edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.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.Bill read a third time.
12. Question No. 12—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of HealthQuestion No. 12—Health12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: [Uses New Zealand Sign Language] [Firstly I'd like to acknowledge New Zealand Sign Language Week.] Does she stand by all her statements and actions?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Yes in the context they were given. Dr Shane Reti: What actions did she take in defence of proposals for disabled people having shower times reduced to 30 minutes to reduce costs? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I was very clear with the ministry that there were to be no cuts to services and so the proposal they discussed with providers was not carried out.Dr Shane Reti: What does medically fragile" mean when one proposal to reduce costs was no referrals for under-fives unless medically fragile? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I can't speak to the detail; that would be a document that was written by the Ministry of Health. What I can say is that the plan that was discussed by the Ministry of Health with providers was not considered acceptable by myself or the Minister of Health and we put an end to that plan.Dr Shane Reti: How would disabled people eat when one proposal to reduce costs was removing meal preparation from all disabled packages?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That's why the cuts are not going ahead because we didn't think it was acceptable and I made it very clear to the ministry that my priority is to ensure disabled New Zealanders receive the best support possible and that this support is allocated in a fair and consistent manner. Frankly the difficulties that the health system is struggling with in terms of not having enough funding to meet demand are because of nine years of neglect under that last Government where there were not sufficient increases to the health budget. That's a matter of public record.Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm then that the extra funding for disability support services in last year's Budget was largely swallowed up by regulatory and compliance costs including pay settlements as stated by the service's chief executive? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: What I can say about last year's increase is that it was the largest increase percentage-wise since 2007—a 31 percent increase on previous years' increases. There's more money going into the health system than there would have been under that National Government. The previous National Government's cuts to health funding—in real terms compared to the growth in population and the growth in demand—are the reason why we are having this sort of conversation right now. [Interruption] You have to take some responsibility."
10. Question No. 10—InfrastructureCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for InfrastructureQuestion No. 10—Infrastructure10. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made regarding the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission Te Waihanga?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: The interim infrastructure commission within Treasury has published a pipeline of major infrastructure projects that are coming to market in the next three years. The information on those first 174 projects included in that pipeline are worth over $6 billion and this will provide confidence to the private sector to invest and gear up for the efficient delivery of these projects. The coalition Government has listened to what the infrastructure sector has been advocating for for many years and the new commission will be fully operational by the end of the year.Clayton Mitchell: Wow. That's fantastic. What information is included on the infrastructure pipeline?Hon DAVID PARKER: Initially the pipeline includes 174 projects from five capital intensive agencies: education health the New Zealand Transport Agency the Defence Force and corrections. These include replacement of the Dunedin Hospital for over $1 billion the Manawatū Gorge replacement route project and a $275 million replacement of critical infrastructure at Auckland City Hospital Starship and Greenlane Clinical Centre. It contains information as to the cost range of the project as well as estimated time frames for procurement and construction. Over time the pipeline will be expanded to include projects from all central government agencies as well as local government and large private sector projects. The commission will be providing long-term visibility of our county's infrastructure needs.Clayton Mitchell: Fabulous news. How will this help deliver better infrastructure and improve the well-being of New Zealanders?Hon DAVID PARKER: The pipeline information will give the infrastructure market greater confidence about the timing sequencing and scale of infrastructure projects so it can gear up capacity and capability to deliver. We inherited a serious infrastructure deficit and we're focusing on ensuring that our investments are in the right projects at the right time. New Zealanders rely upon this high-quality infrastructure to ensure they can run their businesses efficiently and to underpin their quality of life so the establishment of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission and the publication of this prototype pipeline will help infrastructure be delivered in a timely and cost-effective manner.
