edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to take a short and brief call at the third reading of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. It will be a very short call because we have traversed a lot of the advantages of this bill. [Interruption] I know that will disappoint the member opposite me Kieran McAnulty because I know he enjoys hearing me speak. None the less it is a very good pleasure to speak in support of this bill. Let us not forget the importance of ACC. It's a world-leading model that was developed many years ago and it's something that we as a country should be really proud of in terms of the way it encourages people to make sure they're covered but also encourages them to get repaired and recuperated and get back to the workforce—Stuart Smith: No-fault too.DAN BIDOIS: And it's no-fault. It is exactly as my learned colleague—Stuart Smith: Esteemed.DAN BIDOIS: —esteemed colleague Stuart Smith said: it is a no-fault scheme. It is also a world-leading scheme. This bill is a technical bill. It essentially makes eight core changes and some of the objectives of these changes are very very clear in terms of making sure that ACC is able to meet its objectives its entitlements in a consistent and sustainable way but also in terms of making sure that it is going to be an efficient and effective scheme well into the future which is what we want to have happen.So it is a pleasure of course to speak on behalf of this. This bill addresses and meets those objectives very clearly by reducing any duplication any waste and also by keeping the regulatory systems up to date with respect to the needs of the workforce. So it's a very great privilege to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): I'm delighted to stand here just as everyone else has said before me to take a short call here this evening on this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. Having sat on the Education and Workforce Committee I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the House. We heard a lot of very difficult stories at times. People saw the words accident compensation" and "ACC bill" and thought this was the time to tell their stories. As the member over the House Denise Lee said most of them were out of scope for this particular bill. That doesn't mean to say though that we didn't hear those stories. We absolutely did and listened to them quite intently and it gave us an indication that further work needs to be done after this bill goes through. This bill makes eight changes to the ACC legislation—mostly as we've heard minor changes but for those people that it impacts upon very very big changes. We heard here this evening about responding—how the bill responds to the declaration that was made by the Human Rights Review Tribunal when they said that forcing surviving spouses or partners to choose between New Zealand superannuation and ACC was discriminatory on the basis of age. This bill actually deals with that and puts that right. I'm quite proud to stand here for a bill that can actually be responsive to that. The one that I've talked about before here in this House was the one where ACC cover will be given to spouses and dependents of people that are posted overseas with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—so our post people. We have heard stories of where that has actually been a big consideration for those people as to whether they took up those posts because of the fact that their spouses or dependents couldn't actually go with them because of the medical cover that they wouldn't be getting under that. I think that this puts that right. The fact was that it used to be there and it was only in the late 1990s that that was taken away and the record of Parliament doesn't actually show the reason why that was actually taken away—it's been lost. So I'm very proud here this evening that we're going to be putting that right and making it easier for those people to take up those posts that they've been trained in and that's been their career to be able to do. So as I said I wanted to take a short call. I don't want to prolong this any further. I commend this very good bill to the House."
O'Connor Simon; Williams PotoSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm very pleased to take a short call—it seems a bit of a theme tonight—on this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. Andrew Bayly: Oh come on you could make a better contribution.SIMON O'CONNOR: Look I could—a colleague says I could make a better contribution. I could but I have assessed the risks and there could you know be an accident. I could damage myself somehow a vocal cord trip up—you never know and I don't want to cause any injury. A good bill—no surprise; this is effectively a National Party bill. In fact it's becoming synonymous with the Order Paper at the moment that just about everything that's coming through the Parliament has been endorsed by the National Party and was in the pipeline. It's one of the reasons we're taking relatively short calls. First and foremost we are in support of them. There has been a change. I mean one must admit when we look at this legislation there's been a change: they've changed the name of the ACC Minister to whoever the current one is at the moment. It's a good bill. It's doing effectively two things: one is—and the speaker who just resumed her seat Marama Davidson indicated it—it's aligning superannuation and ACC much better and more fairly. It's a fairly complex—well not complex; probably more complicated. I think that's going to be good to have that sorted out. The second is as Denise Lee the very good member for Maungakiekie noted some changes around the appeals authority—reducing it to one—and I think that's incredibly incredibly positive. But as I say a good bill and before I make some sort of you know faux pas or accident around this bill I'll just commend it to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call Jan Tinetti—five minutes.