who don't comply; it's just that the penalties regime was too harsh. So there's an immediately penalty on day one now of 2 percent of the sum if people don't pay it on time but then there's a period allowed for the department to contact the liable parent and enter into a payment reduction plan. That period is 28 days. If within that 28-day period there hasn't been a payment plan put in place there is an additional penalty of 8 percent which means that the effective penalty overall for a liable parent who doesn't meet their obligations and then doesn't come to a repayment plan is 10 percent.The bill as it came back from select committee had incremental monthly penalties of 2 percent per month and 1 percent per month thereafter. We've reflected on that. We've looked at the financial effects for the Crown because there is a cost to the Crown of this and through a Government Supplementary Order Paper in my name we will be proposing to remove the subsequent penalties—the 2 percent per month and the 1 percent per month in out-years. So I think that answers the first member's questions. In respect of the second member's question as to whether we would be backing that Supplementary Order Paper and any other Supplementary Order Paper that hasn't been filed within the requisite period and that has financial consequences for the Crown it will as I understand it be out of order so won't be voted upon.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. It's good to be talking on this bill during the committee of the whole House. The issue I want to talk about is actually my Supplementary Order Paper 22. We clearly flagged—and when I say we" I mean the New Zealand National Party—included as a minority view in the commentary on the bill that there were two issues that we were raising and had concerns about. The first one was the issue of penalty payments and who should get the benefit of the penalty payments.Just to put this in context at the moment there's probably about an estimated $2.2 billion of outstanding child support payments at this point in time which is an extraordinarily high amount of money. However the core part of the debt the core overdue amount is roughly about $500 million. The balance of that is made up of penalties. There's a lot of good stuff in the bill about reducing the penalties and we're very supportive of that in terms of giving more time for parents to work out their new arrangements so that the child is at the centre of any payments.But what I wanted to ask the Minister in the chair David Parker about is the issue around my Supplementary Order Paper which I have flagged in the committee and I have flagged when we submitted our minority view. We would like to see the penalty payments that accrue as a result of one parent not paying their fair share on time go to the other parent who would normally be the caregiver and in many cases that is often the wife of the former partnership. Obviously it's very much harder on women who are in that situation. So can I just ask the Minister: why has he not taken the opportunity? I've clearly flagged it in the select committee. We included it in the minority view. Why hasn't there been any further work done on this? Of course we're looking for support.Just on that note I find it rather strange that members of the committee can read the report—we were the only ones to put a minority view in the commentary to the bill. No other party did. Yet with some surprise I note that there's other members from ACT and the Greens who have basically tried to replicate what I've put in the minority view. I just find that a weird—why don't you become original and come up with something different? I hope to see some more stuff coming from you guys tonight. I'll be watching and listening very carefully because if you want to just come up with stuff that we talked about in the committee we're not going to do the scrutiny which we're required to do on this bill which we're required to do in this House of Parliament to scrutinise the Government. So I would just say that to you.My question still remains for the Minister: why hasn't he taken the opportunity and is he open to the concept of making sure any penalty payment if it's collected by the IRD is subsequently passed on to the caregiver? It may not be able to be done in this bill but certainly I would like to understand whether the Minister finds favour with that argument or not."
Salesa Jenny; Warren-Clark AngieCHILD SUPPORT AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to sections of principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is in committee on the Child Support Amendment Bill and the Secondary Legislation Bill. Members we turn first to the Child Support Amendment Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair—oh! Yes. Madam Chair. Just checking—I can't quite see as far. I want to take a brief call. One of the things that we discussed at some length in the select committee process was around the removal of the incremental fees. We discussed that on the basis that some of our submitters were quite keen to see those incremental fees stay. So I would be interested in the Minister in the chair David Parker please explaining to us why he believes that the removal of those incremental fees will in fact support liable parents actually engaging in the process. One of the reasons that I am quite interested in this is that there was a little bit of pushback and I think it was some interesting pushback in regards to what we know about liable parents. Our understanding was indeed that the liable parent at certain points disengages with the process when fees and penalties are too high. So I would be interested to know from the Minister please if he could talk to us about incremental fees and how this change in the legislation really supports our parents to pay their fees in time.