7. Question No. 7—Commerce and Consumer AffairsWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 7—Commerce and Consumer Affairs7. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent measures has the Government announced to protect consumers?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The Government has fast tracked measures to protect consumers in their dealings with both banks and insurers. We've released two options papers seeking feedback on proposed measures to address issues with conduct and culture of financial institutions and with insurance contract law. Proposed options include a ban on target-based remuneration and incentives imposing new legal duties on financial institutions and ensuring products sold to consumers are fit for purpose and sold to the right people. This will be supported by new and improved enforcement tools.Willow-Jean Prime: What are these measures in response to?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The measures come in response to the recent reports by the Financial Markets Authority and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand that showed there were major issues in the life insurance sector and poor conduct and culture in the banking sector that needed to be addressed. In addition when we came into office we found our insurance contract law is outdated and reform is long overdue for both consumers and for the sector itself. The Government is committed to making sure that the financial services sector is delivering good outcomes for consumers.Willow-Jean Prime: How soon will these changes be made?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government wants to provide adequate time for consultation and analysis with stakeholders while at the same time moving the reviews quickly so we can reduce harm to consumers. If changes are warranted the aim is for legislation on financial conduct to be introduced by the end of the year and separate legislation on insurance contract law is to be introduced— Hon Gerry Brownlee: Best Minister in the Government. Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —next year. You might need some insurance for your income soon Gerry so you might want to listen. This work sits alongside our other legislative changes to the financial services sector such as the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill and it reforms the consumer credit contract laws. The Government is committed to putting consumers at the heart of decision making so that they can get the best financial outcomes—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Outstanding—top Minister. Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —including those who might need some income insurance very soon.
5. Question No. 5—FinanceDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Baker Tilly Staples Rodway that Tax Freedom Day 2019 is five days later than when his Government took office because taxes have grown faster than the economy and what plans if any does he have to reduce the tax burden faced by New Zealanders?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: No. The Government is acting already to reduce the pressure on New Zealand families and businesses through the $5.5 billion Families Package through putting an end to unnecessary secondary tax through the introduction of the R & D tax credit through making the tax system fairer by targeting multinationals and through cutting ACC levies to save businesses and their customers $100 million over the next two years; while at the same time increasing investment in our roads and rail rebuilding our rundown hospitals and schools investing in our regions and investing in more police more nurses and more teachers to fix the deficits and the mess left after nine long years of neglect.David Seymour: Is the Minister denying the most basic mathematical fact that the percentage of GDP taken by Government is now higher than it was two years ago?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: One reason the tax take is growing is because more people are employed under the coalition Government than under the previous Government. That has boosted PAYE returns. Another reason is that companies are generating higher profits under this Government. One reason for a rising nominal tax take is because of more economic activity.David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that it helps New Zealand's competitiveness to have Government taking a larger share of the economy than key trading partners such as Australia and the United States?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: If the member is now advocating for a tax system like Australia's that is indeed interesting to me. It means obviously that he's now in favour of a top personal tax rate of 47 percent and he's probably also advocating for a capital gains tax.
4. Question No. 4—Workplace Relations and SafetyKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 4—Workplace Relations and Safety4. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What changes to employment law came into effect this week?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The most substantial parts of the Employment Relations Amendment Act came into force on Monday. These changes rebalance our employment relations system by reinstating workers' rights to tea breaks restoring the balance in collective bargaining restoring protection for vulnerable workers and limiting 90-day trials to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. This Government is delivering for working people and putting a human face on capitalism.Kieran McAnulty: Why make the changes?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This is a Government that believes that everyone deserves a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and these changes will help achieve that. They achieve the right balance: providing strong safeguards and rights to workers while maintaining certainty and flexibility for employers.Kieran McAnulty: What further changes are planned?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Next week the Education and Workforce Committee is due to report back the historic Equal Pay Amendment Bill. We are well under way on increasing the minimum wage to $20 per hour. Officials are doing excellent work to progress fair pay agreements and film industry changes. Alongside this the Government is supporting businesses through R & D tax credits and the Provincial Growth Fund. This Government is building a productive sustainable and inclusive economy that delivers good jobs decent work conditions and fair wages.
