edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Lees-Galloway Iain; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 13 JUNE 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. Next week the Budget debate will continue. It will conclude on Tuesday 25 June. Other legislation to be considered will include the remaining stages of the Racing Reform Bill and the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill and the committee stage of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019–20 GST Offshore Supplier Registration and Remedial Matters) Bill.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I wonder if the acting Leader of the House could indicate whether or not it's the Government's intention to bring legislation to the House for enhanced security provisions relating to the APEC schedule of meetings due to take place in New Zealand in 2020 and if so if there will be—Hon Grant Robertson: 2021.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well Minister Robertson there are actually quite a large number—27 I believe—officials meetings during the year related to APEC as well. If there is a bill coming to the House can the acting Leader of the House indicate when that might be and whether or not it would get full select committee scrutiny?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I'm not aware of anything being brought to the Order Paper at this point in time but on those matters I recommend that the member address them to the Minister responsible.
Wednesday 12 June 2019 - Volume 738
12. Question No. 12—EducationANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of EducationQuestion No. 12—Education12. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about support for Pacific learners and their whānau?Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education): This year's Wellbeing Budget makes lifting Pacific incomes skills and opportunities one of our top priorities. That's why I was proud to announce $27.4 million in Budget 2019 to support a package of initiatives focused on achieving Pacific outcomes growing cultural competency of the workforce and providing opportunities for our students to learn in Pacific languages. This funding for Pacific education is just part of the $113 million specifically targeted to lift the skills and outcomes of Pacific people in New Zealand. It is a clear demonstration of our Government's commitment to lifting the wellbeing of New Zealanders. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will this engage young Pacific learners?Hon JENNY SALESA: What we know from talking to Pacific students is that a great teacher is someone who understands just how important their identity culture and language is and shows respect in ways as simple as pronouncing their names correctly. To support the thousands of Pacific New Zealand students who make up 13 percent of all school-age children aged between five to 18 we will expand funding for Tapasā which is a cultural competency framework for teachers of Pacific students. There is currently a huge demand for Tapasā from teachers of our Pacific learners because like us they understand that Pacific learners who feel respected and are encouraged to have high aspirations achieve better educational outcomes.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What other initiatives will this fund? Hon JENNY SALESA: This historical increase in funding for Pacific education will allow the continuation and expansion of successful initiatives with proven track records. Tapasā is just one of those initiatives. We're also supporting extending the Pasifika Early Literacy Project; implementing DMIC which is Developing Mathematical Inquiry Communities in many more schools; enhancing and implementing initiatives to support Pacific families Pacific parents communities and Pacific learners; and support for Pacific bilingual education. This Government knows that it's important to have community-driven initiatives and we know that we actually need to expand and fund these initiatives unlike the last Government.
11. Question No. 11—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of TransportQuestion No. 11—Transport11. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she stand by all of her statements policies and actions on road safety?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Yes. In particular I stand by this Government's balanced approach to road safety that includes the largest ever investment programme in road safety upgrades including $1.4 billion over three years to upgrade thousands of kilometres of roads increased funding for road police and targeted speed reductions.Chris Bishop: Does she stand by her comment yesterday in relation to the $331 million Vote Police road safety programme appropriation The figure used by the police is simply a placeholder figure only" and how many other placeholder figures are there in Vote Transport or Vote Police in Budget 2019.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes I stand by that statement. I'll explain to the member again that the 2018-2021 road safety partnership programme includes $1.045 billion in funding for road policing with $352.7 million in funding already approved for 2018-2019. This three-year funding represents an increase of $85 million above the investment level in the previous National Government's road policing programme. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and police are finalising the details of the road safety policing programme because we've had this increased focus on road safety. We are looking to ensure that we have the right level of investment and that we have the most effective approach to reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads.Chris Bishop: Given that why is the Vote Police road safety programme not listed as a fiscal risk in the Budget? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think that if the member puts that down in writing we might be able to address that. It really is a question for the Minister of Finance but I can say that it's not a fiscal risk because we've already approved the funding from the National Land Transport Fund in Vote Transport. Chris Bishop: Why have safety upgrades for State Highway 58—described by NZTA as Wellington's most dangerous road—been delayed? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: What the NZTA is currently in the process of doing is identifying the road-safety upgrades and improvements that will have the greatest effect in terms of reducing deaths and serious injuries across the entire country. Therefore the prioritisation of projects is aimed at reducing deaths and serious injuries right across the country. Chris Bishop: Supplementary—Hon Julie Anne Genter: We will save more lives than you. SPEAKER: Order! The member is going to have another chance to finish or to give another answer. She should wait until it's her turn. Chris Bishop: Is it correct she threatened to resign if the Let's Get Wellington Moving project included a commitment to a second Mt Victoria tunnel ahead of mass rapid transit? Hon Julie Anne Genter: No."