Rurawhe AdrianHOUSE IN COMMITTEEDEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Child Support Amendment Bill and the Secondary Legislation Bill.
Waititi RawiriRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you Madam Speaker. We know that the introduction of rating whenua Māori—policies relating to the rating of Māori land for over more than a century—were one of the primary tools of the colonial State stealing land from tangata whenua. The Native Lands Rating Act in 1882 introduced rates on Māori land much higher rates than a similar European-owned land—up to 300 percent higher. These rates could be difficult to pay not just because they were high but because it was difficult for those living on the whenua to collect rates from those living elsewhere. When rates were not paid the land could be seized by local bodies. Setting higher rates that Māori couldn't afford to pay led to the huge amounts of land in Aotearoa being stolen from its tangata whenua owners and confiscated by the colonial State. In other instances lands were being valued low so that European settlers would find it easier to buy them.Up until 1978 local councils could still steal whenua Māori for rating offences. We often talk about the history of Aotearoa being recent history but this really proves it: councils were stealing Māori land until the 1970s. As a result of these insidious colonial policies and continued breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi less than 5 percent of Māori land is still in Māori ownership.This bill is a positive step forward put forward and championed by Te Uroroa Flavell and Te Paati Māori as part of te ture whenua reforms. We are pleased that despite wider te ture whenua reforms yet to be realised Minister Mahuta has progressed this important and widely supported part of the reforms.The key changes in the legislation are: local authority chief executives will have the power to write off unrecovered rates arrears of any land including rate debts inherited by deceased owners of Māori land; most unused Māori land will be non-rateable—this will remove rates arrears debt on unused Māori land—Ngā Whenua Rāhui kawenata Māori land that has been set aside for conservation purposes will be non-rateable; a statutory rates remission process will be available for Māori land under development offering rates relief and encouraging development. These measures are long overdue and have had Te Paati Māori's wholehearted support for many years.Ko te pae tawhiti while the changes in this legislation represent a huge step forward and will benefit many Māori land owners we must not stop here. Te Paati Māori's vision is for the reassertion of our mana motuhake our tino rangatiratanga over our own affairs our own people and our own lands. Te Paati Māori commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Salesa Jenny; Court SimonLOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATING OF WHENUA MĀORI) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 11 March.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Simon Court who has three minutes and 41 seconds remaining.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. The ACT Party supports the development of Māori land and we support the development of housing on Māori land and the modernisation of rating legislation which affects Māori land—but this bill does not deliver this and for that reason the ACT Party opposes this bill.ACT believes in natural rights and private property rights and that they should be protected from undue interference by governments—that includes local government—undue interference from being able to build on your own land because that is what every New Zealander whether they are a leaseholder or a freeholder or have a shared interest in that is seeking: to be able to build on their own land without interference.ACT believes that all property should be treated equally under the law and that the rates that fund the local council and infrastructure apply to everybody and that everybody who receives the benefits of the infrastructure and those services should pay their fair share. This bill would establish a rates remission regime favouring a group which has other means and mechanisms in order to seek rates relief.It is important to turn unproductive land or land with potential into productive land. But it is not up to the Government to provide those favourable tax treatments. It is for that reason that ACT opposes this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Before I begin my contributions on the Commerce Amendment Bill I want to make it clear that I yearn for a world where we're not relying on competition so that people can access basic commodities such as food. And while we work towards that it's important though that we do emphasise the importance of fair competition between the big players and the small players in the market because as our member here on the right pointed out when he mentioned supermarkets we do have a system here where we have a few big players dominating competition creating barriers for consumers to access fair prices. So we do welcome the move towards amending section 36 of the Commerce Act as well as looking into empowering the Commerce Commission.We do want to highlight though some issues that have been raised particularly when it comes to empowering the Commerce Commission that were brought by the Privacy Commissioner particularly around notifying people when sharing information. And we do know that if we were to follow those recommendations we may have to look at broader reforms as to not sort of single out the Commerce Commission when it comes to how it handles private information. But we do think that as we head on to select committee we should be listening to these concerns and issues brought by the Privacy Commissioner.I