edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bennett David; Rurawhe AdrianHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'd just like to follow on from my colleague Chris Bishop. We all know what's going to happen with this bill. The Labour Party has just approved this bill to go to select committee. This bill actually went through its first reading late last year—the start of the first reading when Darroch Ball did the first speech on it—and it's taken some time for the Labour New Zealand First and Green parties to come to an arrangement. That arrangement is that the Labour Party will pass it through to select committee.Now that's the fallacy of having those three parties in coalition and how it's all smoke and mirrors. They're going out to the public and saying Look how we have done something here." The reality is that it was one of those deals that Winston had to get through late at night when Jacinda Ardern was getting her changes around mining and that and this was one of the little deals on the side that Mr Peters put on the table and said "Well we need to get at least this bill read the first time." So the Labour Party will use their time in this House if they use their time to really advocate for why this bill shouldn't go through and they are setting up the argument for why they will vote against it when it comes to the second and third readings. The Labour Party cannot vote for this bill; it goes against everything that they are saying they are trying to do in the criminal justice sector. It actually sets a mandatory sentence to go to jail.We all know that the Minister of Corrections doesn't want anyone jailed. The Prime Minister doesn't want anyone in jail. They're doing everything they can to release prisoners hand over foot. They will not pass something that has a mandatory sentence of six months to go to jail. So the New Zealand First Party is sitting there; they know this is a failed policy by them because the Labour Party is going to pull the rug out from under them at the last minute. The Green Party is ambivalent as ever because they don't know what's going on in this Parliament—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm afraid I have to interrupt the member. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. This is actually an incredibly quite serious bill despite the jovial nature of the debate that has preceded my contribution tonight. This bill obviously being debated tonight is the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill which I state on the record for the member Chris Bishop.I think it's as I noted an incredibly serious topic that we are addressing tonight particularly in light of recent events over a fortnight ago in this country in Christchurch. For that reason I think it's important that we here in this House acknowledge the incredible work that was undertaken by the first responders. In line with the Minister Andrew Little we absolutely as the Greens recognise and respect the intention behind this bill but reflecting on some contributions such as those made by the Hon Mark Mitchell around how we have to recognise and respect and ensure the safety of these first responders the unfortunate thing about a response like this in legislation is that it occurs after the fact. So we do need to be ensuring that we are bolstering the resources as well to ensure that there is that safety provided so that these kinds of events don't actually happen and that we don't need to be using these greater increased penalties.In light of these recent events and in light of respecting the work that is undertaken by our first responders the incredibly brave people around this country the Green Party will be supporting this through to select committee so that we can have that informed and hopefully mature and respectful discussion about how we ensure the safety of our first responders and aren't just having an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff after these events have occurred.Hon David Bennett: Do we really have to listen to this?CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you Mr Speaker. All yours mate!
