edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woodhouse Michael; Parker DavidHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I was going to open the batting on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 534 and Minister David Parker has pretty much done it for us but I believe his explanation leaves more questions than answers. Firstly it's about select committee process because the reality is the Environment Committee in its consideration of this bill—a committee that had a reasonably good number of Government members on it who—Erica Stanford: A majority. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: A majority—thank you Mrs Stanford. That is a significant development. I don't believe I have ever seen a Minister overrule a Government-majority select committee in its careful deliberations on an amendment in this way and indeed the House confirmed those changes in its consideration of the bill at its second reading. So I'm fascinated to know why it is that the Minister felt that the select committee process was somehow suboptimal and whether that's a dispositional or situational trait that he might have. But secondly I don't believe that his explanation of why we are considering reverting back to the original wording of the bill is adequate. We have Treaty of Waitangi legislation and principles that are clearly articulated in clause 6 as it was reported back to the House and the Minister's not happy with that. So he's going to ask the House to do the opposite of what it just did half an hour ago at second reading and it's doubled down on that because it's adding a number of other clauses into it which continue to refer back to section 6—it will be—through clause 34 and its schedules. So I don't frankly Minister think that the explanation is yet adequate enough for the committee to understand and consider whether SOP 534 should be supported. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well the explanation is pretty simple and I've already given it. We've preferred the wording that went into select committee over that which went out and whichever way it falls we're confident that Treaty interests and settlements will be protected.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Chair. I do have a question for the Minister in the Chair the Hon David Parker and it's around Schedule 3 in Part 1 which is around referred projects: requirements for referral order. I want to ask a few questions now—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. Schedule 3 is part of Part 2 and the member will get a call on Part 2 so that she can make that contribution on Schedule 3. Would you like to speak to clauses 3 to 13 or Schedule 1?Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I'd like to raise a point of order because I simply don't understand which clearly isn't a point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's right. Not understanding the layout of legislation is not a point of order so I'd ask the member to resume her seat.
Allan Kiritapu; Webb DuncanIn CommitteeKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave that the provisions of this bill be taken as one part.TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Dr Duncan Webb): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Right. There is objection.
COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill — Second Reading
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you Madam Speaker. About a week ago I joined you in Christchurch at Redcliffs School where the children there referred to our Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern as the leader the whole world is wanting. They spoke about her calm and competent and comforting way that she led us through the health response to COVID-19. Now our leader Jacinda Ardern is leading us through the economic recovery response. To do that we have got the most significant infrastructure bill this country has ever seen. The reason we have that is it will create jobs where at this point in time we know that there are some families who are finding it very distressing. So on that note I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): At the helm of New Zealand's COVID-19 response is Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and she is strongly supported by all parties on this side of the House. Her decisive and compassionate decision-making has kept all of us safe and we will continue to work hard to keep COVID-19 at our borders while we work quickly and at pace to support our country's economic recovery and rebuild. For that reason I commend this bill to the House.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. That was a very long call to say that the other side of the House supports this bill. Let's put some positivity back into the debate because this bill is actually a good bill. What I would like to do with my short call—I would like to thank Minister Parker for bringing this bill to the House so that we will have the mechanisms in place to get some crucial infrastructure and other developments going. This will promote employment and in turn support New Zealand's recovery from COVID-19. I would also like to thank the Environment Committee chaired by my indefatigable colleague Dr Duncan Webb and I'd like to thank the officials for their obviously tireless work on this bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5) — First Reading
Urgent Debates Declined — David Clark—Ministerial Resignation
Hipkins ChrisURGENCYHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move that urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Government benches will resume their seats or leave the House—the backbenches.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker I'll do that again. I move That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill.This bill is a bill that I think is broadly supported. It's directly related to our COVID-19 response and I think most members of the House want to see it passed as soon as possible.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisSUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL (NO 5)First ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5) be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDHon Dr David Clark—Ministerial ResignationSPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Michael Woodhouse seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the resignation of the Hon David Clark as a Minister. This is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. Not all ministerial resignations will lead to an urgent debate—Speaker's ruling 199/7 Hunt. I have permitted debates where ministerial probity has been a central issue and where Ministers have been removed from their roles. I do not think Dr Clark's resignation reaches this threshold and I'm not convinced of the need to set aside the business of the House to debate—which member was that? Which member made a noise then?Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did; I was coughing. It was a reflex action.SPEAKER: I accept that member's word. I am not convinced of the need to set aside the business for the House to debate this matter today therefore the application is declined.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 2 JULY 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The House will next sit on Tuesday 21 July when it will consider the second readings of the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill and the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill. The Business Committee has agreed that on the morning of Wednesday 22 July there'll be an extended sitting devoted to members' business. That afternoon the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill will pass through its remaining stages.I've notified the Business Committee of my intention to move urgency on Wednesday 22 July as we continue to make up the time lost while the country was at COVID alert levels 3 and 4. The business to be included will largely consist of the remaining stages of bills currently listed on the Order Paper as being at committee stage or third reading as well as some first readings. I expect that urgency will last into Friday or Saturday.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can the Leader of the House advise us as to whether or not he intends putting the Estimates debate into the urgency motion? That's an 11-hour debate. It would give an indication of the Government's need to get all those done in a hurry and also give us a fair idea of what they're not going to get done in the next few weeks.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): At this point I'm happy to tell the member that my expectation is that we will do the 11-hour Estimates debate in the second week back after the forthcoming adjournment.