also want to acknowledge the move towards changing intellectual property rights and removing the safe havens. That's quite important as intellectual property rights actually are one of the most aggressive tools by capitalism to prevent people from accessing goods and services. And actually in many ways it can stifle innovation. So I do look forward to a really robust conversation on how we can make competition a lot fairer as we amend intellectual property rights. One of the other things that I wanted to mention was ensuring that as we discuss this bill we are taking into account Māori intellectual property rights and land rights as well because if we are to look at addressing anti-competitive behaviour we need to make sure that we're also ensuring that we're meeting our Te Tiriti obligations. So that is one of the things that the Green Party is wanting to ensure is looked into at the select committee stages and that makes us comfortable providing our provisional support of this bill.The Green Party does make really clear that we do support a regulatory framework in our economy that ensures fair competition but we're also very clear that access to essential goods and services is a basic right that should not be reliant upon our market. So I do want to make sure that we do not lose scope of the fact that innovation and competition alone won't bring us to a world where people are not being deprived of these basic services. So once again the Green Party is really keen to provide that provisional support to make sure that we look at the information-sharing safeguards as well as meeting our Te Tiriti obligations regarding Māori intellectual property and land rights. Kia ora.
Financial Market Infrastructures Bill — Second Reading
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): It would be easy for those watching or listening or reading this debate to think that this is a very dry matter but as other members have stated financial market instruments are crucial to the very functioning of the economy. They support the non-cash payment and financial settlement system that underpins almost all of the ways that we conduct commerce in New Zealand today. There aren't that many cash payments happening and the importance of this financial infrastructure cannot be overstated. So what this bill does is it creates an improved and properly regulated framework in which those transactions can occur.Now I didn't sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee while it was considering this bill but I understand that some of the matters that were considered were about ensuring that a regime of this sort is both appropriate in terms of the regulatory nature of it the surety it can give those transacting within these systems but also flexible enough to allow for the fact that as we have seen the way these transactions occur has evolved rapidly in response to different technologies and in response to different ways to do things. National supports the view of the committee that the bill has struck the right balance there.The second area that was of crucial consideration is this issue of how we make sure that the financial market infrastructures are resilient and crisis-proof. That is that when something goes wrong it doesn't bring the whole New Zealand financial system down with it. I think that underscores why it is prudent and appropriate that the Government regulate in this area because if these financial settlements are put at risk or aren't occurring we need to have some sort of backup. We need to have contingency plans for not only dealing with operational mechanical failures but also dealing with financial failures. So this bill requires entities to have those provisions in place.I do just want to acknowledge the concerns from some who pointed out that even though this bill does provide regulation in terms of crisis powers there is still the question of what happens if Visa or MasterCard go down because increasingly they are core to our consumer payment system and yet they aren't covered in the same way by this bill—and I think it's worth noting that in the Hansard and noting the concerns that have been raised by some about that; although we fully acknowledge that those are independent market architectures that stand separately for good reason.In conclusion this bill brings New Zealand into line with our offshore counterparts in terms of the regulation of financial market infrastructure. It strikes a balance between flexibility and prevention of crises in the future. It's a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's not unusual for colleagues to find themselves having to speak on a bill at second and subsequent readings when they themselves have not been part of the select committee process—or indeed at the first reading. I actually think most people in this House do a pretty good job of boning up on the subject matter of the bill and coming and making an intelligent contribution to the debate. That ain't going to happen now.I've looked at this bill and I have tried and tried and tried and I cannot make head nor tail of it. So all I can say—and I didn't think I was going to say this—is: thank goodness for Andrew Bayly and Dr Webb because they were on the committee in the 52nd Parliament—is that right? How many are we up to?—the last Parliament and they obviously had to wade through the very technical detail of that.But I have to rebuke Dr Webb somewhat for his assessment that perhaps the current Finance and Expenditure Committee doesn't have the same intellectual firepower as the previous Parliament's.Dr Duncan Webb: No that's Regs Review.