edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Upston Louise; Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I do think this particular issue is an important one. The last thing any of us would want to do—well I'm making a fairly general assumption there—particularly in National Volunteer Week would be to make it even more onerous. So the specific question again is: is it intended that charities would have to file proceedings in two different courts concurrently? Because if appeals are restricted to the Taxation Review Authority (TRA) it actually restricts the charities' ability to access the highest court in the land and I wondered if that was the intention.The subsequent comment here is I think an important one and it's asking the question about whether or not in drafting this part charities aren't trusted to make the decision for themselves as to whether they commence proceedings in the High Court or in the TRA.Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I will say once again as I said before in response to the member's question that Part 2 is very narrow. It actually just makes an amendment to the Taxation Review Authorities Act 1994 to allow the Taxation Review Authority to hear cases under the Charities Act. So that's literally all this part does.But to the member's question around cost I'll say that High Court appeals generally cost around $1200 and appeals to the Taxation Review Authority around $500 so it is much cheaper for charities and the evidentiary threshold is lower.In terms of the question that the member asked there have only been 25 appeals since the Charities Act came into force and out of that only two have had a judicial review so it's very uncommon to have both.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to come back to the Sue Barker Charities Law submissions and just tease further out this issue of whether or not the appeal should be to the Taxation Review Authority or the High Court and whether or not proposed new section 58X in new Part 2A would allow the Taxation Review Authority to refer a case to the High Court on a question of law or on whether the appeal should be heard by the High Court in the first instance. And does that mean—and this is a question I would like answered please—that potentially a charity is having to pursue action in two different courts concurrently which of course would add to the costs. And I'm specifically referring to a specialist in charities law who was asking the question as to whether or not two proceedings would be required to be filed in two different courts so the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and appealing the proceedings in the Taxation Review Authority.So I would appreciate clarification of that. If that is the case then clearly that would work against the stated objective of the Charities Amendment Bill—which is to improve access to justice—by limiting choices and adding cost and complexity into the appeal process.
Upston Louise; Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Speaking to questions around the Taxation Review Authority I come back to my comment earlier about what costs are involved for charities because I think it is really critical that we don't through unintended consequences lay more costs on to charitable organisations. So I would appreciate if the Minister could answer a question specifically in Part 2 around the Taxation Review Authority and the changes in this part as to what costs may fall on charitable organisations.Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Part 2 makes amendments to the Taxation Review Authorities Act 1994. It is actually quite specific. It's just an amendment to the legislation to allow cases under the Charities Act to be heard. Very quickly what I will say in terms of cost is that the cost currently under the status quo is onerous can be onerous for many charities particularly smaller charities because the only record they have is to take their appeals to the High Court. What this change does is add another level of appeal which then means the charities can go to the Taxation Review Authority. It is much cheaper for charities to do that because they can then represent themselves as opposed to having to hire a lawyer to go before the High Court. So the costs will be reduced and that's actually the reason that we're doing this. It also expands justice to a wider cross-section of charities particularly smaller ones.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much. I'd like to ask the Minister in relation to new Part 2A section 58E in relation to the Grounds of appeal and burden of proof". It talks about "(1) In an appeal—(a) the appellant is limited to the grounds stated in the notice of appeal; and (aa) the respondent is limited to the grounds stated in the decision appealed against;". And that looks perfectly reasonable that you can only talk about or discuss and debate a specific area where the application is actually made. But in relation to section 58E(2) it says "Despite subsection (1) the Authority may either on the application of the appellant or of its own motion amend the grounds stated in the notice of appeal."I'm not a lawyer; I don't have a law degree. Maybe the Minister could potentially explain to me why I read into this that it is in fact the authority that could potentially shift the goalpost making it difficult. It's like changing the rules. It certainly reads that way. So perhaps the Minister could actually explain that to me. So what does that actually mean in practice that an appellant actually makes notice of an appeal and they have a rule as to what they may discuss and actually apply to the authority to discuss—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! As the member is debating she's referring to matters in Part 1. Could the member now move on to Part 2.MELISSA LEE: It's 2A Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): So I'm advised that Part 2A is inserted into the principal Act which is in Part 1 of that Act.MELISSA LEE: Point of order Madam Chair. Obviously I read that wrong. If that's the case does that mean that the Minister doesn't have to actually answer the question that I just gave her?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): So Part 2 being the consequential amendments to the Taxation Review Authorities Act—so that's Part 2 of the bill."