8. Question No. 8—Housing and Urban DevelopmentDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 8—Housing and Urban Development8. DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is he confident he is meeting the Prime Minister's expectations around openness and transparency?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes.Denise Lee: Did he meet with the Mayor of Auckland Phil Goff and the Minister for the Environment David Parker on 2 March 2019 to discuss the Auckland Rural Urban Boundary?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.Denise Lee: Why when his and Minister Parker's diaries were released did Minister Parker reveal the meeting but he did not?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The meeting was in my diary but there was an error in the published diary—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! Listen.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It was an oversight that has since been corrected.Denise Lee: Is it correct—as was asserted in emails released to me from Minister Parker's office—that he requested a political meeting with no officials" with Mayor Goff and Minister Parker to discuss the Auckland Rural Urban Boundary?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: If I could just seek clarification from the member: is the member asking me whether it's correct that Minister Parker requested a political meeting with no officials? Is that the question?SPEAKER: That's exactly what the question was with a little bit extra.Denise Lee: No may I clarify Mr Speaker? I am asking for his confirmation that emails released to me from Minister Parker's diary show that he—Minister Twyford—requested a meeting with no political—SPEAKER: Oh Minister Twyford. I apologise I got it wrong. Is that accurate?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I had requested a meeting with no officials present.Denise Lee: What does the non-disclosure by a Minister of a meeting with another Minister and the mayor of New Zealand's largest city about arguably the most important factor impacting on the supply and cost of housing say about this Government's commitment to openness and transparency?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well as I said as soon as the error was pointed out to me that the matter hadn't been transferred over to the published diary it was corrected. Denise Lee: I seek leave to table an email from Minister Twyford's office requesting a meeting with the Mayor of Auckland to discuss the Rural Urban Boundary that states it is to be a political meeting with no officials in attendance.SPEAKER: Can you tell me the source of that email? Where did the member get it?Denise Lee: An Official Information Act request. It is not publicly available.SPEAKER: I mean it clearly is publicly available if it's been released under the Official Information Act.Hon Member: No only to the member.SPEAKER: Only to the member?Denise Lee: Yes.SPEAKER: Only to the member and not as part of the rest of the process?Denise Lee: Yes.SPEAKER: OK. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."
6. Question No. 6—FinanceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 6—Finance6. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reactions has he seen to Budget 2019?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): More good news. One school principal wrote to me to say As a citizen of Aotearoa I want a Budget that is driven by values that result in a quality life for every person who lives here." She said that for her school the most that the school has ever received in donations in a year had been $2000 but with the policy change in this Budget her school will now be better off by $40000. She went on to say "So much in the Budget will start to move us as a country to a more equitable compassionate respectful tolerant and rich—in the widest sense of the word—society."Willow-Jean Prime: What responses to the Budget has he seen in international media?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: American author and Bloomberg columnist Cass Sunstein said that New Zealand's Wellbeing Budget is worth copying. He noted "New Zealand has taken an important step in the right direction. Other nations should follow its lead." I agree with Mr Sunstein. This is indeed an ambitious Budget. It represents a step towards the Budget representing a comprehensive assessment of New Zealand's overall wellbeing and our plans to improve that.Willow-Jean Prime: What other responses has he seen to the Wellbeing Budget?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Business New Zealand chief executive Kirk Hope said that the Budget's focus on innovation research and skills would help more businesses develop at higher levels and grow the economy. He said that investment in equipping young people with civics knowledge financial literacy and key workplace competencies was also important for business. Likewise Brett O'Riley chief executive of The Manufacturers' Network says the announcement of $6.8 million over four years to futureproof New Zealand's manufacturing industry will help members understand and utilise digital technologies in order to be more productive and develop new products and services. I've even seen feedback from one commentator who said "Don't get me wrong. There are a few things in the Budget I can wholeheartedly support."—a rare sign of positivity from Simon Bridges."