Swarbrick Chlöe; Rurawhe AdrianCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It's my understanding that there's not supposed to be a reference to an absence of a member from the Chamber and in that speech just then there was regarding the sponsor of this bill. So I'm just seeking your guidance.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That is correct but it needs to be raised at the time. It's actually my job to do that. I was satisfied that the member actually addressed it when it was pointed out to him. As I said earlier in the evening I could be the whistle-blower all night and at this time of the night I don't really want to be. I'm going to rely on members to actually know the rules and observe them. So we'll have the next call. I think it's the Greens.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to take the rather old-fashioned step of returning to the actual bill we are debating this evening. It's a bill which you only need look at the pages of—which I've helpfully highlighted—to show you how gutted it in fact was at select committee. There they are Mr McAnulty all of the bits in your original bill that had to be excised because they would have destroyed the labour market hiring part of our economy.So let's tell the real story of this bill because what it was was a terrible bill. It was a bill that was written over a decade ago by a unionist who was part of a global movement that was trying to undermine labour hire companies—labour hire companies which speakers on both sides of this House tonight have acknowledged play a very important role in our economy. And what the bill sought to do was forcibly join people in labour hire arrangements to collective agreements. That's what the bill sought to do as its primary objective.Now fortunately—and I'll praise Mr McAnulty for this—he has sensibly got rid of that provision because we heard submitters line up one after the other. There were 81 of them most of whom were giving original submissions—unlike the form submissions and support—who said this will be a disaster. But what we've had on the other side tonight is instead many speeches that have claimed that actually this bill is going to create workers' rights it's going to protect people it's going to do all of these things. I just want to again return to the facts because you don't need to believe me you can believe the departmental report which says clearly The status quo already allows employees to raise personal grievances if they have been unjustifiably dismissed even if they are working in a triangular arrangement."So let me just put very clearly on the record that there is nothing in this bill that creates a new right for a personal grievance that didn't already exist. In fact what this bill does—and I wish that members on the opposite side of the House wouldn't be so grandiose in their claims for it—is it says that you can join other people to a personal grievance. So really what we have here is a bill that talks about how you divide up liability. We have a bill that says how do you divide liability when there's been a personal grievance. And what it actually could do is undermine employment relationships that have been working successfully and it could actually contribute to a lack of legal clarity.So here we have I think a bill that is absolutely typical of this Labour Government. It is a bill that promises the world. It says we're going to protect all these people; terrible things are happening. Well actually terrible things aren't happening. The bill does very little. It's utterly different from what was promised because this is a Government—and Kieran McAnulty is a member—who have overpromised and woefully under-delivered."
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Kei te kōrero ki te kaupapa i te wā.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I speak to the current matter.]This bill is the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. I'm doing my mahi kāinga my homework for the MPs' Te Reo class—giving it a good go anyway.Kieran McAnulty: Ka pai.DENISE LEE: Yeah thank you for the ka pai" across the House.I would like to read from a particular submission—I'm not going to say who the submission's from but as I start to read you can get a really good idea. New Zealanders are of course working under triangular employment relationships and labour hire firms are a classic example of those relationships. Here goes some of the submission: "We draw on workers in South Auckland area who could mostly be described as low socio-economic. They prefer to work in often temporary assignments that align with their need for flexibility and provide them with many micro-learnings increasing their employability. A large proportion—around 80 percent—go permanent within 6 months." That's fantastic right? It carries on: "Our industry is often criticised as being low paid but of our workforce of over 80 people each week only one persons—1.25 percent—is on minimum wage. That person on minimum wage is doing basic work and is young but is gaining valuable skills and building a work history." This attack on labour hire will undoubtedly reduce employment opportunities for a local workforce which is mainly comprised of young Pacific and Māori who are already marginalised and especially for those who rely heavily on agencies to get into the work—they're often the young ones—or to get back into work after having a child or transitioning across careers because we have multiple careers now and downscaling those who are of mature age. It's 2019. We live in an age—and my colleague Dan Bidois pointed this out—that is requiring a flexible productive and innovative workforce. You can't grow New Zealand by putting a handbrake on productive business. We need employers and we need employees who have autonomy and the capacity to do whatever is needed to be flexible in this modern and global workforce. We don't support this bill. It came from a very long time ago. We on the Education and Workforce Committee could see how it was floundering and it has found a way through by the skin of its teeth in our opinion. If you want to get down to bad egg employers there are a few and that came out in select committee but they're just a few. If you want to get down to the topic of the exploitation New Zealand law already provides a minimum standard to address exploitation matters. All this is doing is putting yet another handbrake on to business and that will not grow New Zealand."
van de Molen Tim; Rurawhe AdrianTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Look I thought it was quite admirable my colleague Dan Bidois getting through that quite intolerable barrage of heckling and interjections coming on and I just would refer your attention to Speakers' rulings 59/3 and 59/4 referring specifically to that constant barrage being entirely intolerable. The constant asking of questions that we saw from Mr Lees-Galloway with his yapping in the front row was actually quite disorderly in regards to my colleague's attempt at his contribution. So I would encourage a little bit more decorum from that side of the House and on the last note referring to the previous ruling with regards to boxes on displays as well. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I want to thank the member yes and it'd be really helpful if both sides adhered to that kaupapa. I was noting one of the members behind the member that was speaking having an interaction with a member on this side. But quite correct—members have the right to be heard. I think Mr Bidois did very well to continue with his speech. At the end of the day you know it's up to the members in the House to monitor their own decorum. I could be the whistleblower all night if I wanted to and I don't really want to so members should control themselves. Kiritapu Allan—five minutes.