Dean Jacqui; Upston LouisePart 2 Consequential amendments to other ActsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to the debate on Part 2. But before I get into this part I just want to remind the committee and all of those in the committee that the question of relevance in the debate is determined by the Speaker. So relevance is determined in a committee stage by—I will always accept matters that relate to the substance of the bill. If it is a particularly broad-ranging bill and more general in nature then so is the committee stage debate—just bringing in other aspects which are relevant. It doesn't mean that the debate will go off on topic. It always has to relate to the bill. Members are used to me bringing them back but I just want to make it clear that the sole judge of relevance belongs with the Speaker whoever it is.So members again we come now to the debate on Part 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you for that clarification; that is helpful. So Part 2 I want to ask some questions specifically around the appeals process. As I've mentioned in the earlier part I think this is the bit that concerns the lawyers. I don't know the last time you got a lawyer's bill—there's usually a few fat zeros on the end. So let's climb into appeals. I want to specifically ask questions—so some of the submitters were happy with the proposal for charities to be able to go to the Taxation Review Authority but the piece that I want to specifically ask about is the evidence about charities being litigious. I am specifically referring to the Community Networks Aotearoa submission here. There was a statement that the Charities Services—which for those just tuning in is part of the Department of Internal Affairs—was concerned about many charities being litigious. And I would like the Minister to address where is the evidence for that and what is the number of cases that have been taken since the charities commission was first set up? Are there more; are there less? What is the evidence to support that statement?And the comment also about a fair appeals process being likely to reduce costs due to better structural accountability and therefore trust. And there were quite lengthy discussions in the select committee around the whole right of appeal so I'd like to start with that first piece around what is the evidence that many charities are litigious.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): I'd like to thank the Minister for her answers and I hope that she will bear with me considering the fact that I've actually initially said right at the beginning that I wasn't part of the select committee and so I'm going with it quite fresh.The thing that really intrigues me and the Minister actually said we're not re-litigating the review but I just wanted to ask the Minister's opinion: considering the fact that the review was led by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)—so effectively the review was reviewing itself—when this legislation is looking to create transparency in the charitable sector is it right that this legislation this work is actually based on a review that was done by DIA on its own self instead of an independent review? Does that actually speak to transparency that this Government is actually talking about?So I'd like to seek the Minister's opinion on that considering the fact that there is actually a huge charitable sector and my colleague Louise Upston actually listed some of them. But I know that even within the ethnic communities there are many charitable organisations too who do amazing work particularly during the COVID era where they were the ones who were providing people faced with difficulties because they couldn't actually get to do grocery shopping or whatever; they were actually feeding the communities and providing the lifeline that they actually required.So I'd like to ask the Minister: could she possibly answer whether this actually provides the transparency especially when the review was done by DIA on itself?
Dean Jacqui; Doocey MattCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Louise Upston. If members want to take a call—I'm just on the brink of shutting down the debate and moving on. So if members want to call—Hon Louise Upston: We're just waiting patiently in the expectation—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no no we don't argue. The Hon Louise Upston. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Point of order Madam Chair. The committee of the whole House with the new Standing Orders was to allow for a conversation between the Minister and the member. I think when the Opposition members are making pithy questions to engage that discussion and the Minister doesn't stand up that creates a silence. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean):Yes thank you. I get the gist of what the member is trying to say or wanting to say. It is indeed the case that the committees are now being run as more of an inquisitorial forwards and backwards Q and A. It is however entirely up to the Minister in the chair as to when and whether they stand to answer a question and that is my problem: that it is the will of the House whether the debate keeps going but into a silence I can only conclude that the House is finished and that is why I am trying to suggest to members that the most helpful—if members still have questions don't wait; go ahead and bid.
Upston Louise; Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like a response to the very clear comments from Sue Barker Charities Law. Of any of the submissions I think hers was the most substantial—and also the time and energy that went into making recommendations and drafting to assist officials and to assist the Government alternative options. So I would ask the Minister in the chair: how is it that we can determine whether the Act is fit for purpose when there's no agreement on what that purpose is?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I have said this previously as part of this committee of the whole House stage—that we are here to debate clauses of the bill and not to re-litigate the review that was done some years back. I will state that there is considerable support from many within the sector for what we're trying to do here through this bill which is to support small charities to do their work—to reduce for example the compliance burden—but to strike a balance between that and ensuring the public continues to have trust and confidence in the sector.