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Now I think that's somewhat—oh Regs Review I withdraw that then. That may have been a save on Dr Webb's part because I think there are some very talented people on this Parliament's finance committee. Dr Webb talked about the new MPs and his confidence that they will be able to speak intelligently on this bill. He's not looking from where I am; I can see the terror in their eyes. So all I will say to the new MPs that are in the Finance and Expenditure Committee is: their careers will not be judged by their interventions on the second reading of the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill. Perhaps Ms Edmonds will surprise us all; I know she is a very diligent MP—as they all are.I think what we really needed in this bill were technical experts. Clearly Dr Webb with his legal background and his analytical background—but also Mr Bayly having lived this as a merchant banker for many many years—obviously was able to speak the language and understand the amendments that we were embarking on. I will commit to having a much greater knowledge of this by the time we come to the committee of the whole House—I may even have a Supplementary Order Paper to lodge you never know! That would be a great day.With that it simply leaves it for me to join the Minister in thanking firstly that committee the submitters—there weren't that many of them which highlights how complex this is—the Reserve Bank and the others officials who supported the committee. I look forward to a robust debate in the committee of the whole House.
Robertson Grant; Mallard TrevorAPPROPRIATION (2019/20 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILLFirst ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2019/20 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motions — Attacks on Christchurch masjidain—Second Anniversary
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been presented. No bills have been introduced but Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Annual reports for 2019/20 from the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand and Peke Waihanga - Artificial Limb Service andreport on Unappropriated Expenses and Capital Expenditure for the financial year ended 30 June 2020 andreport on the Government Superannuation Fund Actuarial Valuation as at 30 June 2020.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the international treaty examination of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement andreports of the Health Committee on the petitions of Emma Richardson and of Evangelia Henderson.SPEAKER: The international treaty is set down for consideration.
Rurawhe Adrian; Omer IbrahimTUESDAY 16 MARCH 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]MOTIONSAttacks on Christchurch Masjidain—Second AnniversaryIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to recognise the second anniversary of the attacks on the Christchurch masjidain.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to this course of action being followed? There appears to be none.IBRAHIM OMER: Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That this House mark the second anniversary of the terror attacks that targeted Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019 that we remember the 51 people whose lives were taken in the most tragic and horrific way and the more than 40 people who were injured shattering Muslim families and communities forever.Motion agreed to.
Thursday 11 March 2021 - Volume 750
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020/21 Feasability Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 73 Noes 45.
11. Question No. 11—Pacific PeoplesTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Pacific PeoplesQuestion No. 11—Pacific Peoples11. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What is the Government doing to support opportunities in Pacific housing?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): This Government has invested $41 million into initiatives that are specifically targeted towards supporting Pacific housing aspirations. It was recently announced that the Government has taken a key step in supporting Pacific housing opportunities with the opening of the Pacific financial capability fund which aims to support Pacific organisations to deliver financial capability to Pacific households. I've also announced the Pacific community housing provider registration programme which aims to enable Pacific organisations to become registered community housing providers. Achieving Pacific housing aspirations is a key component of this Government's Pacific wellbeing approach.Tangi Utikere: How will the Pacific financial capability fund improve Pacific housing?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: The fund will be available for eligible organisations to deliver financial capability initiatives to 1200 Pacific families over the next four years. This will enable locally designed innovative initiatives such as financial literacy training financial support programmes financial tools and resources. This will support Pacific families and communities to have the tools and knowledge to cope with financial changes and establish financial plans aimed at reducing household debt levels and saving towards owning their own home.Tangi Utikere: In what way will the Pacific community housing provider registration programme support Pacific housing?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: The Pacific community housing provider registration programme is looking for a provider to support Pacific organisations to become successfully registered community housing providers over the next two years. This programme aims to lift the capability of Pacific organisations to achieve community housing provider registration through organisational capability building training and support. Improving Pacific capability in the community housing sector brings tailored and culturally appropriate support to Pacific peoples in the community housing space.