Insolvency Practitioners Regulation (Amendments) Bill & Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Bill — Third Readings
Luxton Jo; Tolley AnneJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on these bills this evening. As has been said on several occasions tonight this legislation has been around for a very very long time and I came into the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee just prior to it being reported back to the House. I want to thank Jonathan Young for his chairing of the select committee during the process that we did have before the select committee and I want to thank those that took the time to submit. I think there were possibly around 16 people that submitted and around seven that submitted orally to the select committee.What we find is that unfortunately sometimes businesses or companies get to the stage where they can no longer continue to pay their debts—it's a sad situation to be in—or their liabilities exceed the assets that they hold. That's when it becomes time that an insolvency practitioner has to become involved in the process of insolvency for a business—a sad situation for any business to be in but unfortunately when these things happen we have to have people in place that can put this process in place.What we found and have heard is that in the past there have been some practitioners who have not really necessarily behaved appropriately. They have worked in such a way where unfortunately they have increased the cost to the company that's going to be made insolvent. This piece of legislation what it does is it does help to enhance the integrity of the corporate insolvency system whereby insolvency practitioners will have to look to undergo professional development in their area so that they do maintain the highest of integrity when dealing with this situation.Look everything that I thought of saying has been said and I do wish to commend these bills to the House. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would help if you'd just kept going for another couple of seconds but the time has come for me to stand and interrupt this debate.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: It's not 10 o'clock. Put the vote Madam Deputy Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh OK—all right. Yep we'll do that.Bills read a third time.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation (Amendments) Bill and the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Bill. The Green Party has supported this throughout the process all the way back to 2010 because there was a clear and pressing need in our society to make sure that at a point of a business's lifetime when they're meeting a liquidator it is a pretty trying time and it is a crucial time.Now we heard from a small number of liquidators in the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee that while being a small community they play a vital role in a healthy functioning economic ecosystem. They do play a vital role as part of our economy in New Zealand. Now what we'd also heard though is that because of the lack of a positive or a negative licensing or accreditation scheme there was some bad behaviour arising. Now we heard from the previous speaker Lawrence Yule who mentioned cases where the purposes the motivation and in fact the professional history and experiences of liquidators were seriously in question and we did see some shocking behaviour and real people saw real harm occur as a result.We acknowledge the work of the previous Government. We didn't hear a great number of submissions in the select committee but we did hear from the small community of liquidators particularly on the point of the cost which the previous speaker also mentioned. It will be funded out of the Companies Office. This is important so that this burden isn't placed on a small number of shoulders; it's actually funded through the company registration system.The Green Party fundamentally does support though the idea of a licensing regime for liquidators. It is a tough time for those businesses facing it. We've heard from Melissa Lee in previous debates that not all companies liquidate for negative reasons but that is the vast bulk. So we want to make sure it's an appropriate process a fair process one that the participants can have confidence in. So the Green Party's very happy to support it. Kia ora koutou.