2. Question No. 2—Prime MinisterHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 2—Prime Minister2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements policies and actions?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes in their context.Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Government have a policy to build 100000 affordable houses over 10 years?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes on behalf of the Prime Minister it most definitely does.Hon Paula Bennett: Then why in recent days has the Prime Minister been reluctant to actually verify that it will be 100000 houses over 10 years?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is in many businesses getting the start-up is not so easy at the beginning obviously. For example in the Second World War before the Battle of—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you Mr Speaker. Before the Battle of El Alamein we hadn't won one battle and thereafter we didn't lose one. And we will get going on this project. Of course we are reconsidering it and when we have made the decisions we'll announce them. The target of 100000 over 10 years is easily achievable.Hon Paula Bennett: Why if she is confirming today that they are keeping the 100000 target within 10 years has her Minister been backing away from that target rapidly in the last few days and she herself in previous days has been reluctant to confirm it?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister I think if you're looking at the housing situation in this country you've got to look at the problem holistically. Whether it's tenements or housing the greatest construction charge on right now is happening under this administration—the highest in a record 44-year performance. In that setting KiwiBuild has got to be reconstructed as well. Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Prime Minister aware that 1000 State houses were completed in the 2017-18 financial year practically double that of any previous year for which records are available and that all of these houses were initiated under a previous National Government?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister I most definitely can't confirm the premise behind that question but I can say this: under that administration that she spoke for 6500 State houses were sold.Hon Paula Bennett: What does she say in reply to the Deputy Prime Minister who in January stated The reality is there are many in this Government who are seriously … committed to ensure we do meet our targets. I am going back to former Governments where practical men who had never been to university and women decided they would get on with the job and get it done—and get it done we are."?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister most definitely I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister's statement which was not just aspirational but the intention is to make this country great again."
1. Question No. 1—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Education1. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Is he confident that recent incentives for teacher recruitment and training will address projected teacher shortages in coming years; if so why?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. The Ministry of Education's forecasted estimates of the number of additional teachers needed to meet demand are based on nothing additional being done to address teacher supply in the meantime. They show that for primary the gap was forecast to be closed by 2023 but for secondary we would need 2210 additional teachers by 2025. What the Government has put in place since it came into office will provide funding to attract an additional 4000 primary and secondary teachers over the next four years and that does not include the 1500 teachers who have been supported to undertake refresher training.Jan Tinetti: What other claims has he heard in regards to the number of teachers needed to meet demand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It has been claimed that up to 8000 additional teachers are needed by 2025 using that same forecast data. It appears that calculation has been done by adding together each year on top of the other which is wrong. These annual figures are not compounding. If a single role is not filled for two years in a row we don't need to recruit two additional teachers to fill the one role. As I've said with the ministry forecast estimates of the number of teachers needed based on nothing being done to address supply for primary that gap would be closed by 2023 in any event and for secondary the gap is around 2210.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to be talking on the Building Amendment Bill—the second reading.Hon David Bennett: Why do they always give you the last slot mate?PAUL EAGLE: And here he is. It's always the most intelligent and the best looking who get the final say but anyway. I commend this bill to the House. There we are.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): It is a pleasure to take a call.Nicola Willis: This will be good.MATT KING: No pressure! I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and did a lot of hard work on that select committee. There's a lot of good people on there. This is the end result of that.I'd like to acknowledge it's quarter to 6 on Thursday—knock-off time. You've managed to maintain your concentration right till the last minute. I recognise that because you're a large-electorate MP so you're a hard worker and you've done long hours. So I acknowledge that.I'd like to acknowledge Minister Phil Twyford the Minister of Housing and Urban Development for getting up and speaking a couple of calls ago. I note that he's not the Minister for Building and Construction because he's not building any houses; he's just buying them. But all credit to him. I just had to get that in.This is a small significant bill. Of course we're supporting it because it is a National Party bill work of the previous National Government. So of course we're supporting it.Sometimes good legislation like this comes out of terrible experiences like we suffered in Christchurch and Kaikōura where the lessons learnt from these disasters mean that we have to change the law because we learn the lessons and we learn how to do things better. This bill creates a robust process to manage buildings in the event of an emergency before during and after and it comes out of the Christchurch and Kaikōura earthquakes. Those earthquakes and the aftermath of that highlighted the deficiencies that we have in our law and so on the select committee we got to listen to both the Christchurch City Council Rangitīkei District Council Wellington City Council and also Local Government New Zealand along with a number of other submitters that provided us with some good feedback so that we could create a good law. So that allowed our emergency services and our authorities and gives them the teeth to actually act and do the proper job. So when things are constantly changing and there are competing priorities at play occupants want to have access to the property and retrieve their belongings and this gives some rules around that. Engineers who have to make critical and crucial decisions with very little information—it allows them to do their job. And property owners have to deal with significant damage in a valuable asset so they also need to know where they stand. This sets out some good ground rules so that everyone knows where they stand and where they are.So it's a good piece of legislation. There may well be some more amendments but I see it as a good piece of legislation. It's well worthwhile and it's a no-brainer that it's supported across the House. We're all going to benefit out of it so I commend this bill to the House.