Smith Damien; Webb DuncanDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): How does the Government believe that a regulator can set and enforce regulated prices across thousands of individual grocery products many of which will be perishable and of varying quality?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Mr Smith raised this point on a number of occasions in the last sitting of the committee and there is no proposed price-setting price-fixing here. There is a regulatory backstop that will be a last resort; it's highly unlikely.
Smith Damien; Salesa Jenny; Webb DuncanDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. To the Minister: just the way the bill is written would I be right in saying that the designation should apply to cooperatives only—not for example Gilmours who is a wholesaler—that the supplier obligations would fall on all cooperatives only not the bits that make it up?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I wonder if the member can state his question again. I couldn't really hear what he was asking.DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): It's just for the Commerce Commission direction. The way the bill is written at the moment the supplier designation should only apply to cooperatives and not someone like Gilmours who's a wholesaler food service. But the supplier vocations if correct should fall on all the cooperatives only not all the individual bits that make up the supply chain.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): My understanding here is that the bill is intended to capture grocery retailers. Gilmours is a wholesaler and so the main object of this bill is to generate competition in the retail grocery market.
Bayly Andrew; Uffindell Sam; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK. Well thank you very much for that short and unhelpful reply. I hope in the spirit of trying to get a good bill—I think the Minister's showing a great deal of insensitivity and poor order—my next question to the Minister: is he able to provide the committee with some indication of when the Grocery Commissioner might be appointed? Hopefully the Minister will move and resist the temptation to be rude and insulting to the committee.SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I'm still waiting for an adequate response back from the Minister on clause 167 and what some tangible examples would be; I didn't receive any last time. Thank you.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): To Mr Uffindell: I did give him a tangible example of the Government policy but I won't presuppose what it will be in the future.To Mr Bayly: as I said the appointment of the Grocery Commissioner is well progressed. It of course won't happen before this legislation's passed.
Uffindell Sam; Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I asked for a couple of examples there Madam Chair and the Minister came back and said Oh you know high-level lowcarbon economy" sort of feedback on that. But I'm wondering how that applies to what this is actually about here which is making sure that the grocery prices that these big supermarkets can charge—and what the New Zealand taxpayer or the New Zealand consumer pays—how that is addressed through that. Because from what I understand that is what we are trying to address here right? So to say that the commission will have regard for a low-carbon economy I'm not really sure that that's actually addressing what we are trying to address here which is making sure that New Zealand families aren't getting fleeced when they go to the supermarket. Thank you.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well I'm so glad the Minister actually tried to address my questions because it became illuminating. So from what I understand—I think I'm correct in my interpretation—the Minister just stated that the Grocery Commissioner which is a warranted position is able to appoint two additional commissioners. So my question then becomes because I've perhaps had an assumption that he or she—the Grocery Commissioner—may rely on existing commissioners within the Commerce Commission because there are a number of commissioners. Is it the Minister's view—and it's a genuine question—are we talking about the appointment of further commissioners who are not currently existing commissioners of the Commerce Commission and if so is that a new warranted position? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I've already answered that question quite clearly; I'd invite Mr Bayly to read Hansard."
Uffindell Sam; Webb DuncanSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm just looking at clause 167 Commission must have regard to economic policies of Government" and wanting to be quite careful that we don't end up politicising a Public Service role by putting them through. It notes there that "the commission must have regard to any economic policies of the Government" so I am just hoping to hear from the Minister around what this may entail and what advice he has sought and received around how that would look. If you could give a couple of practical examples that would be appreciated. Thank you Minister.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'm happy to answer that. It's not unusual for the Government to make expectations clear to independent entities and this clause 167 makes it clear exactly how that should happen. For example it's a clear Government priority in the current environment to have a lowcarbon highly productive economy and those kinds of directions could quite easily be given to the Grocery Commissioner to outline the Government's economic priorities and to make sure that any actions taken by the commissioner are consistent with that."