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Assistant Speaker. I'm pleased to rise tonight in support of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. At the heart of the changes being made in tonight's legislation—and it's a short call but to make sure that the Greens are on record for wanting to support a more fair system of ACC payments. As I was reading through the bill and the debate pack I particularly wanted to acknowledge people like Mr Heads who made a submission on the bill and said he was eagerly awaiting his chance to speak to the select committee. He outlined as the previous speaker Denise Lee said that there were some—I mean this is about human stories. This is about people already suffering from either a loss or an injury and then having to suffer again through a slightly traumatic system of ACC where they couldn't access the payments that would just keep their lives running let alone celebrating. So I just wanted to acknowledge some of those stories and submissions that came through like Mr Heads'. One quote in particular stood out where he said A lot of the people who would have benefited will be dead by now and I feel very sorry for them." I acknowledge those losses but that we are—and congratulations to this House—able to put through some changes and I absolutely acknowledge Minister Lees-Galloway.The particular change that those submissions were referring to was that we would extend ACC cover to spouses partners and dependents of New Zealand employees posted offshore. That's one of the big changes but—sorry my mistake. That particular change was about removing the requirement for ACC claimants to have to choose between weekly compensation and New Zealand super after receiving a year of both. I think it was again Mr Heads and other submitters who said those should be seen as entitlements rather than benefits. I'm really pleased that this House was able to come to an agreement and ensure that that equity and those changes for a fairer system were put in place. I cannot stand tonight without as other colleagues have done looking forward to supporting a wider-scope review to make further changes some that are quite unjust gaps and were I think never intended. Some of the submissions were out of scope and so I do and the Greens will support having a more fuller look at a proper review to make sure we are plugging some of those injustice gaps and payment gaps going forward. So thank you for the opportunity to be able to support this tonight and we absolutely look forward to further changes. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you so much Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak and take a short call on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. We're here at the final reading. We are in support of these changes. It's worth noting that this is a bill that started under the National Party - led Government and we're incredibly pleased to have reported that ACC made quite a big turnaround and delivered a much better performance under our Government and under our watch. Tonight what we're doing is mostly technical improvements not so much substantive policy changes but none the less this is important for us to do. I am on the Education and Workforce Committee. These changes came through and it was good to team up with the committee which has some vigorous debates and discussions from time to time. Twenty-five submissions came in on this; 15 it's worth noting were out of scope. So the topic around ACC and fairness and equity and payments—and some really heartfelt stories came out during that select committee process; some of them a little bit hard to hear actually. But that's quite a substantial amount of out-of-scope submissions so it might be worth noting for the work programme for this House going forward that clearly there are some heartfelt—possibly even substantial—feelings out there in regards to the ACC scheme. This bill's addressing fairness and sustainability issues and I'll just finish on one rather amusing note I guess. It's not often in this House that we disestablish things and that's exactly what this bill does in clause 8. There's a new section 402 that deals with the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. It's on page 6 of the departmental report. And on that note—that disestablishment note—thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. We support this bill.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I always enjoy coming into this House and speaking on bills that both sides of the House agree on but one thing that I noticed is that the National Party just can't help themselves. They have to complain about something. What a bunch of sad sacks. Here we are with a bill that makes sense a bill that addresses the issues that they stand here today and say that they care about—the unfair targeting and unfair application of a fine through wheel clamping. They can't just stand up and say Good on the Government for doing something that we didn't do when we were in Government. We will support this bill. We will look forward to working constructively with them at select committee."Oh no—no no no. They have to have a whinge. They have to have a moan. They have to complain about the $100 fine that's outlined quite clearly. And you've got the likes of Paul Goldsmith fabricating some story that may or may not have happened a conversation that could have happened between the two. Tim van de Molen cracked on to that as well. What is the case is that the hard-working Hon Kris Faafoi has delivered a solution to an issue that is plaguing this country—the unfair treatment of cowboy clampers coming along and putting an unfair fine on those that happen to have been caught.What we say in this bill—and it will go through select committee and it will have the scrutiny applied to it like every other bill that goes through it because that of course is the select committee process—not if you listen to the National Party. That of course is something that they say the Minister should have done. So perhaps I wonder colleagues: should we do away with select committees if that's the approach that the National Party want to take? Is that what they are suggesting perhaps? I'm sure it's not. What I think is the case is that they just can't help themselves. They're being a wee bit petty. There's a bill here that they support but they can't bring themselves to say it. But I have no hesitation. This is a great bill and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee."
Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill — First Reading
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to pick up where we left off from before the dinner break on this fine piece of legislation being put forward by the Government—or so you would think anyway.But unfortunately we have a few wee concerns about this particular piece of legislation. We will support it at this first reading and see it go through to select committee but there are a few aspects that are a little untidy. Quite frankly we would have expected the Minister Kris Faafoi and his team to have done a bit more homework on this.Look we have no concern around the fact that wheel-clamping activity happens. Yes there's an issue around that. It's not regulated. We need to put some controls in place around it to ensure that the clampers can maintain their property rights because that's an important aspect to consider in this. But of course it's the structure around how we do that and that's where we're seeing this piece of legislation proposing fees—perhaps $50 perhaps $100 or perhaps more—settling somewhere around $100 we think but that might change through the select committee process because actually there hasn't been much work done in the background to understand what the drivers are for that or what an appropriate setting would be.And one of the other areas that I'd just like to highlight in my remaining few seconds it would appear is that the legislation shows—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise. It would appear that the time clock is—you've got about 8 minutes 30 seconds.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Oh thank goodness. I thought I'd whipped through 10 minutes so quickly. So one of the aspects mentioned in here talks about the clampers having to unclamp the wheel within a reasonable time after the fine has been paid but no definition of what a reasonable time might be. And of course that then is open to interpretation and of course you could then see that litigated through the courts.So I appreciate that there's the expectation that fines will treble should it go through the court process and be awarded duly off the back of that but that's an area that I think we could see tidied up as well as some further work done around understanding the drivers in behind this. So those are a couple of key points I'd like to see the select committee picking up and I know Mr Hudson mentioned earlier that it's a hard-working committee and will do the work that the Minister should already have done but I look forward to seeing that progressing through and then we'll consider it in due course for the second reading. Thank you.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): I apologise for an earlier sort of confusion as to my rise to take a call. I was under the impression that I was going straight after Mr Falloon but obviously I wasn't; it was a split call after Meka Whaitiri. So it's a pleasure to rise to speak after her and I have to say I am in support of my colleagues on this side of the House.I think that as earlier Mr Falloon talked about the experiences of some of us who have actually been clamped or not I have to declare that I have not been clamped but I have had my car towed once. We know what that feels like to pay a big fine after realising that your car was parked in the wrong place—not yours Madam Assistant Speaker but mine—and actually having to pay a fine. But to actually have a car clamped on a private property—I have also had a situation where people have blocked my driveway and I was unable to get out and I wished I could clamp that car but I couldn't and you have that feeling.So it will be a great opportunity for us to sit in select committee and hear people's stories about the clamping and what their experiences are but it would seem to make sense that we actually limit the amount of the fine that people pay. It seems an exorbitant amount of money to charge someone $760 for 30 minutes of parking or for five minutes $480. I think we shouldn't actually prevent people in a private property from actually doing what they like but having said that we should actually set some guidelines as to how much they can charge.One of the concerns that I do actually have in relation to this bill is that the officials have not done a lot of consultation in relation to this particular bill as to the size of the problem. I think it will be a good opportunity for us as a select committee to realise that. It seems that the select committee will be doing the job of the Government when we actually get this through select committee. Having said that I look forward to the discussions that we will have in our select committee and I commend the bill to the House.