Williams PotoASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Before I call the Hon Clare Curran could some honourable member please remove the box that's in the aisle here which is going to stop egress if there is an emergency. Could you just lift that off the floor thank you.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): I think it's fitting for me to take a call to rescue my comrade! I want to take a short call given the member in the chair Andrew Bayly does not expect long calls. Supplementary Order Paper 180 in Mr Bayly's name seeks to insert new clause 7 which repeals clauses 1(4) and 1(5). He explained well in his earlier contributions relating to the issues around quick-draw procedure. The Law Commission recommended in 2003 that the procedure be deleted. That did not happen simply because of the concerns that there were otherwise no alternative measures with regard to the procedure in relation to appointments. However following an amendment effected by the Arbitration Amendment Act 2016 appointments can now be made by the Arbitrators' and Mediators' Institute of New Zealand. Therefore a quick and independent means by which an arbitrator can be appointed now exists removing the need for a quick-draw procedure.I should note also that apart from those extraordinary steps taken by the Justice Committee as I listed in my earlier contribution including the appointment of an independent adviser and also releasing the departmental report earlier to the House and through the House to the public therefore enabled new submissions to be made on the departmental report from the sector. Apart from those measures the Justice Committee went all the way to the Business Committee seeking the Business Committee's approval for the Justice Committee to delete clause 1(4) simply because the deletion of it is beyond the scope of the member's bill.However at the last minute members of the Arbitrators' and Mediators' Institute of New Zealand detected a technical issue where clause 1(5) would need to be deleted should clause 1(4) be removed. Without clause 1(4) clause 1(5) becomes meaningless and potentially confusing as it goes on to provide that the proposal takes effect as if it were part of the agreement to arbitrate—so therefore the Supplementary Order Paper in Mr Bayly's name.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Andrew Bayly to clause 6 agreed to.Clause 6 as amended agreed to.Amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Andrew Bayly to insert new clause 7 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Arbitration Amendment Bill — In Committee
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Taking a call—sorry. Thank you. I just want to acknowledge the chair of the Justice Committee for being very supportive in terms of progressing this bill through the House and also the members of the Justice Committee. It's a very technical bill as we've started to hear from the chair and I think we've ended up—obviously we didn't get everything we needed but we've gone some way towards improving the Arbitration Amendment Bill.No doubt we're going to talk about some of those aspects but I just want to take this opportunity to talk about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that's been introduced under my name which is SOP 180. What this SOP does is it deals with an issue which is called the quick-draw procedure where parties that are in arbitration have the opportunity to nominate the person who will be responsible for hearing the arbitration. Under the previous arrangements what happened was that one party could nominate the person they wanted to hear the arbitration proceedings and if the other party didn't respond within seven working days the person who had nominated the arbitrator had their way and that person immediately became the person who was going to preside over the arbitration proceedings. Now that concept is against the principle of arbitration which is that things should be done through agreement and therefore this SOP deals with it.To get to this point we had to work through the committee—and I'm very grateful for the committee in this case—and actually go to the Business Committee to seek approval to introduce and actually deal with this issue in the committee because it was outside the scope of the original bill. So we've worked through the process with the Parliamentary Counsel Office helping with the drafting of it and this is the result today that SOP 180 deals with this quick-draw procedure. Just to summarise it what the SOP does is it basically removes the quick-draw procedure which is against the principle of arbitration as I said before.We already have in the legislation in a previous change made back in 2017 the right for the Arbitrators' and Mediators' Institute of New Zealand—called AMINZ—to appoint an arbitrator to hear a proceeding if the two parties to the arbitration proceedings can't agree. Basically this SOP deals with that issue and also the resulting changes in the numbering of the clauses in the specific part—in clause 1 of Schedule 2. So I just wanted to be clear about what the SOP is.