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well I'm struggling with that. I'm not quite sure that was my question—I know there's two or more. Look we have traversed this and I'd like to ask the question again but I don't think the Minister is going to answer the question. Maybe he doesn't know the answer but the final thing—obviously we debated this bill substantially the last time it was before the House. My final question around this grocery bill—and it was the one I wanted to ask right at the end of the last session—is what assurance can the Minister give the committee that the Grocery Commissioner who's in the process of being recruited will have the requisite skills of really understanding the grocery trade and we don't necessarily end up with getting people who particularly have a legal background or who may have an economics background but we actually end up with someone who has a real in-depth understanding of the grocery trade? Because we've made it clear in our support of this bill that one of the most critical aspects of this bill is to have the appointment of an appropriate person with the appropriate skills and experience of the grocery trade to make this role meaningful. We are concerned that we may end up with someone who has a general understanding of the grocery trade and may have specific skills either legally or economically. But actually that's not what our support was predicated on because we believe that for this role to be effective over time it requires someone with very detailed working knowledge of the grocery trade. What assurance can the Minister give to the committee that that type of person will be recruited by the Commerce Commission? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm very happy to answer these questions. Obviously clause 163 in terms of the powers of the Grocery Commissioner makes it clear that the Grocery Commissioner may appoint an additional two commissioners but of course must" if the powers in subclause (2) are being exercised—and they're set out for Mr Bayly to read. In terms of his advice to me on the appointment of the commissioner all I can say is that those are things that I'm holding very much in the forefront of my mind and that the appointments process is well progressed and I can assure him he need have no concerns that the appointment won't be of a person well-equipped for the role."
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK I'm just picking up on this new Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Maybe the other aspect I was just keen to talk about is actually clause 163 which is in Part 5. So there's been a change under this SOP as well which introduced the concept that whilst it's intended that there will be a Grocery Commissioner in many respects that person will operate alone. Under the SOP change there's now the introduction of two or more members of the commission and it then sets out when that takes place. I'd just like to hear from the Minister: is that at the discretion of the commissioner who in some cases can either request it and it's got to be agreed to by the commissioner? And I'm talking about the overall commerce commissioner not the Grocery Commissioner. But just what is the arrangement for when two or more commissioners may be asked to undertake specific roles as set out in clause 163(2) specifically?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. The powers of the commission have been pretty well traversed last time we were in committee but clause 163(2) makes it relatively clear that this is at the request of the Grocery Commissioner and I wouldn't want to in this House fetter any discretion that the commissioner might have in making the decision of when that's necessary.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Just to be clear I think if I just take—reinterpreting what the Minister said: is it correct my understanding that if the Grocery Commissioner requests two or more then the two additional commissioners need to or have to be appointed? Or is it also subject to the Commerce Commission commissioner's approval as well? How is that mechanism triggered?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It's self-explanatory in clause 163(1)(b). They are two or more other members of the commission. They're of course going to be existing members.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I just wanted to confirm that we can talk about Supplementary Order Paper 353?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes we can at this part. ANDREW BAYLY: We can. OK. Obviously a number of changes have been proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper 353. There's two issues I just want to pick up on: most of this is pretty self-explanatory but I just want to refer to clause 64—there's a new term put in here under 64(1)(a) which refers to and … ancillary services". I'd be quite keen if the Minister could take the opportunity just to explain exactly what the intent of that is; and then there's obviously quite significant changes to subclause (4)—hopefully the Minister can just give us a bit of the insight into those specific changes.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So the advice that I have Andrew Bayly is that clause 64 is part of Part 3 not Part 5. So I'll give you another call to talk about another part—within Part 5 please."
Salesa JennyGROCERY INDUSTRY COMPETITION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 16 May.Part 5 Miscellaneous (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. When we were last considering this bill we were debating the question that Part 5 stand part.
Dean JacquiHOUSE IN COMMITTEEASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill the Charities Amendment Bill the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill and the Business Payment Practices Bill.
Andersen GinnyQuestion No. 8 to MinisterHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Point of order—Madam Speaker point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh! Point of order the Hon Ginny Andersen—just in time!Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an oral answer from question No. 8 today.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: In response to Nicole McKee's primary question today I stated that 26 vehicles were seized under the Government's new legislation. I should have said that 26 vehicles were in fact searched.
Edmonds BarbaraAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 6 to Minister 8 JuneHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Housing): Point of order. I seek leave to correct an answer given on Thursday 8 June. In reply to question No. 6 on Thursday 8 June I inadvertently gave incorrect information. I stated that the healthy homes standards do not apply to boarding houses. In fact the healthy homes standards do apply to boarding-house tenancies. The regulation for healthy homes standards made under the Residential Tenancies Act took effect in boarding-house tenancies from 1 July 2021. They will take effect for Kāinga Ora tenancies and community housing tenancies from 1 July 2024.
Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to acknowledge everyone from Ngāti Hei up in the audience today; welcome here to our Parliament. It's fantastic to have you here in attendance for what I'm sure is an incredibly historic day for you as you progress here so well done and thank you very much for being here. I won't speak with the eloquence of Tāmati who is just leaving the Chamber but I recognise what he has said and I saw a lot of nodding when he was speaking so I'm sure a lot of what he said meant a lot to you.The purpose of this is the final settlement of the historic Treaty claims of Ngāti Hei resulting from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992. It includes an agreed historical account Crown acknowledgments apology cultural redress and financial and commercial redress as well. And I know the part of the country where you hail from—your rohe—I spent a lot of time up there as a child and it is absolutely spectacular so you're very fortunate to be able to call that your home; it is a beautiful beautiful part of New Zealand. I note here that as we move forward there is a fair bit of redress and it may not compensate for what was taken from you back in the 19th century but I hope through the settlement process that there is a chance for everyone to move forward. And I also hope that through the lands that you receive or the minerals that are contained in them there is the opportunity there for you to create significant economic benefits for yourself for your children for your families and whānau because it is a beautiful and rich area of New Zealand and there is indeed enormous opportunities in there. So I'm sure you will take them up with both hands and do a fantastic job for future generations. The National Party supports this bill.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand on behalf of ACT and support the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill for the first reading. It's a real honour to be standing here and speaking to this. I don't know much about Treaty settlements in detail and the processes that get us to this place but what I do know is that it's taken far too long. And what I do hear is that there is a lot of pain and anguish when some of these settlements from beginning to end—we've lost people during that time frame and I'd like to acknowledge those who have passed before these settlements have come into play because I think that's really important. We've got descendants from Ngāti Hei that may be here or may be watching today and I'd just like to acknowledge those who have passed and who will not see this come into fruition. That saddens me that this process takes so long to get where we are today and so I'm grateful that we've got here today and I'm grateful that some of the wrongs of the past are being addressed in this House. I think it's important that we do address wrongs of the past and that we do make sure that an apology does happen for those wrongs but also some kind of compensation for those wrongs of the past as well. So as part of this as people have mentioned before there will be properties of cultural significance that will be dealt with. This is a collective agreement and there's more to come. So I take my hat off to the Māori Affairs Committee because it can't be easy listening to some of the Ngāti Hei and other iwis' stories about what it's taken to get to this place. So thank you to those who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee for taking this on and making sure that this is done appropriately and properly for all those involved. ACT supports this through to the select committee process and we hope to see it back before the House and passed as quickly as we possibly can. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Rurawhe Adrian; Seymour DavidQuestion No. 12 to MinisterSPEAKER: Members I have inadvertently broken the rules. I have asked the Hon Marama Davidson to return on the basis that she has question No. 12. The Standing Orders do not actually allow me to do that. The member has already returned to the House so I am going to be guided by the House.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order Mr Speaker. There has to be some penalty for getting kicked out—I say this with some experience. Now if she was kicked out and she can return conveniently so she can do her next question it seems like your penalty has been almost castrated and that wouldn't be a very good outcome. So I don't think she should be allowed to ask the question.SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.