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Following the introduction from my colleague Mr Andrew Falloon I wish to take a brief call on the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation (Amendments) Bill and having sat on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee that considered this I do want to congratulate the Hon Kris Faafoi for getting it to this point. This side of the House obviously supports the legislation.It is really important that we have up-to-date regulations to manage people and the practitioners that are dealing with insolvency. As we sit here late at night it is easy to forget the number of people that do get caught up in insolvency often through no fault of their own. So they supply goods or services or trades to a business the business gets into financial difficulty the business then becomes insolvent and a whole lot of creditors get caught up in that mix. As we sit here tonight it's easy to forget the stress that those creditors go under. As part of the select committee one of the striking things for me was that it was not always obvious in terms of how the system worked before who the insolvency practitioner was working for or how that person could effectively be manipulated. While they should have been working for the creditors there were various ways you could deal with insolvency and various ways you could get an insolvency practitioner engaged that would sometimes mean that the creditors' interests—in my view anyway—were not properly protected.So I think this is a very good piece of legislation. It offers best practice. It offers a form of regulation and that regulation—we've agreed to the Supplementary Order Paper—will be funded by everybody in the Companies Office. Now we did look at that because it's different to doctors and lawyers who as part of a professional organisation would fund their own fees. But we looked at it and basically said that there are so few insolvency practitioners that if we did that it would mean that the costs would be quite high—up to $10000 or maybe over $10000.So the agreement was made for a small charge on every person that's registered in the Companies Office. They will pay effectively the registration costs of insolvency practitioners.In closing I think this is a good bill. We think it's a good bill. It does tidy up some loopholes and importantly in my view it gives the creditors the best protection in an impartial way that this Parliament can afford. I commend this bill to the House.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Madam Deputy Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on these bills. It's legislation which serves the very important purpose of introducing real expertise into the practice of insolvency and ensuring that those who undertake insolvencies and who do the work on insolvencies are properly licensed are properly trained and are scrutinised to ensure that they really are proffering services in line with what is needed to ensure that we actually have real experts operating. For those reasons I commend these bills to the House.
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. First of all I want to respond to some of the comments by Mr Fletcher Tabuteau across the Chamber because I thought to myself Here we are having a very nice debate tonight discussing how this legislation is very much needed and yet Mr Tabuteau has found a way of creating some disagreement between National and Labour on these bills." which I thought was a bit disappointing. He also said that he'd never seen Brett Hudson so positive. Well clearly he doesn't know Mr Hudson very well because we all know Mr Hudson is a very positive and amiable chap. But it is a real pleasure to be speaking tonight on this third reading of the Insolvency Practitioners Bill which of course was divided at the committee of the whole House into the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation (Amendments) Bill and the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Bill. Mr Tabuteau—he did get one thing one thing right Mr Tabuteau. He said that this legislation has been around for a long time. In fact it was first introduced in 2010 and it was first introduced under the National Government and the reason for that was because we saw a failing where there's as has been said a small number of insolvency practitioners that are operating around the country. But unfortunately a small number of those practitioners are giving the good ones a bad name. So what this legislation does is it registers or provides registration for insolvency practitioners to hopefully up the standards.All the work though wasn't done actually by National. There has been some work done by Mr Faafoi and I do want to give him some credit tonight in passing this legislation. He brought forward a Supplementary Order Paper in 2018 which really did four things—in fact introduced four new parts which are Parts 3 to 6. They do things like creating a co-regulatory licensing regime improving the list of automatic practitioner disqualifications and providing the High Court with an effective means to disqualify practitioners. It was a real pleasure to sit on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee which considered this legislation. We had a good number of submissions come in and we had a robust discussion around the committee table about the final form of the legislation and I think we've come to a very good place with it. I don't want to delay the bills any further and I do know my colleague Mr Lawrence Yule is very keen to speak on these bills tonight. So I'll end it there and commend them to the House."