Trusts Bill — Second Reading
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's good to be in the House talking about this bill. Look a lot of it's been covered. It's always great to see a piece of work that has the whole of the House's support despite some troublemakers trying to pretend it doesn't and all the reasons why. But it's been interesting listening to this. I've just learnt that there are more trusts in New Zealand than there are sheep because there seem to be so many trusts. Everyone's got one—I haven't. Many on this side of the House haven't. But look it is the second reading. It is overdue. It's 1956—the only other bit of law I've seen around that era that needs a good shunt is the Adoption Act which I'm looking at closely. But I digress. I just want to thank the Justice Committee who seem to have pulled together a cross-party group there with Dr Duncan Webb; the former member the Hon Chris Finlayson; help from an independent adviser David Goddard QC; lots of submitters—34 of them and 14 who came in and actually gave a presentation. So I've learnt a lot there.I think it's important to get to the guts of it. It's going to replace the current legislation really to ensure that it's accessible and when I saw that word I thought Absolutely." Laws that are modernised so people understand their rights and obligations are a great thing. Even better a bill that supports them to resolve their disputes both inside and outside the court system—fantastic. So a bill that makes the core trust law's principles much clearer is a really good thing—plain words and it incorporates core principles currently only found in common law. That's good. Secondly it is making the day-to-day administration of a trust a whole lot more easy and that's good. The one thing—and it's a short call to finish—and I thought this pertains to many New Zealanders and that's around how they relate to property. It's the ability to hold property for the benefit of someone else in a trust and that's still a very important one today. Trusts are still relevant. Some use trusts to hold the family home—many in here actually but others have covered that; I won't be mischievous. I think therefore it's going to be of significant benefit to Kiwis wealthy and on this side of the House those who are not so wealthy who will benefit. I commend this bill to the House."
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'd just like to start by acknowledging my colleague Chris Penk who just spoke and who reminds me of my young children who have their lovely little cuddly toys and they treasure those things like you would not believe. When they're holding those all is well with the world and so it is for me when Mr Penk is talking about legal matters in this House. Now this piece of legislation we're debating today was brought forward initially by the former Government—a great piece of legislation looking to update and modernise some of the trusts law. On this side of the House we know about business we understand some of those challenges the need to adapt and to evolve—and quite frankly 60 years since this came into law; it is well and truly time to be updated. Now there's one particular aspect within that that I wanted to touch on and Mr Penk alluded to it as well: clause 16 which took out the perpetuity clause in relation to trusts and his comments around how law students would be particularly excited by that. I note that it was replaced by a finite period of 125 years as the life of a trust. I think that's an appropriate level. It talked about that being sufficient to allow for all matters to be wound up in due course and with due process. So 125 years of course is quite a duration. Although I read an interesting article just recently and in that article—it was a science-based article talking about the longevity of the human race and the comment in there was that the first person to live to be 150 years old has already been born. I hope it's not Winston Peters. But in that regard there is I guess the need to perhaps modernise this as we continue. I just thought I'd chuck in that little fun fact on a Thursday afternoon. But aside from that—Greg O'Connor: Ha ha!TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —I'll wrap it up there. I've seen lots of interest on the other side of the House. Mr O'Connor has finally woken up and joined the debate so I welcome him at that point. We'll be hearing shortly from Harete Hipango who will cover off the finer remaining details on this piece of legislation for our side of the House. Thank you.