Privilege — Disclosure of Select Committee Proceedings—Voting on Natural and Built Environment Bill
Sepuloni CarmelORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 3 to Minister 21 June 2022—Amended AnswerHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to oral question No. 3 on 21 June 2022. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In response to Ms Ngarewa-Packer's first supplementary to oral question No. 3 on 21 June 2022 I stated that the Children's Commissioner between 2015 and 2019 had had 78 complaints that were put through them that they then put on to the Ombudsman because the Ombudsman has had the lead role with regards to addressing complaints. The Office of the Children's Commissioner has confirmed to the Ministry of Social Development that the number of complaints in my answer is correct. However following correspondence between my office and a stakeholder I have been made aware that the time period I referred to was not correct. The time period I referred to should have been 1 January 2015 to 28 February 2022. My office advised me of this yesterday and I'm taking this first possible opportunity to correct the record.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network requesting the House investigate the creation of a Rainbow subcategory within the New Zealand Refugee Quota Programmepetition of Greg Rzesniowiecki requesting that the House urge the Government to hold a referendum before adopting any amended International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization concerning the use of mRNA vaccines in future pandemicspetition of Greg Rzesniowiecki requesting that the House urge the Government to hold a referendum before signing the proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: 2021/22 Annual Report of the Hawke's Bay District Health Boardthe Government Response to the referral of the Petition of Leo Lithe 2023/27 Statement of intent for the Serious Fraud Office 2023/24 Statements of Performance Expectations for:Accreditation CouncilTransport Accident Investigation Commission.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK:Reports of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on the:Petition of Postal Workers Union of AotearoaThomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Billreport of the Health Committee on the Therapeutic Products Billreports of the Justice Committee on the: 2021/22 Annual reviews of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Privacy CommissionerPetition of Bridget Kingreports of the Petitions Committee on the:Petition of Eva ChenPetition of Maggie RossPetition of Robert Osbornereport of the Primary Production Committee on the Petition of Frances Clementreport of the Regulations Review Committee on the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislationreports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:Briefing on reports prepared by the Auditor-General and the Infrastructure Commission for Transmission GullyReports of the Ombudsman on OIA compliance and practice in Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and the Ministry of Transport.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report on the Reports of the Ombudsman and the Report of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill introductionWater Services Entities Amendment Bill introductionMcLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Rurawhe AdrianPRIVILEGEDisclosure of Select Committee Proceedings—Voting on Natural and Built Environment BillSPEAKER: Members I have received a letter from the Hon Eugenie Sage raising as a matter of privilege the disclosure of committee proceedings by Simon Court on the consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. A disclosure was made by way of a press release. The committee has attempted to resolve this matter but has been unable to do so. Mr Court admitted making the press release informing the media of the outcome of a vote taken during the committee's consideration. However he took the view that the proceedings could be disclosed under Standing Order 243(3)(a) because they did not relate to any business or decision still before the committee. The onus is on the member who divulges proceedings to check whether they may do so. If there is any doubt they should seek clarification in the committee or discuss with committee staff whether disclosure is permissible. The confidentiality attached to committee proceedings apart from public evidence was relaxed in 2003 to enable members to disclose procedural decisions such as the appointment of advisers or a decision not to initiate an inquiry. Because these procedural matters do not reflect the potential findings of a committee or indicate the direction of its consideration there is no difficulty in divulging them before the committee reports to the House. However discussion and voting on substantive matters before the committee remain strictly confidential until the committee reports to the House.I do not consider that the matters disclosed by Mr Court are the sort of procedural decisions that the Standing Orders Committee contemplated being able to be divulged before a committee reports to the House. I have considered the degree of importance of the matter. It is essential that committees are able to consider matters freely and deliberate on them in strict confidence. They are obliged to inform the House of their findings first. Therefore I find a question of privilege arises. The question stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Salesa JennyTUESDAY 20 JUNE 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant 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 Kīngi 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. Āmene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Tuesday 6 June 2023 - Volume 768
Deposit Takers Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Deposit Takers Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Fuel Industry Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee we now move to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 August 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill — Instruction to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee
Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 73New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
8. Question No. 8—TourismINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of TourismQuestion No. 8—Tourism8. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Tourism: How is the Government supporting better education and career opportunities in tourism?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Tourism): Firstly I'd like to acknowledge the resilience of our tourism workforce who have supported us through COVID-19; their work has not gone unnoticed. Through Budget 2023 this Government announced $18.2 million in funding to support the implementation of the Better Work Action Plan. This action plan will focus on the foundation of the sector: its people. It will ensure we create a stronger more resilient and sustainable tourism workforce across Aotearoa New Zealand. This investment highlights the Government's backing for the tourism and hospitality sector and our commitment to transforming the sector into a regenerative one.Ingrid Leary: Why is there a need for a Better Work Action Plan?Hon PEENI HENARE: Perceptions and evidence indicate that workplace standards in tourism and hospitality are often lower than other industries. Post COVID we have had a unique opportunity to rethink our approach to tourism and to rebuild differently—with sustainability regeneration and innovation at the industry's core. The Better Work Action Plan will do just this and help transform the tourism sector into a resilient high-wage productive industry that gives back more than it takes.Ingrid Leary: What is the significance of this announcement for the tourism sector?Hon PEENI HENARE: We know that here in Aotearoa we have amazing people working in the tourism sector—some are world-class innovators—but we also know we can do better. The funding secured from Budget 2023 will see more New Zealanders pursue jobs in tourism like the young leaders from Dunedin in the gallery who are supported here by the Otago Community Trust. They can do this in the confidence that they will be supported through training decent pay good working conditions support from employers reliable work and good career prospects. The adoption of technology and showcasing innovation will help to boost business efficiencies and capabilities and improve productivity. Partnership between Government the tourism industry Māori and unions all work together to build tourism back stronger and more resilient for the future.Ingrid Leary: What feedback are we hearing on the ground around this announcement?Hon PEENI HENARE: The feedback I'm hearing is very supportive of the Better Work Action Plan with tourism stakeholders saying the action plan is both practical and transformational forming a holistic package of proposals that should bring about positive changes to the tourism industry. There are many positive stories of people with fulfilling and rewarding careers in tourism and showcasing these people their careers and the variety that tourism has to offer should help attract more workers to this important industry in our economy.