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to address some of the comments made by the previous speaker Paul Goldsmith—I believe formerly the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—and address some of his concerns. He seemed to intimate that this was the beginnings of some uncertainty about the nature of this legislation but I just want to point out the history of this bill because this was first introduced in 2010. This bill featured what we termed a negative licensing" system at the time and it empowered the register of companies to prohibit certain individuals from—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Registrar. FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —registrar—from providing insolvency services. But then in 2011 the Commerce Committee came back and said actually this isn't working. It reported back on the bill; it concluded that the negative licensing system would not adequately address the problems that were identified and were hoping to be addressed in the 2010 supposed fix-up. Instead the committee recommended that the bill be amended so that practitioners would be required to be registered and that the bill include offences and penalties for practitioners who fail to comply. But then we had to come back in 2016 and there were two problems identified with the registration system: firstly it was kind of reactive. We weren't addressing the issue of competency and integrity in the first instance and so because the disqualification criteria were quite minimal there was no conversation about skill and experience and good character. But essentially that's where we've come to now.So I do question the contribution from the previous speaker around what it is that we hope to achieve today because what we are doing and what we will see and the support of this legislation on both sides of the House—which is appreciated and it's the first time I've seen Mr Brett Hudson's contribution be so positive which was incredibly wonderful to see I have to say. The bill supports the introduction of a robust new regime for the licensing of practitioners providing effective ways for holding them to account and requiring such things as continuing professional development to raise the standards of practitioners' behaviour over time. So what New Zealand First is saying is that when corporate insolvency takes place when a company is unable to pay its debts and they fall due then we want good people good businesses to be the ones who are ensuring that the assets of these companies are allocated to the most efficient use with the least delay and the least expense possible. So actually I suppose with those few words I do commend this legislation to the House."
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. This will be a short call. These are some of those really lovely bills where both sides of the House tend to agree. It is very technical legislation but it's also legislation that has been in the political machine for quite some time now. For that reason the people that started this legislation all those years ago aren't the people that are here representing it today. But it is good legislation it's stood the test of time and it's been through our Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee for a wee while now.The actual purpose of this legislation is to promote better outcomes for corporate insolvency by strengthening the regulation of insolvency practitioners. Now for those people that don't quite understand the process of insolvency it's when your liabilities outweigh your assets or when your debts basically become too much and you're made insolvent. There are practitioners out there around the country that specialise in this kind of business and for that reason they have been calling for quite some time for stronger regulation in terms of what they do helping them to be able to do the work that they do.There were many issues that were raised throughout the small time that I've been with this legislation. We've talked through those considerably in our select committee and we've got to a point where we're sitting here in front of very very good bills and very robust bills. They've had the consideration of many submitters and it's probably a good opportunity to thank all of those submitters who also put time and effort into making these the good pieces of legislation that they are. I also want to thank the Opposition for the work that they've done in creating quite an amicable bill that we are quite happy to stand behind all together and say that we commend this legislation to the House.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in support of both the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation (Amendments) Bill and the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Bill in their third readings. Some bills have a long gestation time through Parliament; the Insolvency Practitioners Bill is one such bill. It was first reported back from the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee in 2011. So this year we saw a rather unusual event where a bill that had been returned for further scrutiny—or re-scrutiny if you will—by a select committee instead had a debate on the report of that select committee because of course the Standing Orders don't permit a second second reading.But the legislation has emerged in better shape. These are necessary bills. As the Minister Megan Woods who has introduced this in these third readings has pointed out it is the behaviours of the few which tarnish an entire industry or industry sector and in fact diminish confidence across the entire market or business sector of New Zealand. Those activities those behaviours of those poorly behaving insolvency practitioners need addressing which is why this legislation is so important.The fundamental thing that I believe it achieves is to seek to establish greater confidence for businesses to transact in New Zealand with each other because in doing so one party does become a creditor to the other. They deserve confidence that should the business they're transacting with go into financial difficulties their interests as creditors will be served by the practitioners that are dealing with that issue or insolvency. This legislation goes a long way I believe to improving that confidence.In fact it is for that reason—that the