Penk Chris; Williams PotoCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker and thanks to all others who have already contributed on this bill. It's clear that there is wide support among the House for it which is positive. The history of it has already been rehearsed by others. I don't intend to re-traverse that ground except to say that I think it's clear that the finished product—if I can call it that; not withstanding that we're at only the second reading—does reflect high-quality work by a large number of people. The introduction to the bill makes a good point about the fact that many key aspects of trusts are currently set out in the common law and this is a good reason for a bit of legislation now to provide some clarity. There is a good reason historically for the fact that it is the common law rather than statute that sets out a lot of the rules regarding trusts. Of course it's a creature of equity. The separate justice stream if you like as opposed to black letter law that was a more strict view of justice that the courts would decide. Equity in the sense of fairness would be applied in certain situations so that ways of understanding the holding of property for example could be understood in ways that didn't reflect necessarily the strict legal ownership. So that's the history of it. That's the reason why often trust law is encapsulated in the common law but sadly that means that often-times it's difficult for those who are trustees to understand exactly what the rules are how they apply to them and to be able to meet their strict duties accordingly.So this is a good thing: striking a balance between prescription and flexibility as the bill itself says. I won't make a long contribution. There might be an opportunity later on perhaps in the committee stage for that. But I will just note that law students up and down this land may rejoice when they see the phrase under clause 16(5) The common law rule known as the rule against perpetuity is abolished." Anything with the words "common law rule" and "abolished" in the same sentence is generally going to be well looked upon by law students—and perhaps many lawyers as well for that matter—so for that reason and the others I've stated and indeed as others have also said this is a good piece of proposed legislation and we are happy to support it further.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Clare Curran."
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to offer the Greens' support as well for this Trusts Bill at its second reading and I'll keep it as a relatively short call. I think the complexity of this bill has been well covered in terms of the debate so far and the fact that this arises out of Law Commission work that happened over a four-year period and that this was legislation introduced by the previous Government and has unanimous support in this House—it's pretty clear that there is support for it to proceed smoothly and it's not a controversial piece of legislation.I will re-echo the point made by others that the Law Commission has estimated that there are 300000 to 500000 trusts in this country so while it's not controversial it is significant and has relevance to a huge number of New Zealanders. I do want to just make that point as well as has been mentioned that there's many members in this House—even though I'm not one of them and I understand that around at least three quarters of members of this House in the register of pecuniary interest have an interest in a trust and that in this country there's a trust for every 12 New Zealanders. That's compared to one to every 34 Australians and only one to every 294 people in Britain. So it's obviously a very significant player for us in financial arrangements as a country. It is important the legislation reflects the times that we live in and is easy to read and the primary purpose of this bill is to update it. The Trustee Act hasn't been updated since 1956 and the Perpetuities Act which it also amends hasn't been updated I understand since 1964. So it's absolutely proper that we do that and make it easier for people to understand. I would just like to put on record that for the Greens this legislation is also a bit of a missed opportunity. We would have ideally liked to have seen the transparency introduced into this legislation because we know that there is the potential for trusts to be used to hide wealth and to reduce tax liability for some people and we would have liked to have seen a register or registration which could have been done in a way that wouldn't have created a massive cost burden in our view and that had been recommended by the Law Commission in 2012 but apparently subsequently was ruled out because of concerns about cost and industry push-back. For us sometimes that push-back is an indication of need rather than a reason not to do something. I would also say that for us there is a question to be asked about why capital gains generated by trusts are not taxed at the trust rate. You know if we are really going to get to the heart of inequality in this country then we need to look and guard against people hiding wealth and avoiding taxation through legal means to make sure that everyone in this country pays their fair share and that we share the wealth fairly in this country.With those caveats around this being a missed opportunity I hope that there'll be opportunities for us to have that conversation at a later date and we do absolutely along with everyone else in this House support the legislation.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Kia ora thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Trusts Bill the second reading here. They are an essential part of our system with around 300000 to 500000 trusts operating in New Zealand—that's a big number. Ordinary New Zealanders use trusts on a daily basis—the former speaker Mark Patterson referred to the number of members of Parliament that do—and they form the economic backbone of the commercial and social sectors here in our country.So what we had before was an unnecessarily complex set of laws and it's quite difficult to navigate the scattered sense of what those laws were doing for trusts. We want to make sure that the law is now practical and usable and sensible for families and businesses that need to as I mentioned before manage their day-to-day affairs and have confidence that they can be guided and have easier to resolve disputes should that be the case. So while I'm not on the select committee that reported on this bill when I read through some of the material it was quite clear to see that they made improvements to the bill and they are to be commended for it. They made what may seem like simple changes for definitions like lacks capacity" or "power of appointment" or "default duty" or "mandatory duty" and they may seem simple and clear but they're very important because these terms take away the vagueness in legislationSo where there is potential for conflict to arise when you get to practical application of these terms we're now seeing from the passage of this bill and from the good work of the Justice Committee we now have much more clarity and guidance on matters that as I'm saying are currently unclear—we'll now have that certainty. So we support this to its next stage. The committee has done some good work and certainty clarity and clear guidance are always a good thing. Thank you."