Wednesday 1 July 2020 - Volume 747
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 112New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 8Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Bill read a first time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 102 Noes 8.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. The question is that the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning—oh sorry apologies. [Clerk announces bill's first reading] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Apologies for racing ahead. The question is that the Education—Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I called for a party vote.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): My apologies; I didn't hear you. A party vote's been called for but the bill's been read a first time. I've just been advised that because the reading has been announced I can't just go in reverse but you can seek leave for a party vote to be taken.JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): I seek leave for a party vote to be taken. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? I'll ask the Clerk to conduct a party vote please.A party vote was called for on the question That the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 110New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 10New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1. Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 65New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9; Ross.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64 Noes 56.
Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill — Second Reading
11. Question No. 11—PoliceBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: How many firearm incidents involving gang members and associates have there been since the end of the Government's firearm amnesty and buy-back and how does this compare with the number of similar incidents for the two calendar years prior?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): The criminals who hold these guns were warned that police have a renewed focus on gangs and other criminals who unlawfully hold firearms. Almost 2700 firearms have been seized from gangs and other offenders since March last year during search warrants vehicle stops and call-outs to family harm incidents. There have been 369 firearms-related offences since the end of the firearms amnesty and buy-back of gang members and associates. In 2018-19 there were 643; in 2017-18 there were 642 offences under the Arms Act. That compares to almost 2000 offences in 2017-18 by non-gang members. That's also why this side of the House voted for substantially harsher penalties for gun crime.Brett Hudson: What information has he received on why the number of firearms incidents involving gang members and associates has been increasing?Hon STUART NASH: Probably because we put well over 2000 new police into our communities and they're doing their job.Brett Hudson: Is he saying that more police on the street creates gang use of firearms?Hon STUART NASH: I'm saying more police on the street allows us to solve more crime and go very hard against gangs.Brett Hudson: Is he concerned at reports that gang members and associates obtained firearms by offering higher prices than the Government buy-back programme?Hon STUART NASH: People who handed in their firearms during the gun buy-back received substantial compensation for those. Those who didn't face up to five years in jail. If we find anyone who did not hand in a prohibited firearm under the amnesty they face up to five years in prison the loss of their licence and of course the loss of their freedom.Brett Hudson: Will he now support my member's bill to introduce firearms prohibition orders to help curb firearm crime committed by gang members?Hon STUART NASH: Let me talk about police numbers for one moment. To quote the former police Minister Judith Collins from page 260 of her new memoir out today in good bookstores $37: In June 2016 I had my first discussion with the PM Key about the need to significantly increase police numbers eight years after the Australian gangs became established." The former Minister Collins worked incredibly hard in the police portfolio but she met constant roadblocks from her finance Minister and her Prime Minister.SPEAKER: Order! I'm now going to ask the member to address the question that was put to him. I lived in the vain hope that he might have got to it.Hon STUART NASH: No."
10. Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and SafetyWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety10. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What changes to the parental leave scheme came into effect today?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Speaker. Parents with children born from today on are eligible for 26 weeks of paid parental leave. This is a full six months of leave to support families in their child's first months of life. Each year the parental leave payment is adjusted to reflect the rise in the average wage. Today eligible parents will see an increase in the parental leave payment from $585.80 per week to $606.46 per week before tax.Willow-Jean Prime: Why did the Government decide to make the changes?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well the Government is committed to making sure that families and parents are supported when they need it. Along with the bump in paid parental leave we have implemented a wide range of support for parents. This includes boosting the Working for Families payments and the Best Start payment which provides financial support for all families with a newborn baby. Our goal is to make New Zealand the best place to be a child.Willow-Jean Prime: How did the changes come about?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well the changes were policy for all three parties of Government and they are the result of many years of campaigning. I want to acknowledge the work of 26 for Babies Tick for Kids unions parents' groups La Leche League Plunket and UNICEF. I'd also like to make special mention of our former colleague Sue Moroney for her advocacy for the increase to 26 weeks' paid parental leave in previous parliaments and I know that she is proud that we finally have a Government that made this a priority.
9. Question No. 9—ConservationHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 9—Conservation9. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Conservation: What issues if any have prevented the extension of the Campbell Island Marine Reserve?Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): It would be no surprise that as Minister of Conservation I supported the extension of the marine reserve in line with the recommendations of an independent review. The Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Act which was law passed under the former National Government when National chose to exclude 61 percent of the territorial sea around the islands despite many submissions to the contrary also requires the consent of the Minister of Fisheries to any extension. The Minister of Fisheries did not agree to the extension because of concerns raised by Treaty partners particularly Ngāi Tahu and Te Ohu Kaimoana. This Government pays serious attention to Treaty issues and takes Māori rights under the Treaty seriously.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with marine environmental researcher Barry Weeber with regard to the extension of the Campbell Island Marine Reserve when he said it seems really really odd and very disappointing that the minister hasn't approved it."?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The concerns of Ngāi Tahu and Te Ohu Kaimoana were raised with the Minister of Fisheries. They were the reason that the reserve extension was not agreed to because this Government takes Treaty issues seriously.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with Kevin Hackwell of Forest & Bird that "Campbell Island is a UNESCO World Heritage site and … is a really important place for taonga species"?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes I agree with that. That is why I supported the recommendations of the independent review.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with Eugenie Sage who in 2012 said "The Green Party would see a proper commitment to marine conservation and marine protection by establishing the full extent of the territorial sea around the Campbell Islands as marine reserves."?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member should be aware of the statutory responsibilities of different Ministers. The law that National passed required the consent of two Ministers.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with Eugenie Sage who in 2014 said about the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill "It does not go far enough because of the big areas that are missing around the Bounty Islands and the Campbell Island group"?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: This Government is looking at real options for a major overhaul of the Marine Reserves Act and marine protection. That work is under way with the Minister of Fisheries and it will result in a representative network of marine protected areas around Aotearoa. We need to take account of Treaty partners and their views and that is what we're doing."
8. Question No. 8—FisheriesIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of FisheriesQuestion No. 8—Fisheries8. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Fisheries: How many Hector's and Māui dolphins will the new Hector's and Māui dolphins Threat Management Plan—Fisheries Measures save annually if any?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): The member has asked about a very narrow element of the threat management plan (TMP) the fisheries measures and I will address these. But it's also important to consider the TMP in its entirety which includes non-fishing measures. These cover threats like the disease toxoplasmosis and the impact of seabed mining and seismic surveys. The fishing measures are well-covered in the documentation we released last week. They are designed to mitigate risks to dolphins as fishing is only one element of the threat to these mammals. Based on our average estimates of fisheries deaths fisheries officials estimate the new measures will save approximately 40 Hector's dolphins a year and one Māui dolphin every 21 years. Based on our upper estimates of fisheries deaths they estimate the new measures will save approximately 69 Hector's dolphins a year and one Māui dolphin every 10 years.Ian McKelvie: Is the Minister aware of any deaths of Māui dolphins from fishing practices in the past 10 years?Hon STUART NASH: No.Ian McKelvie: Does he agree we have seen little or no evidence of an increase in the Māui dolphin population despite there being only one recorded death from fishing practices?Hon STUART NASH: Well there are only 63 of the dolphins alive at the moment.Ian McKelvie: How will the Hector's and Māui dolphins threat management plan affect small businesses of provincial communities such as Kaikōura Timaru New Plymouth and Raglan if those fishers are unable to reclaim sufficiently to continue fishing?Hon STUART NASH: Well we have put a significant transition process in place to allow fishers to transition from methods that are now not available to other methods. Or if they would like to exit the fishing industry they're able to do that as well.Gareth Hughes: Is it correct to protect those last 63 Māui dolphins that this Government has doubled the marine mammal protected area for Māui and Hector's dolphins?Hon STUART NASH: Yes and I would say I've worked very constructively with the Minister of Conservation to come up with what I think is a very good threat management plan.Ian McKelvie: Does he consider the risk of small business going out of business because of new regulations on top of the economic fallout from COVID-19 proportional to the risk to Māui dolphins? Hon STUART NASH: Well it was never about one or the other; it was about working together and that's the reason why as mentioned we've put in place a transition package which we believe will allow fishers if they so desire to transition from one method of fishing to another method of fishing or if they don't wish to transition then help them exit the industry if they so desire.