broader benefit spans really every business or most businesses across New Zealand—that we supported the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that sought to pay for the new regime to manage the provisions of these bills through a levy to be levied across every business entity or every business entity that could potentially be subject to the provisions of this legislation or be liquidated under the Companies Act.Because every business does or fundamentally most businesses do benefit from the improved confidence that these measures bring about it is reasonable that each of them should bear what is a very small charge each—a couple of dollars is anticipated certainly no more than that—and that is an appropriate way to do it. The opposite of that would be instead to load the costs on to insolvency practitioners themselves which quite frankly would be so onerous as to put a number of them out of business and even those that didn't go out of business would then seek to recover those costs through their charges; so ultimately it wouldn't help either the businesses that are being wound up or indeed in particular the creditors that are hoping to get at least some of their moneys returned to them.It is for those reasons that we not only support the bills but supported that SOP that the Minister introduced. I commend these bills to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity Madam Deputy Speaker to speak on the Building Amendment Bill in its third reading. As has already been noted the Transport and Infrastructure Committee has done a fantastic job and it's good to see that the changes brought forward have been agreed on widely across the House. In the overview of the bill there are two important parts that I wish to briefly touch on in terms of what this bill does in order to address those concerns that have been seen in Kaikōura here in Wellington and also in Christchurch with the ongoing events that have taken place there. So the two key parts of what the bill does that I would briefly like to touch upon are that firstly it introduces new powers to create a clear and balanced system to manage the risks that buildings can pose not just to people but also to property from response through to recovery following a significant emergency or major event like the ones that we have seen. Secondly the bill provides the central building regulator the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment with a clear set of powers to investigate significant building failures. This sets us up to learn lessons and also to improve and that is to make sure that we are fit for purpose in the way that we look to move forward if we are to have significant events in the future. So in terms of managing buildings after an emergency event this bill introduces an end-to-end process for managing buildings following an emergency from response through to recovery. It's important to note that the Minister for Building and Construction has the ability to take direct action when required. As has been noted by previous speakers tonight it's important in those times of uncertainty and emergency that the appropriate powers can be called upon to act swiftly in order to give people the reassurance that life will still go on and that there are critical services still taking place. So the ability to make decisions and manage buildings in a significant emergency event is very important. So these new powers and the clarifications on the use and the timings and when they can occur bring into clarity a clearer idea of what can happen. These areas have been already identified by the royal commission in investigating how we can learn from the past.So without further ado I would like to acknowledge the fact that it's great to see agreement across the House on a piece of legislation that clearly looks to be moving forward and to be making New Zealand a safer place and more robust should we encounter any major events. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Building Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I too rise in support of the Building Amendment Bill in its third reading. Like other members I would like to acknowledge the work that the Hon Dr Nick Smith had done around the policy prior to this bill's introduction and indeed Minister Salesa for her work in shepherding it through the House. I'd also acknowledge Mr Darroch Ball as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the members of the committee for the work they've done to bring a bill forward which has resounding endorsement across this House. As I was looking through the bill tonight I reflected on the last Parliament when I was a member of the Government Administration Committee which was the forerunner to the Governance and Administration Committee that I now have the privilege of chairing. In 2016 we considered the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill and that bill had come in and had been ushered in quite quickly following the Whanganui floods in 2015. As we scrutinised that in select committee officials and others were keen to point out that one of the problems that had manifested itself during those floods was the lack of authority for persons and authorities to compel people to leave at-risk properties. So their lives were placed at risk and resources were consumed in trying to encourage people to leave for their own safety with no mandate to compel that to happen. Then fast-forwarding a little more—actually while the bill was still progressing as I recall—we then had the Kaikōura quake and here in Wellington those existing issues were compounded further. There was great uncertainty about who had rights to enter buildings who had rights to require buildings to be vacated and who had rights to go and assess the potentially quake-affected buildings. There were questions about whether Wellington should reopen so quickly and yet the authorities including the mayor did not have the power to compel even Government agencies let alone private sector individuals and property owners to close their buildings. So this bill does exceptionally good work at clarifying the powers that responsible persons will have to enter premises to require the vacation of them and particularly also to enter them for assessment of damage. It has support right across the House and I commend it to the House.