Mitchell MarkTRUSTS BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 8 May.Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to take this call on the second reading of the Trusts Bill. Of course we support this bill. The reason why we support it is because the Hon Amy Adams and her team did all the work on this bill. This is her bill. It's an outstanding bill and it's in the spirit of what the National-led Government was trying to achieve and that is making our legal system easier for people to use and easier for people to understand. So this is a great bill.It's great to see that the best the new Government—actually I shouldn't say new" we're 18 months into it now aren't we—can do is come up with the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. I can't believe it. That's the best you can come up with? Keep our bills coming through.This is a good bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams and the fantastic work that she has done to get this bill finished completed handed over to the incoming Government who have had the good sense to bring it into the House not only because it's a good bill but because the Government doesn't have any legislation of their own to bring into this House. That's a sad state of affairs—18 months in where's the legislation? Faaf sort it out there's got to be something going on.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! You will refer to the honourable Minister in his full title. Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a very good bill. This is a good bill because it simplifies trust law it explains trust law. When you think about it there's a lot of Kiwis actually that are involved with trusts with family trusts—it impacts a lot of people. It's actually a very good thing that both trustees and beneficiaries now are going to have a much clearer and a much better idea of how the law operates and what their responsibilities are under this law. I'm very happy to commend this bill to the House."
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Just to continue from the comments made by the member who just sat down Tim Macindoe perhaps we didn't put it forward to the public at the time that private schools should have the same safety standards as we see in State schools and State integrated schools but I wonder how many parents of those children in private schools actually know that different standards and requirements apply when it comes to the safety of their students in those schools. So sometimes we need to be proactive about these things and that also goes to the comments that the member Simeon Brown made several times with regards to the evidence he would like to see before we can make changes when it comes to keeping students and staff safe.It has been said already and there is evidence with regards to the need for this but even if there were no evidence would we have to wait until there is an accident or an incident and then start to legislate? It would seem that it's very much like the National Party's way of operating: wait till it all turns to custard and then start fixing it up—hence the housing crisis and many other issues we're dealing with. But look I really just want to say a thank you to all the individuals and organisations that have taken the time out to come in and put their case forward at our select committee. In total 18 provided submissions. The officials also have done a wonderful job in helping us draft the bill providing context and answering questions that may have arisen from those submissions.During the stages of this debate we have discussed most of the main topics at length so I don't want to drag this out any longer than I need to. But I didn't make a mention yet in any of my speeches of the Waitakere Area Principals' Association submission and I think it is worthy to just finish off with something that they had to say about the communities of online learning: We concur with the words of Jan Tinetti who in a speech during the first reading of this Bill said 'it's [the repeal of the legislation] not taking away from our really big provider our Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu or the Correspondence School—business as usual for them—and our virtual learning networks—business as usual for them'."So nothing actually changes in that regard despite a lot of the misinformation that we may have heard during some of the stages in this debate. It's my delight to commend this bill to the House."
Reti Shane; Williams PotoDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. The National Party will oppose this bill because fundamentally in our minds this is another example of Government knowing best. For example if this bill is passed some children who would have been able to enter school before the age of five will clearly be unable to and this is the Government saying We know your child better than you do." This bill reduces your options as a parent and surely we all know children who hadn't turned five but who were well ready to go to school. In fact we could posit that another way. I mean are there Government members here today who are saying they have never known any children who had not turned five who were ready for school? Or we could reposition that question again: are there no Government members over the past few years who have sent their children to school before they turned the age of five? That would be an interesting hypothesis to test. I think generally the closer decisions are made to the affected person the better those decisions are be they patients be they industry or be they polytechnics farmers or students. This does the reverse. This places the decision making further away from parents and further away from students and we strongly oppose this. Now we have said no to this part of the bill and we have said no to having less parent choice but we said yes to the university name change legislation and I want to acknowledge Nicola Willis who has championed the fair process on this matter. Yes it did come to the House in the committee of the whole House stage and it didn't go through the initial select committee process but a petition to the House did have 35 submissions that were quite thoughtful. If we look at those submissions and look at the views that we formed it wasn't clear and it isn't clear that a university council could actually make a name change. It wasn't clear and it isn't clear that the Minister actually had discretion to make a name change. So we agreed that this area needed to be tidied up and that it should be the purview of Parliament—we agree with this.So I say to the Government: take this as a signal a signal that the Hon Nikki Kaye and myself are pragmatic and can collaborate and will collaborate on legislation that is reasonable. But also take this as a signal that what is unreasonable we will fight and we disagree with increased central control of schools and teachers.And so on that note we are opposing this bill. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Clare Curran—five minutes."