Falloon Andrew; Williams PotoANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I too rise to take a short call tonight on this Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. I was really hoping this debate was going to be one of those ones where everyone sort of stands up and declares their transgressions but unfortunately I've been disappointed so far.Hon Jacqui Dean: You can.ANDREW FALLOON: Well I will Jacqui. I actually haven't had my wheel clamped I'll tell my colleagues on this side so I can't unfortunately speak from a position of experience. But I am aware obviously—as we all are—that there are some frankly outrageous charges being levied: $400 $500 $600 $700 in some cases. There have also been instances where people have had their wheels clamped quite inappropriately where even for example someone might be sitting in their vehicle and one of these cowboys—let's call them cowboys because they are—comes along and clamps their vehicle. For many people of course their car is their livelihood and for others particularly in regions like mine and rural areas it is the only real means of transport; there isn't a lot of public transport in some parts of the country. And so without their car if they can't pay the $500 $600 or $700 on the spot that puts them without their vehicle and that is very much a disproportionate punishment I guess for what is a minor crime of parking in a park where perhaps they shouldn't. So we will be supporting this bill tonight. We support its intent. As Brett Hudson has commented earlier this afternoon we do have some concerns around the wording and so I hope that it gets a good hearing at select committee. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Meka Whaitiri—five minutes.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to follow the one and only Matt King King of the North".I just wanted to add the Green Party's support to this piece of legislation—a fantastic piece of legislation by this Government which I would say strikes the balance. It strikes the balance between private property rights and the currently quite unnecessary harm caused to motorists through parking breaches. It's all about clarifying the law and creating these regulations because what we have seen and as has been alluded to by a number of speakers prior to myself is that there is a huge amount of horror stories that have made it to the news in the past few years: the likes of cars being clamped while people dart into the shops for 30 seconds their kids still in the car and the thousands of dollars that these clampers these cowboys have tried to charge them while they have been in the shops away from their car for a moment.So in this short call I'd just like to state that we think that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation in moving forward protection of consumers but also about ensuring that we actually level the playing field and create a situation where there is proportionate enforcement and where our consumers and actually the companies that are operating this wheel-clamping enforcement can have clarity around what the kinds of behaviours are going to be when it comes to this practice of wheel clamping. We are very much looking forward to hearing what comes from the folks who come to the select committee and are interested in seeing the developments as they progress in the legislation potentially in the committee of the whole House stage. But at this point in time the Green Party is incredibly proud to be backing the Government in introducing this cap of $100 because we would state that it does actually disproportionately impact those in the lower socio-economic brackets and that is typically where—we've seen at the very least in the news reports—this kind of cowboy behaviour is largely undertaken. We commend this bill to the House."
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a very short call on the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill clamping down on wheel clamping. I can remember watching an occasional news story about these predatory-type parasitic wheel-clamping types and watching the poor motorists being caught out and having their vehicle clamped having the police arrive trying to reason with the clampers and watching the hopelessness and helplessness of the police that attended wanting to help the motorist get the clamp off and having no teeth and no legislation to deal with the problem. So we will support this. I see that the voluntary code didn't work and there are a couple of examples here. I've seen half-an-hour parking and you've got a fine of $760 to get his clamp removed which is ridiculous—bordering on blackmail really or extortion—and $480 for five minutes. So I note that that clamping target has been set at $100 but the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) wanted it at $50 and up to $100. I think that's pretty reasonable. We'll support this through to a first reading so that the select committee can scrutinise the bill but I think there's too much rushed legislation through the House going through at the moment with this Government and having to have shortened select committees and select committees having to do the work that should have been done before the bill was brought to the House. So we'll support it going through the select committee but it would have been nice to see a little bit more sort of preparation work done on this bill. I note that MBIE in their regulatory impact statement have said there's a lack of evidence of the scale of the problem and not enough of a problem to warrant Government intervention. That's MBIE's findings. So maybe a little bit more work could've been done in that area but anecdotally there is a problem I'd imagine I've seen from news reports. So we'll support that. I see there they've got an inclusion in there that the police can fine clampers that don't comply $1000 and companies $5000 and if it goes through to court it's $3000 for the person and $15000 for the company. So I think that's good. I like that part of the proposal: that the police can turn up and issue an instant fine for clampers that don't play ball. I also note that there's a provision in there to permit motorists to remove the clamps if the clampers don't remove them with no civil or criminal penalty or liability; I think that's another clause in the bill that's well worth keeping. So yep we look forward to it being under the scrutiny of the select committee and going before the House. Hopefully some good legislation will come out of it; so I commend this bill to the House.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceTUESDAY 9 APRIL 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I've seen reports which indicate the New Zealand economy continues to outperform its international peers. In its latest Markets Outlook report BNZ economists pointed out that although both the New Zealand and Australian economies are facing into a slowing global economy New Zealand has a stronger-looking labour market … with a lower unemployment rate and much higher employment rate … firmer wage inflation CPI inflation much closer to target and a housing market that is robust all told." It is great to see the relevant strength of our economy recognised but we are conscious of the impacts of a global slowdown and we are getting on with implementing our plan for a more modern and resilient economy that is fit for purpose in an uncertain global environment.Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the impact of the international economic outlook on New Zealand?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing director Christine Lagarde recently signalled that IMF forecasts to be released overnight will show slower global growth for 2019. She also noted that there are clear downside risks to the global outlook including Brexit and China trade tensions that have affected confidence. As an outward-facing export nation New Zealand is not immune to this global uncertainty and we have to bear that in mind as we transition to a more productive sustainable and inclusive economy.Dr Duncan Webb: What upcoming opportunities does he have to gauge how the international economic environment will affect New Zealand?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today I will travel to Washington DC for the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank as well as meeting with senior US Government officials and other finance Ministers from around the world—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who's going to run the Government?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This will provide an opportunity to discuss current and potential challenges to the international economic outlook including the member interjecting and what this may mean for New Zealand. It is a timely trip to gauge thinking as these clouds gather on the international economic horizon but also to reinforce the strong fundamentals of the New Zealand economy and our credentials as a place to do productive investment and business."