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to take a short call on this third and final reading of the Building Amendment Bill. I am fortunate to be a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that considered the bill. I too want to acknowledge the Hon Jenny Salesa for ushering the bill through and of course the Hon Nick Smith. The member Lawrence Yule who has just resumed his seat made really clear his role in terms of the policy work behind the bill. Essentially the bill has two parts: obviously managing buildings after emergencies and of course there are lessons learnt from building failures. I want to just pick up on the previous speaker who shared the financial impacts I guess of constantly modernising our building safety regulations to ensure that we are up to code but also acknowledging the wider cost to building owners should those codes and expectations change. I recall that in 2016 there was an earthquake here in Wellington and I think it was on the weekend that most MPs were at home. But on returning back to Wellington I found not only broken glass in my apartment kitchen but actually cracks in the ceiling and walls of a fairly new apartment building in central Wellington. I must share in this House that for two weeks apart from contacting the property managers I never received a visit. So this bill makes it really clear who is responsible for entering buildings first and foremost and what are the rules under which they enter and what responsibilities and roles they serve when they enter that building. I used that example from 2016 because it would have been useful in 2016 to have had somebody come forward to at least check the cracks in what I'd considered was a very very modern apartment complex. Previous speakers have laid out what's in the bill. I want to commend our select committee for the way in which they've worked and our chair Darroch Ball. I almost thought while I was sitting in the House listening to the various speakers that I was listening to a Treaty bill. Such was the support for this bill from both sides of the House that I thought I was hearing a Treaty bill but it was not to be. It is something just as important—the Building Amendment Bill—and so I want to again thank all members and thank the officials that worked on it those that submitted on it and also the experts that came before the select committee from Local Government New Zealand and some of the councils that submitted. As the Minister said in her opening address this is a fairly sensible non-contentious bill. It does modernise our whole building safety and post - building failure system and I commend it to the House.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill. I do wish to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa for getting the bill to this point. I wish to also congratulate all the political parties across the Parliament on agreeing on what are very sensible measures. But I do in response to the last point have to correct it—and also congratulate the Hon Dr Nick Smith—because the policy work for this and the changes that were made came out of what was learnt from the Christchurch earthquakes. Dr Smith—from our side anyway and I suspect across this House—as a former engineer has a lot of interest and a lot of knowledge and has studied many of the issues that came out of the Canterbury earthquakes. So I think credit can go all around. I think this really is around how we manage the conflicts in terms of first responders and subsequent responders because while there is management of safety there is also business interruption there is also building security and there are big decisions to be made. In a State of emergency and the subsequent days and weeks and years after that all those trade-offs have to be made. In the Canterbury earthquakes I happened to be on an insurance company at the time which was affected and we had a lot of claims made. I was on the board and one of the interesting things that we came across was that we had to define which earthquake caused the damage. So you'd work out that some damage was caused in some pipes in one earthquake and then you'd have to go and redo the work and say whether that was more damage caused. It's very complex—that's what I'm trying to get to. It's very complex millions or—in this case—billions of dollars were involved and people's livelihoods were at stake so the combination of that ends up with a great deal of anxiety and tension on all sorts of bodies. So this bill seeks to give some direction around who can do what and when and it gives some clarity for not only agencies but also members of the public and building owners. Vitally it also allows the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and others—agents of MBIE—to look at sites and look at failure in a way that can allow New Zealand to benefit in terms of future rules and regulations. In my own case—and the Hon Meka Whaitiri will be aware of this—in Hawke's Bay we had upgraded the Hawke's Bay Opera House to the building standard at the time. The Canterbury earthquake came along and the engineer said Oh we've learnt from that now and now we have to go and upgrade it again." and it's just been completed. My point in saying that is we're on a constant journey and we need to make sure that when these tragedies and events of such magnitude happen we can learn as much as possible while respecting the property rights but while the evidence and understanding is still there. So on that basis it's wonderful to see that across the Parliament we have unanimity and agreement that this bill should be supported and I'm happy to commend it to the House."