Yang Jian; Williams PotoDr JIAN YANG (National): I just visited the website of Environment Canterbury for this particular bill and I saw some comments about the commissioners appointed by the Government. It has this comment: The Government selected experienced and capable commissioners with excellent service governance judicial and business skills. This model has ensured a balance of agricultural environmental and electricity expertise to match the challenges facing Environment Canterbury." So this is a comment for the commissioners appointed by the Government. But remember just a few years ago how Labour railed against the National Government for making such appointments. They railed against this calling this a lost democracy. But today they are trying to do what they used to be against.This bill itself is trying to empower Ngāi Tahu to appoint up to two members to Environment Canterbury after the 2019 local elections. Ngāi Tahu is a very influential Māori iwi. As a matter of fact if you ask me "What Māori iwi have you heard about?" I would say maybe Ngāi Tahu because really that's the name I have heard time and time again. It's very well organised very well respected very influential and they worked with Government very productively through the Canterbury earthquakes. So there is no problem with Ngāi Tahu. We respect that. But the problem with this bill is—as the previous speakers just mentioned like the Hon Gerry Brownlee—that this bill is trying to make revisions or challenge a very important Act the Electoral Act. That is a major change if this bill passed. This is a local bill and it is not appropriate for a local bill to do this job. It should be a Government bill. Ngāi Tahu should be confident that they would be able to back strong candidates to win local election seats. So there is a good chance for them to win because they are so well respected well supported. They should go through that process.Alternatively they could communicate or consult with communities and see whether there is a possibility to establish a Māori ward and they can do this under the current Electoral Act basically. So they could do this. They have channels. They have the proper channels to do this. So this bill we believe will not really serve the purpose of democracy. We believe we should go through the proper process and therefore we oppose the bill. Thanks.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Rino Tirikatene—five minutes in reply."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. National has a long-term position that there's not a place for Government or Parliament to impose separate Māori representation in local government. These local government bodies or entities have the ability themselves to seek this representation through a process that includes proper consultation with their communities. We would advocate suggest very strongly that if Environment Canterbury (ECan) is supportive of such representation it undertakes that legal process that already exists instead of seeking a separate and new piece of legislation from Parliament to somehow get around the consultation or other provisions that exist under current existing legislation. It is also our view—certainly my personal view—that Ngāi Tahu is an incredibly strong and capable collection of people. They are able to stand very credible very capable individuals in upcoming local body elections including on ECan. I would suggest with their standing in their communities they would have every opportunity to be elected to that regional council and they also do have the avenue of using existing legislative processes to establish Māori representation within ECan in a manner that does not require legislation such as this.The nature of this legislation is something we cannot and will not support.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It's days like this that I enjoy being in this House because it's when the House comes together both sides: National Labour the Greens New Zealand First—don't think there's anyone else. They come together and they support a bill that makes sense.We acknowledge those that have contributed towards it although I do want to note that I was very disappointed in Clutha-Southland MP Hamish Walker for not actually acknowledging the contribution of the bill's sponsor the locally based MP New Zealand First's Mark Patterson. It takes a lot of work to sponsor a bill. It takes a lot of work to shepherd it through the House to liaise with those that put it forward as a local bill and to continue that talking across the House and getting the support for it. So I for one want to acknowledge the contribution of Mark Patterson a man who does a lot of work around the country in rural areas but certainly down in Clutha-Southland an area I know well because whilst I might be a very proud Wairarapa man I did play rugby for Waikaia and cricket for Riversdale just up the road.So this is an area that I'm fully aware of. Although I must admit before Mark Patterson introduced this bill on behalf of the Gore District Council I was not aware of the water scheme. So I thoroughly enjoyed looking into this and just like every other speaker that has stood up to contribute to this debate I am very pleased to lend my support to it. I don't think there's any need to carry on this contribution so just like those before me I acknowledge those that have contributed to this on the Governance and Administration Committee and those from the local region and I'm very pleased to see this pass through the House at this stage.Bill read a second time.
Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): This is a straightforward case to me. Now basically a water scheme was built in the 1970s. The contributors were mainly the farm users and then a committee was set up and the members of the committee were overwhelming the users—farm users or representatives of farm users and then plus a local councillor. So while the council is involved in management of the scheme the cost has been covered by the farm users. So that's basically the case.What is more important is that there was a referendum and that the users overwhelmingly voted for the transfer of ownership from the council to the committee. And of course as I said the committee is largely run by the users of the scheme. Now this bill itself is largely to facilitate the transfer of that ownership from the council to the committee—or we can say actually to the users.So we went to Gore and met representatives of the users. They warmly welcomed us and the message was very very clear. We could feel that kind of enthusiasm and of course we expressed our support. And also after the hearing we went to visit the site along with Hamish Walker the local MP and the chair of the committee—and guided by Mr Hamish Mackay and also the leader of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee Mr Tom Affleck. So I thank you very much for hosting us and also for actually giving us a very clear message and very well organised presentation. So to me it is a very straightforward case and I commend the bill to the House.
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. This is the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I want to congratulate Mark Patterson as the bringer of the local bill to the House—Ōtama being about 20 kilometres west of Gore in the beautiful part of central Southland. It's deep in the heart of Southland actually which is the most beautiful rolling hill country which is you know typical of the rural agricultural water supplies; on State Highway 94 and I think where the scheme is planned or where it exists and is being transferred is just on the north side of the Mataura River—for any of the locals I presume that's correct; and it's on the way to Balfour. And if people haven't been down there to visit then they should because it's one of the most beautiful parts of the country.This is a bill which is really around providing some local democracy. I note that there was a referendum held on this particular matter for the 223 households and organisations involved and that it was pretty overwhelming in the vote in support of the ownership of the scheme. I also note and other have mentioned that if there'd been a few less households then we wouldn't have to be standing in the House passing legislation around it. But because of that we are. I also note that in the submissions that were provided there was submission from the Southern District Health Board and there's been a lot of care taken in making sure that we're handling this matter carefully and appropriately because of the importance of getting any scheme associated with water—including drinking water—right. And I think that everyone in this House would agree that that's pretty important.The submissions—there were actually a number of submissions and I'm really pleased to see that the select committee went down to Gore to consider the submissions from the local area. I think that is a real show of the importance that this Parliament sees in local communities and rural communities and the importance of local democracy—taking it really seriously. It's a fairly non-controversial outcome in the sense that it's a scheme that's being managed well. I think that the people that are managing it and that will be managing it have taken that really seriously and it's a matter of making sure that we get it right and that the Parliament treats it seriously. And I see that there have been precedents. The South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act is an example where a local Act of Parliament was used to authorise divestment of a water supply that didn't qualify for divestment under the Local Government Act and this bill follows that approach used in the Cold Creek Act.So it's not seriously out of the ordinary but I think that the Parliament has treated it seriously because of how important it is that we get any matters to do with drinking water and the safety of local communities right. So I'm pleased to commend it to the House.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. I too will make a short contribution to the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill today in its second reading. As we've heard in the speeches across the House today there's absolutely nothing contentious in this bill. We are going through the process to create this legislation to simply clarify the ownership of the assets of the Ōtama rural supply. This is something that evolved 50 years ago when the scheme was set up and in typical rural fashion and with the attitude of rural folk who just get on and get things done it was pulled together by local labour some cash a Government subsidy and a loan that was raised by the then Southland County Council. But actually over time there's been a bit of confusion about who actually does own those assets and thanks to the cooperation