6. Question No. 6—Regional DevelopmentDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister for Regional DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Regional Development6. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister for Regional Development: What progress has been made on water storage projects in Northland?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister for Regional Development): Recently I had the privilege of announcing the delivery of a significant water storage project in Northland boosting regional business and climate resilience with the opening of Matawii reservoir. Water plays an integral role in ensuring our regional economies are equitable sustainable and productive. As a result of the flood and drought cycle in Te Tai Tokerau there needed to be a reliable water source to unlock the potential of the region's land which has rich soils and an incredible climate for horticulture. As a result of Government investment this potential will now be fully harnessed.Dr Emily Henderson: What will the Matawii reservoir mean for local communities?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Supported by $12 million in Government investment the Matawii reservoir covers 18 hectares and has a capacity of 750000 square metres which is 300 olympic-sized swimming pools and is located 3 kilometres east of Kaikohe. Not only is it going to help unlock the horticultural potential of land nearby but it will also supply water to the neighbouring Ngawha Innovation Park and can augment the town supply for Kaikohe.Dr Emily Henderson: How was the Matawii reservoir consented Minister?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Matawii was the first project to be approved through the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act. This ensured the vital piece of community infrastructure was able to be completed at pace while providing immediate job opportunities during a time of great upheaval. The site was once a dairy farm and in just a few years despite the pandemic the project transformed the land from paddocks to water.Dr Emily Henderson: What other water storage projects have been delivered for Northland?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: An overall $68 million of Government investment in October 2018 supported the construction of Matawii reservoir along with other water storage and distribution projects being developed in Kaipara and the mid-North. Once the remaining projects are complete Northland will have the infrastructure and water to develop approximately 7000 hectares of horticulture creating hundreds of jobs and contributing to regional economic output. The Government has also contributed over $153 million to 30 projects in the water storage and management sector across New Zealand's regions.
3. Question No. 3—Energy and ResourcesRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 3—Energy and Resources3. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government extending the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Through Budget 2023 the Government has committed to delivering over 100000 more insulation and heating retrofits to lowincome households over the next four years through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme. This Government programme makes it far more affordable and accessible for homeowners to make their homes warm dry and healthy and reduce their spend on power bills. Rachel Boyack: Will there be any changes to the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: While Budget 2023 provides certainty for the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme we've also expanded the programme to enable minor repairs to bring homes up to the necessary standard to allow for retrofits. This will help thousands that could greatly benefit from heating and insulation but issues with housing quality mean that that can't be currently installed. Funding will help some homes that for example need minor maintenance repairs to leaking roofs or damaged pipes in the underfloor that would normally require fixing before insulation can be installed. Rachel Boyack: What has the Government's Warmer Kiwi Homes programme achieved to date? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Budget 2023 extends the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme enabling 100000 more retrofits on the top of more than 117000 upgrades that we've delivered since 2018 and we know the programme works. Motu's independent review of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme found those in upgraded homes experienced an electricity reduction of 16 percent through the winter months supporting households to spend less on their power bills. Rachel Boyack: What energy efficiency and health benefits does the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme provide? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: An independent review by Motu also found that Warmer Kiwi Homes were delivering better outcomes with homes being on average 2 degrees Celsius warmer 89 percent of homeowners reported less condensation on windows and around half of homeowners noticed a reduction in dampness. Warmer Kiwi Homes improves health outcomes for New Zealanders contributing to fewer doctors visits and hospitalisations being required with research finding that this equates to over $15 million per year saved in avoided health costs.