Wednesday 19 February 2020 - Volume 744
Arms Legislation Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.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.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Arms Legislation 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.
Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee — Clauses 1-3
VoteClauses 1 to 3A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.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.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.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.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.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.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Electoral Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee — Part 2 (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.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.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.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.Part 2 agreed to.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
11. Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and SafetyMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by the coalition Government's commitment to increase the minimum wage to $20 an hour by 1 April 2021; if so why?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes absolutely. This Government is committed to sharing New Zealand's prosperity more fairly. With unemployment at 4 percent and strong growth in the number of people in full-time employment this is the perfect time to lift the minimum wage. We've increased the minimum wage from $15.75 an hour to $18.90 this term and we are committed to raising the minimum wage to $20 per hour next year.Marja Lubeck: What impact do minimum wage increases have for working people and their families?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: In six weeks' time around a quarter of a million workers will get a pay increase to $18.90 an hour. The increases we have made this term are equivalent to more than $6500 a year in the pay packet of a full-time worker. That's money for things like school uniforms healthy food and sports equipment. When hard-working people on low incomes have more money in their pocket they spend it in their local community and that is great news for the economy.Marja Lubeck: What criticisms has the Minister seen of planned minimum wage increases?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have seen some reports from commentators who are against higher wages for hard-working low-paid New Zealanders. One commentator this week suggested that cancelling the Government's minimum wage increase to $20 per hour is worth thinking about. Doing that would cost a full-time worker on the minimum wage around $2300 per year. It's a timely reminder that people who work hard for lower wages get left behind when National's in Government.
8. Question No. 8—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about upgrading mental health and addiction facilities?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This Government is taking mental health seriously. We're building new services and we're investing in new and upgraded facilities that support people's care and treatment. As part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme $96 million has been set aside for new and improved mental health and addiction facilities. That $96 million is on top of the $200 million that was ring-fenced for mental health facilities in Budget 2019. This additional investment will make a huge difference to mental health workers and the people that they care for.Angie Warren-Clark: How will the Bay of Plenty benefit from mental health investment?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: So far we've announced funding for four projects as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. Two of these are in the Bay of Plenty: $30 million has been set aside for the development of a new acute mental health facility at Tauranga Hospital and a further $15 million for the facility at Whakatāne Hospital.Hon Member: So good.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It is so good. I visited the mental health facility in Whakatāne last year and it was tired and well past its use-by date. These investments will mean the Bay of Plenty has modern mental health facilities that better support people's care and are fit to meet future demand.Ginny Andersen: How will the mighty Hutt Valley benefit from mental health investments?SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask her question without—while I might well agree with the adjective it's not something that should be part of the question.Ginny Andersen: How will the Hutt Valley benefit from mental health investments?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As Minister of Health I have visited mental health and addiction facilities across New Zealand and all too often it's been clear to me that they have been neglected for many years. In the Hutt Valley $25 million will be invested in a new acute mental health facility. This will be welcome news not just for the local representative who asked the question but also for the people that use the facility and for the staff that look after them it will provide a more therapeutic and culturally appropriate environment. In Taranaki as well $5 million has been set aside there to allow the DHB to complete refurbishments of its mental health facility. All these New Zealand upgrade projects build on earlier investments in mental health and addiction facilities including at Hillmorton in Christchurch and the new facilities in Tai Rāwhiti Hamilton and Palmerston North.