Visitors — United Kingdom—Parliament Welsh Affairs Committee
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you and it's always a pleasure to take a call after the Hon Tracey Martin as she takes a seat. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). The previous speaker the Hon Tracey Martin had a lot to say about the contributions from Denise Lee and myself on this particular bill but I'd just like to touch on two of the issues this bill covers. Firstly to rebut some of the points that she's made in regards to private schools she's pulled up an example to argue for the case here but the regulatory impact statement says There is no evidence that the level of bullying and other forms of physical and emotional harm is better or worse in private schools than in State or State integrated schools." The fact of the matter is we're making a decision here based upon no actual information to compare between private schools State schools or State integrated schools. The Government has decided to simply put in place something in the registration criteria without actually having any evidence and without actually looking at all of the issues which need to be addressed here on a wider scale. Secondly I'd like to touch on the clauses in here which have regard to the Teaching Council. We were only a few months ago debating in this Chamber the Government's desire to reform the Teaching Council to ensure that teachers were in control of the Teaching Council and they passed legislation saying this was going to ensure that teachers' voices were in control of the Teaching Council. And here we have another bill coming through this Parliament absolutely taking away that power by giving power to the Minister of Education at any time to issue a statement of Government policy relating to one or more of the Teaching Council's functions. That is not something about which Chris Hipkins said "Well it's just 'having regard to' ". If you look at the actual legislation it is "must have regard to" when it is performing its functions as the Teaching Council. So this Government may be wanting to stand up and try to brush over the fact that what they have done is they are taking away the powers they once said they stood up for and what the Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) even submitted to the Education and Workforce Committee saying that they do not accept this as being something which should be done and saying this completely undermines the Teaching Council's independent status which they said they wanted.Denise Lee: The union!SIMEON BROWN: Yes Denise Lee. The PPTA—not exactly the greatest friends of the National Party. The people who supported the union mates on the other side of the Chamber they're saying this undermines the Teaching Council's independent status. So on one hand the Government say they're giving the Teaching Council back its independence which the National Party tore away and on the other hand they are taking and undermining that independence which they once sought and they once championed. So the National Party opposes this piece of legislation."
Mallard TrevorVISITORSUnited Kingdom—Parliament Welsh Affairs CommitteeSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome members of the Welsh Affairs Committee from the Parliament of the United Kingdom led by the Chairperson Mr David Davies who are present in the gallery.[Applause]
Hipkins ChrisTHURSDAY 9 MAY 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today the House adjourns until Tuesday 21 May. On that day the annual review debate will resume and the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill will receive its first reading. Wednesday 22 May will be a members' day. On Thursday 23 May the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) will complete its passage through the House and the Privacy Bill will be read a second time.
Wednesday 8 May 2019 - Volume 737
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteAmendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 3 agreed to. The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in the name of Stuart Smith to clause 55 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand National 54; Ross. Noes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56 New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Part 3 as amended agreed to. Schedule 1 agreed to. Schedule 2 agreed to. Schedule 3 Amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Schedule 3 agreed to. Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. Clause 1 A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56 New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 Amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to clause 2 agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56 New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Clause 2 as amended agreed to. House resumed. The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment and the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill with amendment. Report adopted.
Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill — In Committee—Part 3 and clauses 1 & 2
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 2 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Stuart Smith's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 are out of order as being contingent on an amendment that has been negatived. The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Stuart Smith to clause 37 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand National 54; Ross. Noes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 55 New Zealand National 54; Ross. Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteAmendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 1 agreed to. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of Stuart Smith to Part 1 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand National 54; Ross. Noes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Amendments not agreed to. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of Stuart Smith to clause 11 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand National 54; Ross. Noes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Amendments not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56 New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 2