between the committee and the Gore District Council led by my good friend and former colleague Mayor Tracy Hicks they began the process of consulting with the community to decide on the options for the ownership of the scheme. Seventy-five percent of eligible voters actually did cast their vote on their preference for this scheme and of those 80 percent were in favour of the bill that we have in front of us today. So the community is clearly well supportive of where this bill is taking us. And we congratulate the council and the committee for their cooperation and perfect practical sense in getting it to this point. I am sure that the 223 dwellings and all of the stock that make use of this rural water scheme will be very pleased to have the ownership and the administration sorted out once and for all. And as such I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure but a surprise to rise and speak to this Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I unlike many members here have not recently been to Gore—Hon Members: Oh!ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I know I know—or had a cheese roll. But I am actually delighted to talk on this because I think one of the things around water is that it's a really important issue at the moment. It is absolutely crucial. And first of all I'd like to mention the name of Mark Patterson. Now I'm going to say the name Mark Patterson three times: Mark Patterson well done; Mark Patterson well done. I'm saying Mark Patterson well done" for bringing this bill to the House and sponsoring it because actually that's a lot of hard work so well done you Mark Patterson. I'd also like to commend Brett Hudson and Hamish Walker/"Water" for their work on this bill.Look one of the things that I have been looking at in terms of the legislation—and this is a common-sense response to something that is integral to the small community—is the ownership transfer. Essentially because we've got 223 people we need to make a change of ownership. And so that is fine; there is a piece of legislation requiring us to do so. However I sit on the Health Committee and currently we are looking at the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. And of course everyone knows—and as has been stated—there is the Three Waters Review as well. So water is a really important issue. So one of the things that we know is that that work is coming up and it was really important when I read the legislation and thinking across other select committees I'm in that actually safety is important around the water. Now obviously the farmers have managed to do this going forward but I really appreciate what has happened in this legislation in that Otama Rural Water Ltd has to essentially say that it will have a water treatment chlorination system it will need to provide a report which assesses to the satisfaction of the medical officer of health and it essentially ensures that there is some safety around the drinking water which I think probably when we hear that there is a marae and two schools is very important. We do not want another health incident. Of course it probably wouldn't be as large as Havelock North but none of us would like to see that happen. And with that my very short contribution I commend the bill to the House."
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Rurawhe AdrianKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to start with acknowledging the sponsor of this bill Mark Patterson but I would like to show that the real commitment to this bill was shown by Hamish Walker in participating in the select committee process. I had to make way for him to come and participate in Gore and I could not be there to have the hospitality from the locals over there.This bill was very important for the locals and I acknowledge the chair Brett Hudson who has always as the previous speaker mentioned made sure that we go out and reach out to the people who want to participate in the parliamentary process. So I acknowledge the chair for his commitment and obviously the support from the committee members is always there whatever he commits to.We received 26 submissions in total out of which 14 were heard orally in Gore. There are numerous houses two schools and a marae which use this water and it is very important for the local people to have this infrastructure available for them. So this bill will ensure that the people who really care about water who committed themselves to build this infrastructure continue to look after this. With these words I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I too am standing in support of this bill at its second reading the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill—got to add that r"! Can I too acknowledge the presence of the chair of the scheme in the House today. I don't intend to prolong this contribution. This bill is all about facilitating the transfer of the water scheme assets to the locals who built and established and have been benefiting from this scheme who showed great foresight back in the 1970s by taking the initiative in building the scheme. Now we are transferring that asset to what will eventually ultimately go to Otama Rural Water Ltd. I'm always supportive of transferring local assets back into local ownership.I want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee for their helpful amendments that they have made to the bill. In particular there is some clarity around the timing as to when the referendum will take place or imposing a time limit so there is certainty around that—I'm sure it won't take five years though or I certainly hope it won't take five years for a referendum to be carried out—and there are all of the other helpful changes. We know that with ownership there comes responsibilities. I know that Otama Rural Water Ltd currently backed by the scheme are well aware of their responsibilities and it's great to hear that they are continuing to work closely with the Gore District Council around those safety issues as well which will be very important. We're only doing this bill because unfortunately—well there are 223 users of this water scheme. Had it been 200 this bill would have been able to fly through under the local government legislation but be that as it may we are putting this legislation through now. I support it at its second reading as do my whanaungas down at Te Rūnanga o Hokonui who are benefiting from this scheme. So with that I add my tautoko and commend this bill to the House."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Oh thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Seriously I went into a state of deep contemplation during that intervention. Oh gosh it was thorough wasn't it? Every second of the 10 minutes allotted was taken—circled round and made the point several times. But here's what I want to say about the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill: I want to actually thank Hamish Walker Clutha-Southland MP who attended each and every select committee meeting and stewarded the Governance and Administration Committee down to Gore to check it out. Can I just say it's lovely that the country has come to town. Good—good. Lovely to see that a bit of the South Island has come up to Wellington—Hamish Walker: Tom.Hon JACQUI DEAN: —and we are discussing—Tom—legislation which impacts greatly on a rural community. Hamish Walker is the MP who has really worked with the committee has worked with the local community and really has his head around this bill which is why I'm not going to speak for terribly long because I think Hamish Water—Walker; water see get that? Yeah that was awesome. That was really good. You see it's that deep contemplation that I've been practising while the member opposite Mark Patterson was on his feet.The pertinent thing I think in this piece of legislation is the ownership changes to the local community—with great community support it's true. As part of that process however an issue with potential water quality was identified and the committee together with the council are taking steps to remedy any potential water-quality issues. I call that responsible. That epitomises what a rural water scheme can and does do. Because there is a group of farmer owners in this scheme or soon-to-be owners—and they can't wait for the bill to pass—decisions like chlorination and whatever else needs to be done to secure the potability of the water can be taken quickly and the decision can be implemented quickly. That is what a rural water scheme does very very well: caters for the needs of its own community whether it's for stock water whether it's for drinking water and whatever use that water might be put to.So I congratulate Hamish Walker local MP; the member in charge of the bill; but most of all the Otama Rural Water Supply committee and members for bringing this bill to the House.
Wednesday 20 March 2019 - Volume 737
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House to now adjourn until 2 April 2019 as a mark of respect for those people affected by the Christchurch mosques terror attacks.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.The House adjourned at 4.09 p.m.
Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill — Instruction to Finance and Expenditure Committee
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorTAXATION (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDITS) BILLInstruction to Finance and Expenditure CommitteeHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the date by which the Finance and Expenditure Committee must report finally to the House on the Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill to be extended from 1 April 2019 to 3 April 2019. This was a subsequent decision after the Business Committee yesterday for that committee not to meet today.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries — Boxes With Party Labels
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSChamber Lobbies and Galleries—Party LabelsSPEAKER: Thank you members. I want to make a very brief comment and acknowledge the quality of debate and the considerable decorum that there has been in the House over the last two days. That's mainly a result of the behaviour of members and of their speeches but there has been an additional factor which has been absolutely evident to me and that is that this House looks like it has decorum because it is not covered in boxes with party labels on them. I am therefore ruling from now on boxes in party colours with labels will be left in members' benches and not put on top. I'm making this ruling pursuant to Standing Order 84(1).