5. Question No. 5—HousingPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 5—Housing5. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to prevent homelessness in New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Homelessness Action Plan was released last week and it aims to both prevent people becoming homeless in the first place and reduce the reliance on motels by increasing the supply of transitional housing. We'll deliver a thousand new transitional housing places by the end of the year which adds to the 1300 places we've already created since the Government was formed. We're also providing funding to expand a range of other initiatives to ensure people have the support they need to avoid becoming homeless. But we recognise that there is more to do because we're committed to making sure every New Zealander has a warm dry secure home to live in.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Nice speech—it means nothing.SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm just going to say to the shadow Leader of the House that I think he asked seven supplementary questions during that answer. Can I just suggest that if he really wants to have one he stands up.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was no answer Mr Speaker so it'd be a waste of time asking the question.SPEAKER: Well actually if the member cares to go back and reflect on what was said I think at least three of his supplementary questions were answered. It's a matter of listening.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does this fit with other actions the Government is taking to prevent homelessness?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Alongside the thousand additional places we're delivering of which I note 63 were available on the day of the announcement and 39 had families living in them we've put in place the largest public house build programme in a generation with 4000 new places added since we took office. It was unfortunate that at a time when demand for public housing was rising the previous Government sold off State houses. We stopped that and we're putting things right by getting on and building more public housing.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What reaction has she seen to the Government's Homelessness Action Plan?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I've seen a range of very encouraging comments about the Government's plan. For example Scott Figenshow chief executive of Community Housing Aotearoa said In 10 years' time New Zealand will look back on this announcement as a turning point in how we bring an end to the housing crisis." Unfortunately I've also heard one commentator describe the Government's action to prevent homelessness as "knee-jerk wasteful expenditure". That dismissive tone to a serious crisis came from the leader of the National Party and frankly I find it disgraceful."
3. Question No. 3—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I've seen a range of reports which demonstrate the underlying strength of the New Zealand economy. The latest BNZ-Business NZ Performance of Services Index (PSI) shows that the services sector expanded in January at its fastest rate since March 2018. The PSI reading for January was 57.1 up five points from December the third-largest one-month gain in the survey's history. BNZ economists said that the details oozed strength" with new orders sales and employment all sitting above their respective long-term averages. Similarly the ANZ Truckometer indicated a steady start to the year for our transport industry with both the Light Traffic Index and the Heavy Traffic Index up. ANZ sees the recent slow-down in economic momentum having found a floor consistent with its economic forecasts. While these reports both show a positive start to the year for the economy they both warn of uncertainty and risk created by the COVID-19 virus.Dr Duncan Webb: What are the emerging risks from the COVID-19 virus?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury has been developing scenarios alongside the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Reserve Bank to help understand the potential economic impacts that the COVID-19 outbreak may have on New Zealand. Obviously the virus is having an impact on global supply chains and confidence that goes along with that. Therefore Treasury's latest advice is it will have a negative but temporary impact on directly exposed sectors such as tourism export education and some primary industries such as forestry and seafood. This will be felt in the GDP data for the first and second quarters of 2020 and Treasury then expects economic activity to return to normal as global growth picks up and supply conditions normalise in the second half of the year. Independent bank forecasters are therefore pointing to 2 to 2.5 percent growth in 2020.Dr Duncan Webb: How is the Government managing and mitigating the risks posed by COVID-19?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are in a good position to respond to any impacts of the virus because our economy ultimately is in good shape. There are the travel restrictions that people will be aware of and just in the last couple of days we've announced an investment of an initial $11 million into a tourism package to support what is an incredibly important sector to New Zealand in an acknowledgment of the crucial role that China does play in our tourism industry. Looking ahead we remain vigilant. If the virus outbreak is prolonged and the economic effects are sustained other scenarios may come into play. We are working through those as part of the Treasury MBIE and Reserve Bank work."