7. Question No. 7—EducationMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What changes to support for trades and vocational education come into effect today?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Today the Government's Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund comes into effect. What that means in practical terms is that apprentices will not have to pay fees from today until the end of 2022. It also means that New Zealanders training at a non-degree level in the primary industries will not have to pay fees nor will those training at that level in construction or manufacturing; mechanical engineering and technology; community support areas like care for the elderly counselling and community health; electrical engineering; or road transport. These changes that come into effect today will make a huge difference to those needing to retrain as a result of COVID-19.Marja Lubeck: What do people need to do to apply for the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund and is there a risk of people missing out because they don't know about it?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The good news is that people don't need to do anything to qualify and be eligible. For anyone who is signed up as an apprentice or who enrols as a domestic student in a programme that is fund-eligible the money will flow automatically and they will have their fees paid. The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) and education providers will manage this all in the back room so there is no risk of learners doing the wrong thing or not doing enough.Marja Lubeck: What about learners who started the programme before 1 July and may have already paid their fees?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In many cases they'll still have part of their fee paid or refunded. The exact entitlement would depend on the structure and timing and the components on the course. But again the provider will work out with the TEC what the learner is eligible for and will pass on any fee reduction without the learner needing to do anything.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements on tax?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were made.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his statement from February last year There are elements of the tax system that aren't fair and aren't balanced" with his comments on the AM Show this morning where he talked about "the fair and balanced tax system … That's what we've had in New Zealand for many decades."?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this morning's show we were talking about the importance of a progressive tax system which actually both major parties in this House have been the stewards of over time. The area where I do think more work does need to be done is around multinational tax avoidance which the previous Government did very little work on. We have produced work on that with base erosion and profit shifting legislation and there is more to do in that area including in the work that we've done already around digital services taxes.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is the tax system fair and balanced or unfair and unbalanced?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said on many occasions by and large it is fair and balanced but there are always improvements that can be made.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he really given up on his desire for a new tax on capital or wealth as he expressed it in February?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A lot's happened since February and in this House the Prime Minister has been extremely clear that we'll not be introducing a capital gains tax.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his claim in the House yesterday "This Government has been very clear and our record shows over these months that we're interested in putting money into the pockets of New Zealanders" with yet another fuel tax increase today which is taking money out of the pockets of New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I was making reference there to a number of changes that have been made to the tax system through the COVID period including increasing the provisional tax threshold increasing the small asset depreciation threshold restoring depreciation on buildings the changes to loss continuity the loss carry-back scheme—all of which have been about putting money into the pockets of New Zealanders.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think New Zealanders would be happy to pay their higher fuel taxes if they received more than just announcements of good intentions such as we've heard again today?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think what the member needs to consider there is that it is a hypothecated tax. It goes directly to the transport needs of New Zealand and if the member is going to campaign around the idea that the tax increases in fuel and road-user charges that have come through today will be removed he has to find $2 billion to take out of the roading programme. He might like to have that discussion with his colleagues."