Motions — Christchurch Mosques Terror Attacks—Condolence
Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): While the whole of Christchurch grieves—while in fact the whole of New Zealand grieves—I want to particularly acknowledge those who lost their loved ones last Friday. I didn't know any of the 50 victims personally—something that is a bit unusual for a city the size of Christchurch my home town—but I knew of many of them and I knew of their genuine positive contribution to our community. The grieving of the families will be profound. It will hurt the hearts of those for ever and I extend my deepest sympathy.As we collectively cope with the aftermath of the slaughter—for that is what it was: it was needless slaughter—as we cope with that what has absolutely amazed me has been the strength of the Muslim community and the forgiveness of the Muslim community. Take Farid Ahmed quoted in the media on Monday. He escaped the Deans Avenue mosque but his wife Husna did not. She was murdered and yet Farid Ahmed said in reference to the killer—and I quote—I have forgiven him and I'm praying for him that God will guide him and one day he will be a saviour rather than a killer." What an incredibly forgiving statement for any man to say after losing his wife to a murderer. I was in Christchurch on Friday afternoon with you Mr Speaker. As the events unfolded we were at Canterbury University which was quickly locked down as indeed were schools—where my child was—factories and the offices throughout the city. It was the uncertainty of not knowing whether it was a single gunman or whether we were dealing with multiple attacks that was extremely concerning to me. When we're told subsequently of the way this murderer planned and trained for this day of terror I do ask why the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the GCSB were so unaware. Should this terrorist have been on a security watch list? I think the answer to that is yes. The Hon Gerry Brownlee yesterday called for a royal commission of inquiry into this and I agree with him. The final point I wish to make is to disagree respectfully with those who say "On Friday 15 March 2019 New Zealand changed for ever". I think the world and New Zealand changed for ever with 9/11 2001. Sadly I think there was an inevitability that terrorism would hit New Zealand. It was only a matter of when. But I never thought it would be my home city the city of Christchurch—the city that has been through so much the city that was finally coming right and now we have to cope with this. But we are resilient. We will overcome this dreadful act of terror. But again for the families of the loved ones this pain will not be overcome. They have been given a life sentence as their family members were on their knees praying for a better world. My deepest sympathy to these people. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Tuesday 2 April 2019 - Volume 737
Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill be reported back to the House by 27 May 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.
Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Arms (Prohibited Firearms Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 119 New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Arms (Prohibited Firearms Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill — First Reading
12. Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and SafetyMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety12. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is the new hourly adult minimum wage at 1 April 2019 and why did the Government increase it?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The new adult hourly minimum wage is $17.70 per hour. This Government believes in sharing prosperity more fairly. That's why we've increased the minimum wage by $1.20 per hour recognising that many New Zealand workers do need more to make do. Unemployment is low the economy is strong and the Government books are in good shape. Now is exactly the time to improve wages.Marja Lubeck: What are the Government's plans to further increase the minimum wage this term?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As set out in the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First we plan to get to $20 an hour by 2021. I have announced indicative rates for the adult minimum wage of $18.90 for 2020 and $20 for 2021. These rates are subject to market conditions at the time but indicating these rates in advance allows businesses to plan for the future.Marja Lubeck: How many working people received a pay increase yesterday?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment estimates that up to 209200 people received a pay increase yesterday of up to $48 per week. Women young people Māori and Pasifika are overrepresented in minimum-wage roles and around a quarter of those earning the minimum wage are parents or guardians. This Government is committed to increasing the well-being of all New Zealanders and steps like this make that a reality.
11. Question No. 11—Small BusinessHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small BusinessQuestion No. 11—Small Business11. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: What advice if any has he received on what it would cost a small business to value their business ahead of an official valuation date in the event the Government decided to implement a capital gains tax on the sale of businesses and what is that cost?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): None.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he agree that if every small- and medium-sized - business owner in New Zealand had to pay for a new valuation at around $10000 apiece the cost to the wider economy with no greater productivity would be approximately $5 billion?Hon STUART NASH: I have no idea where the member got the figure from—purely hypothetical.Hon Jacqui Dean: How will the qualifying business assets be valued for the purpose of rollover on the sale of a small business?Hon STUART NASH: Let me make two points yet again. First of all the Tax Working Group did not recommend—I'm assuming the member's talking about the Tax Working Group report—that small businesses had to provide a valuation before V Day. Look at recommendation n)". The second thing is the Government is considering all options and in time—and in time—we will release our recommendations.Hon Jacqui Dean: If it is impossible according to the Tax Working Group report to provide a comprehensive list of intangible property for the calculation of goodwill for small businesses how then will it be possible to calculate goodwill with any sense of accuracy?Hon STUART NASH: I will just reiterate what the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said today and what I have said numerous times: we are considering all options and in time we will make our recommendations known.SPEAKER: In fact it was the Prime Minister who said it today."