8. Question No. 8—Land InformationMARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Land InformationQuestion No. 8—Land Information8. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Land Information: Does he stand by his statement on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill made before his appointment to the Land Information portfolio that My primary focus has been to ensure the bill recognises that Crown pastoral lands supports a prosperous high country pastoral farming industry and I'm confident that this new regime proposed by the Minister will ensure that sustainable pastoral farming on Crown land will continue to thrive"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: Yes.Mark Cameron: Will this bill impose higher costs on high country farmers?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister what the bill seeks to do is to ensure a good responsible partnership between the landowner the Crown and leaseholders to ensure good management of the land and good outcomes for all of New Zealand. Mark Cameron: Point of order Mr Speaker. The question was "Will this bill impose higher costs on high country farmers?" I don't believe that was answered.SPEAKER: I don't think it was even addressed so the Minister can have another go. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister the purpose of the bill is not to impose costs on leaseholders but it is to ensure a partnership between a responsible landowner the Crown and responsible leaseholders to ensure that land is managed in the best interests of all parties including all of New Zealand.Mark Cameron: Does the Minister agree with the submission from Federated Farmers that states the bill "unnecessarily adds additional layers of consenting with associated increases in costs and delays on both leaseholders and the taxpayer for no greater environmental or pastoral outcomes."; if not why not?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister no.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he agree that developing environmental farm management plans would be a better management tool on Crown pastoral leases than doubling down on regulation red tape and infringement regimes?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister the bill does not double down on regulation and red tape of management of Crown land.Hon Jacqui Dean: Supplementary.SPEAKER: Jacqui Dean. I've called the member. Well that was a waste of a supplementary wasn't it?Mark Cameron: How does he respond to the statement from Federated Farmers that "proposals within the Bill threaten the future viability of high country farming for Crown Pastoral leaseholders."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister my response is to invite Federated Farmers to work constructively with both their members who are high country farmers and the Government to ensure we have responsible management of Crown land."
6. Question No. 6—Arts Culture and HeritageANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Arts Culture and HeritageQuestion No. 6—Arts Culture and Heritage6. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage: What action is the Government taking to help inspire students in schools and kura to get creative and be involved in the arts?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): Today the Minister of Education Chris Hipkins and I announced the second round of Creatives in Schools. Today's announcement will see 143 schools including 10 kura and one New Zealand Sign Language school supported to utilise the skills and knowledge of local creatives to deliver creative projects and experiences. These learning experiences stimulate students' creativity enhance their wellbeing and inspire young people to explore careers in the arts and creative sectors. This Government values the arts and is committed to supporting career pathways into creative industries.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will schools and the creative communities benefit from the programme?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Creatives in Schools programme enables schools to further build on their local arts programme and explore other art forms that they may not have tried before. The programme is just as valuable for the artists as it is for schools who participate and it is a win-win for students and the creative people who work with them. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the cultural and creative sector. That is why this programme received a $4 million boost through the COVID-19 recovery funding alongside the wider $374 million investment to support the cultural and creative sector to survive adapt and thrive.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How does the programme benefit disabled people?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In my capacity as Minister for Disability Issues it's particularly pleasing to see Ko Taku Reo Deaf Education New Zealand receiving funding to support their youth theatre project included in the second round of Creatives in Schools. This project will encourage Deaf students to work collaboratively with their peers using New Zealand Sign Language. It will enable them to confidently express and celebrate their unique Deaf culture and strengthen their sense of identity and belonging in the arts and creative spaces. Round one of the programme also included projects at Wellington High School and Waitākere College's Inclusion Support Centre for students with a range of abilities. Creatives in Schools has a wide reach within both the learning and creative spheres and supports everyone to participate in the arts.