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I'm happy to rise and support this bill at the third reading. Just judging by the tempo and the tone of remarks from speeches that have already been given it seems that this House is united in support of this bill. It also reflects that there appears to be a consensus view in this House that safety is an issue that all members are concerned about. So it's quite fitting because this bill aims to address the risks and harms caused from the collapse of buildings and properties.I suppose when you consider that we live in a beautiful country but a beautiful country that in the context of climate change has become quite unpredictable and vulnerable to not only coastal erosion as the previous speaker made mention of but the scientists are saying that the climatic conditions nowadays are hotter wetter and drier—and I think we've seen of late how our airports have also closed as a result and consequence of fog and strong winds. All scientific material that I have read suggests that—as one of the speakers earlier said—it's so unpredictable now and that we can expect more and more natural disasters. Indeed the suggestion is that not only will the natural disasters be regular but they'll be more intense. So it is fitting that the Hon Jenny Salesa has been able to introduce this bill late last year and to drive it through with the support of all parties in this House—drive it through with the support of those who made submissions to the bill—which also reflects that we're all generally sincere about making sure that safety is our paramount concern and that our current system for how we manage buildings when the worst happens needs to be better. Certainly this bill provides legislative power to the appropriate ministry the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to be able to ensure that that happens.Other than commending my colleague Jenny Salesa for bringing the bill through—it's interesting that I've heard others make mention about the contribution of Dr Nick Smith. For the life of me I couldn't find any evidence in the bill because Minister Salesa introduced the bill on 15 August 2018 the first reading was in September 2018 it was referred to the transport committee the second reading was on 9 May this year then the committee of the House was later in May and now we're in the third reading. So I didn't see where Dr Nick Smith made a contribution but none the less I am happy to support the bill.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Hello Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you. By all accounts it seems that the Building Amendment Bill is a good piece of work and a good piece of legislation but a good piece of work where from across the House and the select committee process MPs have worked hard to try and get a good piece of legislation up to address the problem and the issues that were identified after for example the Christchurch and Kaikōura earthquakes where it was found that the provisions under the Building Act were not fit for the purpose of managing dangerous and insanitary unsafe buildings. Following a major disaster everything is literally turned upside down. Normal life doesn't apply so we needed some flexibility fit for purpose legislation to be able to deal in good time with what needed to happen. As others have said the least we can do from those challenging situations and crises is to learn from them and learn how we can do better. All of the issues have been canvassed really well across the House tonight. I'm happy to take a short call simply to put the Green Party on record to throw our support behind this work. Of course I note that it originally started with the National Party and was finally picked up and carried on by the Minister now. Just very quickly the Building Amendment Bill puts up a new system for managing buildings after an emergency particularly around investigating building failures. I just remembered when I was working for the Human Rights Commission back at the Christchurch earthquakes and how my colleagues in their Christchurch office were completely kept out as were all of their equipment and resources and that we needed to balance tenants occupants building owners and safety and hazard risks. So it's good—it's good this piece of work that is happening here tonight in the House.The bill puts up new processes and new powers to bridge that immediate response you know right through to the completed recovery. I did note with personal interest the new powers from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to enter inspect and close off buildings for three years following an event. I think those were the main points that I wanted to take the opportunity to raise. I did note with personal interest that there are particular provisions protecting heritage buildings which would include heritage marae if registered. It would be interesting to see how that situation might play out if we ever have to face it.Lastly the bill is just balancing private property interests reducing risks to public safety and whether the constitution of the building might be compromised during an earthquake. So it is sensible good work being done. I'm very proud to be a part of it. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Can I just acknowledge the speaker who just resumed his seat Alfred Ngaro and the real passion and commitment that he makes to this particular topic. It is aspirational—I understand what he says with regard to the change of name. I got this role and the name had already been put in place and I took out the word vulnerable". But I want to explain that it wasn't actually a political move on my part and it didn't have to do with any of the arguments that had taken place before. I'm also the Minister who works on the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy. At the moment that is run out of the Prime Minister's office. The Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy is to set a direction for New Zealand where every single member of New Zealand asks themselves "How are my actions affecting the wellbeing of children?". At the moment Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children is not strong enough to be the ministry which holds Government departments to account for the answer to that question but eventually I hope they are. So it isn't actually about vulnerable children; it is about all our children and all of us being held to account. How are our actions every single day affecting the wellbeing of our children? I acknowledge the member though because I know he's passionate about making a difference for children. I acknowledge the Opposition because this is a House that believes in this. But for me the removal of that name was about that longer-term goal that eventually Oranga Tamariki will be strong enough and every Government department will have to answer that question: how are your actions affecting the wellbeing of our children? Kia ora.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the bill with amendment.Report adopted."
Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2