2. Question No. 2—Regional Economic DevelopmentJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 2—Regional Economic Development2. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How is the Provincial Growth Fund supporting drought-stricken areas in Northland?SPEAKER: And on this occasion it is the Hon Shane Jones' chance to answer a question for himself not for someone else.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Thank you for those words of wisdom. They shall fall in the appropriate place. The Provincial Growth Fund supporting—SPEAKER: If I could wave a finger at the member I would.Hon SHANE JONES: Up to $2 million has been allocated to set up temporary water supplies in Kaikohe and Kaitāia funding the infrastructure necessary to pipe water from a Sweetwater farm and in Kaikohe from Lake Ōmāpere. Up to $2 million will also be supported by approximately $400000 from the Far North District Council. Former Ministry for Primary Industries director-general Martyn Dunne will lead the project reflective of how concerned the Government is to address outstanding issues in provincial New Zealand.Jenny Marcroft: Why has this intervention been necessary?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because we cancelled the previous Government's fund."Marja Lubeck: You're useless.Hon SHANE JONES: Sir there are noises from the—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Who made that interjection? Who made it?Hon Member: Which one?SPEAKER: The one that was directed at me. Marja Lubeck will stand withdraw and apologise.Marja Lubeck: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: And it's not a wise thing to do.Hon SHANE JONES: Sir there were noises from the other side of the House. However I realise some MPs may thunder out into the provinces and whimper in this House. I'm a lion on all occasions. Last week Damien O'Connor Minister announced that the Northland drought is an adverse event. It has begun to affect essential facilities—schools are threatened hospitals old people's homes. A variety of essential services are at risk. Trucking water to the regions is proving to be prohibitively expensive. Residents should be able to go about their lives knowing that we believe although you live in isolated parts of New Zealand they deserve First World services and I'm happy to accommodate those demands.Jenny Marcroft: What other water storage schemes have been supported by the Provincial Growth Fund?Hon SHANE JONES: Just to dispel any misapprehensions that the love is only being shared in the north Wairarapa has been in receipt of significant support and I acknowledge the various MPs—in particular the right honourable Ron Mark and my colleague here from Labour—for their advocacy that Wairarapa not be overlooked. In addition to that we are addressing concerns in the Kaipara Harbour because land-use change is on its way. But the Government cannot step back and remain aloof from the requests for assistance from landowners. Consequently the first citizen of the provinces is stepping up for Northland yet again."
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — First Reading
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I commend this bill to the House. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Health Committee. The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand to take a brief call on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill—the funded family care repeal of Part 4A. It's abhorrent to me to my party and to our Government that Part 4A of the primary legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is a shameful legacy of the last Government. Let's get on with it. I commend this bill to the House.
Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take this call in support of this bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill at first reading. Many New Zealand families play a crucial and vital role in the support and love and care of those members of our family who for some illness or disability are not in a position to care for themselves. I can state categorically that my own family is providing this care as I speak as I'm sure members in this House will have someone in their family or they will know someone that's in this very same position. The mainstay of all societies is not the State; it is the family unit and it is the individual and the family that they exist within. Thus the responsibility for the care of those individuals does lay first and foremost with those family members and this is true for all our communities in this country whether you've been here a thousand years or have just come last year. This is what we do—we look after our own. But from time to time that burden on families can be heavy indeed and so families will look to the wider community their wider family to a care provider for support and that also includes the Government. As a country we stand very proud in our compassion and care for others and particularly also when they are not even related to us. So giving families some relief from the situation the challenges of care does require financial resources. As has been noted by members on this side of the House tonight I'm proud to be a member of a party that when in Government in 2013 still managing some of the challenges of economic trade winds of the global financial crisis and subsequent earthquakes still managed to provide this funded care network. So that stands strong in our record; I'm pleased that was noted. I stand to support this bill to the next stage to the select committee where we can get meaningful debate and discussion and really look towards how we can best implement a plan to go forward for the communities the families who are in need. It's a useful time to enable the committee to get some good advice of experts and to hear from those individuals those families whom this bill will affect. There are some pragmatic and hard decisions that have to be made where we look to identify how we best support these families and we do have to carefully balance the needs of the whānau. So I'm pleased to support this bill to the House. Thank you.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi māku e mihi kau ana ki Te Minita nānā i mau mai tēnei ture ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei pō. He tū poto tēnei. Ko tāku e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire pau te kaha nō reira ka hoatu tēnei ki Te Komiti mō Te Hauora ki te āta titiro i tēnei o ngā pire ngā ture ki te āwhina ki te tiaki kia whiwhi mana kia whiwhi moni anō hoki ngā whānau e tiaki ana o rātou tāngata e māuiui ana e hauā ana. Nō reira ka whakairi tēnei ki mua i a koe: e tautoko ana pau te kaha. [Greetings Mr Speaker. Firstly I acknowledge the Minister who is responsible for bringing this legislation before Parliament tonight. I will be brief. I support this bill wholeheartedly. Much work has gone into it and it will therefore go to the Health Committee for a more detailed analysis on the legislative aspects the wraparound support services the financial assistance and the increased status afforded to families that provide care for their sick and disabled. Therefore I conclude with these remarks: I give my unequivocal support.]