4. Question No. 4—COVID-19 ResponseDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 4—COVID-19 Response4. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What progress has the Government made in securing a strong vaccine portfolio for all New Zealanders?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I am very happy to say that the Government has guaranteed that every New Zealander will have access the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine after securing an additional 8.5 million doses on top of the 1.5 million doses that we had already purchased. This brings our total order to 10 million doses enough for every New Zealander to get the two shots they need to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. It's a significant addition to our COVID-19 vaccine portfolio and it is a sign of our confidence in the vaccine and its effectiveness. It also reinforces our top priority of making sure that all New Zealanders get free fair and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.Dr Tracey McLellan: How is the vaccination of our border workers progressing?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. As of this morning I can report that 19313 have received their first doses of the vaccine. We now have 989 health professionals—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm going to stop the Minister here now. I've reflected on the supplementary question and I'm ruling that it does not flow from the original one which was the obtaining of the vaccines. The use and the obtaining are quite different. If the member wanted to ask that supplementary question she would have better phrased the original one. Dr Tracey McLellan: What updates can he provide on when other people can expect to receive the vaccine from that strong vaccine portfolio?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yesterday as I have already indicated I released the Government's sequencing framework that provides clarity to New Zealanders around when they can expect to receive the vaccine. Over 2 million New Zealanders are in line to start receiving the vaccine over the next four months with a focus on protecting those most at risk of getting COVID-19 or being harmed by it.
2. Question No. 2—PoliceRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 2—Police2. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree that the New Zealand Police are racially profiling Māori given that police are photographing Māori youth and using tactical pain against Māori more than any other ethnicity?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I do not support any form of racial profiling by any Government department or agency. I do have a clear expectation that police officers act within the parameters of the law and that in the application of the law there are no biases or inconsistencies.Rawiri Waititi: Given that Māori are overrepresented in the groups targeted in Operation Tauwhiro does the Minister have concerns that Operation Tauwhiro is another example of the police targeting and racially profiling Māori?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: On behalf of the Minister of Police as I said in the answer to the first question I have a clear expectation that officers act within the parameters of the law and that in the application of the law there are no biases or inconsistencies.Rawiri Waititi: Can the Minister assure te ao Māori that racial bias which is clearly evident within the police will not influence the treatment of Māori who come to the attention of the police?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes and that's why—on behalf of the Minister—I am continuing to work with the police commissioner on tackling all forms of overrepresentation of Māori in the criminal justice system.Rawiri Waititi: What strategies do the police have in place to protect iwi Māori from racial profiling?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well as I've said the Minister doesn't agree with or support any form of racial profiling of any group of people in Aotearoa from any agency or department.Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. I don't think that particular question has been answered Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I think it's been addressed though which is the requirement.Rawiri Waititi: Point of order Mr Speaker. I don't think it has.Teanau Tuiono: Is the Minister concerned that the police's commitment to repair the relationship with Māori communities has been put at risk by the news that police officers are taking photos of rangatahi without appropriate permission?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well again I refer everyone back to the first and second answers that the Minister has a clear expectation that officers act within the parameters of the law and that in the application of the law there are no biases or inconsistencies. [Rawiri Waititi stands to seek call]SPEAKER: No the member will resume his seat.Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary question.SPEAKER: The member's not going to have another supplementary question. While he did have one left he chipped me after I made a previous ruling and he lost it.Rawiri Waititi: We get four and then we're not—SPEAKER: That's right because you don't argue with the Speaker after he's made a ruling. The member should know that by now.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The underlying strength of the New Zealand economy continues to exceed expectations. Statistics New Zealand figures show that manufacturing sales volumes rose in the December 2020 quarter after falling earlier in the year due to COVID-19. Total manufacturing sales volumes rose to $26.8 billion up 0.5 percent from the previous quarter. Volumes are also slightly above levels seen before COVID-19 hit in early 2020. The growth in sales was led by gains in electrical and machinery manufacturing mainly in the electronic and electrical equipment subindustry. While particular sectors in regions in New Zealand will continue to suffer the effects from COVID-19 this is good news for our manufacturing sector which has benefited in response to COVID-19 by a buoyant construction industry and other demands.Ingrid Leary: What further reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The latest ANZ Bank monthly Truckometer report indicates ongoing momentum for our transport sector—Chris Bishop: Truckometer!Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —one of the most accurate Mr Bishop the Truckometer—with both the light traffic index and heavy traffic index up on a year earlier. The ANZ notes that the levels of activity are roughly back on trend after the interruption of the initial lockdown to successfully combat the escalating pandemic last year. While the vaccination roll-out continues both here in New Zealand and around the rest of the world and the rate of COVID-19 infections eases in many countries the report also notes that there are still risks and uncertainties in the economy but the good news is that ANZ says New Zealand's economy is in much better shape than most.Ingrid Leary: What reports has he seen on support that is available to business to mitigate the risks to the economy from COVID-19?Hon Grant Robertson: I thought members may want a further update on the numbers that I gave at the start of the week. The Resurgence Support Payment which kicked in for both the alert level changes on 14 February and 28 February has received over 55000 applications and has so far paid out $128.06 million to businesses and traders. This payment as we know is intended to help businesses with their fixed costs such as rent and is still open for applications for both recent alert level changes. The wage subsidy scheme which opened at the beginning of this week has had 35886 applications approved with $107.55 million being paid out.
Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill — Second Reading (continued)
Kerekere ElizabethDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 was meant to facilitate the occupation development and utilisation of Māori land for the benefits of its owners. I have some sympathy with my colleagues from National because it does—the ture whenua needs so much work—and I also must acknowledge the disappointment that must have been felt when we thought that the Hon Gerry Brownlee's member's bill was pulled out. I was actually excited for that opportunity that we could engage properly with that and when they realised they'd mixed up the numbers we didn't have that opportunity. So I hope that—even though of course the Greens will be supporting this—we have the opportunity to do a lot more work on it. So we understand this bill will wipe out land rates arrears for pieces of landlocked land and unusable land that whānau have not been able to engage with. We've also heard that it'll help make rates fair and equitable for Māori land owners. We still appreciate that it enables Māori Rāhui kawenata lands to be non-rateable like other general conservation lands.We know from working with our own council back home—with council and many of our other landowners—that one of the biggest problems is dealing with council. Now this is on top of all the other problems we often have in dealing with councils to do with sewage to do with treatment of mortuary waste to do with the cleaning up of our streams because of particular businesses and companies not following the conditions of the remits that they've been given to do work in our rohe. As someone who has yet to succeed to my father's multiple shares in various Māori land blocks only because I have not done all the paperwork since he passed I'm aware of the problems that a lot of our whānau have with the fragmentation and a lot of people having tiny amounts of shares that when they try and put them together then they're facing a massive rates bill. We're pleased that this will be addressed because that fragmentation is something that really stops our people coming together and doing something together with that land. So for these reasons and I'm sure many more I would like to commend this to the House. Kia ora.
Coffey TamatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand and talk on this particular bill although I wasn't there in the last term as the Māori Affairs Committee were passing it through or listening to the submissions but this is the appropriate time to thank all of those people that submitted into this bill to make their voice heard. But this goes back a wee way longer than the last Parliament. In fact I remember stories about one of the previous members for the Waiariki the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell doing meetings across the country talking with various stakeholders especially up North—people like John Carter who really championed this. He brought local communities together he brought Government together and he made everybody sit up and listen to the problem which was that there was so much pain in having undeveloped Māori land because of ratings issues that he felt like he wanted to do something. He was propelled into action and so he brought that to Government. He brought that to the various people at the time. We're still talking about this now but actually it's in the right place. It is where it is. We're on the second reading of this bill. As I understand it from the previous Māori Affairs Committee they examined the bill they made some recommendations that the Minister has indicated she is happy to support. This one particularly around the rating of multiple land blocks classifying the origin of Māori land blocks establishing when a local authority may be satisfied preventing the sale of Māori land that was converted to general land under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 the powers of the chief executive to write off rates separate rating areas on Māori land and registration in the emissions trading scheme as not a use of land—this is an example of Government actually doing its duty and actually working with Māori land owners to help them to achieve their aspirations. Although we're still learning about history in schools I've learnt that Māori have had a very traumatic time when we look back in the history books of New Zealand and have been rated off their Māori land for many years. Much of New Zealand has been lost through this particular mechanism of rates. So this is a very contentious issue and Māori—they sit up when we start talking about rating on Māori land. But I know that there will be a lot of people out there that will be looking forward to us passing this because it will mean that Māori land trusts and incorporations will actually be able to look to the future be able to unshackle themselves from the ratings which have held our people down for far too long and be able to achieve the aspirations that our ancestors so rightfully wanted way back at the start. I commend this bill to the House.
Voting — Correction—Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill
Dean JacquiVOTINGCorrection—Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I take the next member during the vote on the second reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill the vote for the Ayes was incorrectly recorded as 73 votes. The correct vote was 75 votes. The record will be corrected.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Thank you for taking my call. The thesis of this bill is not in fact flimsy as evidenced by the member opposite's comments about why the Government should bring it into action and why in fact utilisation of Māori land is a good idea and is served by this bill. He asked How could we turn Māori land into crops honey and housing?" The answer is by enacting the provisions of this bill which unlocks the potential of Māori land by shifting the dial in a sensible way to incentivise the governors of Māori land to create governance structures over Māori land so that their owners can benefit from it.This is the bill which Māori land owners asked for not the bill which is not before the House which the member opposite has referred to. He also asked "What problem are we trying to solve here? Some councils do remit the land rates arrears on Māori land." However that would ignore the countless litigation brought by Māori land owners to get to this point where councils remit those arrears—cases like the Mangatu Inc. which has land holdings the size of Auckland City which has brought litigation over a period of 10 years to negotiate fair ratings systems with its council which only applied to Māori land owners and was unfair. This bill seeks to address that structural unfairness for Māori and I commend it to the House.Debate interrupted."
O'Connor GregTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2020-21 FEASIBILITY EXPENDITURE AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 9 March.GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. One of the important parts of this bill is the remedial matters bill and one of the remedial matters which will be of most interest to New Zealanders concerns the forgotten and missing money. So many institutions in New Zealand have money sitting in their accounts with no owner. They've been unable to trace the owners. Sometimes that money can sit around for 25 years before they're able to do anything about it. What this will allow is to expedite the passage of that money through to the IRD. The IRD will be able to use their systems to track down the owners; the banks get it off their books where it is costly to administer; the owners of the money in many cases will get money that they probably had forgotten about or perhaps the family had forgotten about. It is a win-win situation and it's one of many measures in this bill which makes much sense and it will make many people much happier than they were before the passing of the bill. I commend it to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Madam Speaker it's good to see you in the House—Hon Members: What a greaser!SHANAN HALBERT: —and rise to speak this afternoon amongst lots of noise on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. We support this bill because safety is our top transport priority and as a proud Aucklander we're very passionate about the investment of this Government and the commitment to transport. This bill will help modernise our regulations to continue to keep people safe. The bill will maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory system established by transport legislation and reduce the chance of regulatory failure. It will also help our police do their job by increasing the time period a vehicle can be impounded to collect evidence after a serious accident or incident. This will help give police inspectors the time to properly examine and process the evidence. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.