McAnulty KieranSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In order to avoid Stuart Smith only getting the opportunity to do part of his speech in introducing his bill in the first reading I seek leave for the House to adjourn. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is none.The House adjourned at 9.51 p.m.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to start by saying that I really acknowledge the contributions of members in the House and the first speaker representing the Labour Party asked why an issue like this that seemed on the surface to be so logical had taken so long. One of the difficulties is when you're amending multiple pieces of legislation and you are trying to cross over between the justice system and the health system actually it's not's straightforward. And I know my colleagues on both sides of the House will recognise this in the work that's currently being done in family and sexual violence. When you're trying to deal with more than one agency more than one department it becomes particularly complicated.So I do want to also put on record some feedback that was raised by those with mental health challenges who I think in a press release said About us with us"—or words to that effect. And I want to make sure that I put on the record in this first reading that the emphasis of this bill is primarily and predominantly focused on the victim and their family and I accept it's challenging and I accept that it's difficult and that's why I'm incredibly grateful for members of Parliament colleagues and political parties represented in the House for the willingness to support this through to the select committee so that it can get a really decent working over—that makes it sound as if it's not a great bill; it is a great bill but it absolutely needs improvement. I think that with the willingness that's been demonstrated in the first reading speeches in the House tonight that will happen.I do also want to acknowledge Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First who was also a list member of Parliament residing in Cambridge who also worked with Graeme Moyle and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge her work as well. So I commend this bill to the House the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill in the first reading. Thank you.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Justice Committee."
Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill — First Reading (continued)
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I'm just rising on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of this bill through to first reading. I think that the Hon Louise Upston made some extremely cogent arguments for the bill and why it's necessary. As with the other parties in the House we're supporting it through to first reading in order to ensure that it gets a good hearing and that it has the best chance of evolving in such a manner to ensure that we have a good piece of law if it then succeeds upon further readings. But I do want to congratulate the honourable member for bringing this bill to the House and for what I thought was one of the strongest first reading speeches for members' bills that I've seen.
SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. We will be supporting this through to select committee. It is a common-sense bill and most importantly as every other party has pointed out thus far at its core the bill puts victims at the heart of the justice system. New Zealand First has core policy of ours to put the victims at the heart of the justice system and that's why we will be supporting this bill at its outset. It makes a couple of good changes. First is a change to the formal verdict in the case of someone being found legally insane shifting to language that reflects the fact that the crime has occurred which is important and the victim has been wronged. It also ensures that victims feel that the crimes that are committed on them have been acknowledged by the justice system. So it's a good idea in principle for similar reasons. It also changes the Victims' Rights Act ensuring that victims are given notice whenever unescorted leave or leave of absence or unescorted overnight leave of absence is granted rather than just the first time it is granted. Again good common sense and New Zealand First supports common sense always. We do want to have the chance to see this thoroughly explored at select committee. It is a very difficult topic in its complexity and it makes the examination of the bill very important. So we commend the member Louise Upston for bringing this forward. It's an important topic to bring forward and important issue to bring forward in this legislation. We commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Voting — Correction—New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill
SpeechVOTINGCorrection—New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment BillDEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member the vote for the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill was incorrectly recorded as 102 Ayes and 8 Noes. The record will show 112 Ayes and 8 Noes.
Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill — First Reading
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I just would like to take a couple of minutes to thank the members across the House for their constructive engagement and feedback on the bill; from across the whole House Clayton. I even received some positive comments from the National Party members which is a new experience for me although Paul Goldsmith did call the bill lazy" and that is because it does merely just change one number from "10" to "20". But I'm a farmer not a lawyer so it's the sort of bill that suits me! It is a very complex field though New Zealand superannuation; so it is very important within the scope of a member's bill to keep this as tight as possible. I note some of the points raised particularly around the implementation which will I'm sure be well prosecuted before the select committee.Just before I finish I did make one significant oversight in my bill. I'd like to acknowledge Anita Williams who's sitting up there in the gallery. Anita has lived and breathed this bill and all things superannuation as an adviser to New Zealand First. So Anita I know this is a day you've been looking forward to for a long time. So congratulations. So without further ado we look forward to this bill going to the select committee. Thank you."
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I commend the bill to the House.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): This is a bit of a disappointment for me but I just want to congratulate the member from the deep south and member of the parliamentary cricket team—actually the best batsman in the parliamentary cricket team—on drawing a bill from the ballot. And the other thing I just wanted to say while I was commenting on this bill was I read our speech notes and one of them says that New Zealand superannuation is paid for an average of 20 years and I ain't got long to go.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to be talking on this bill. I just want to acknowledge all the good members in the House tonight particularly the Rt Hon David Carter here who's stayed on because he knows how important this bill is.I've got to say that this bill surprises me somewhat because it is put forward in the name of Mark Patterson and it's actually a remarkably good bill.Matt Doocey: Oh that's why he was in the National Party you see?ANDREW BAYLY: Yes I know he was a former member of the National Party; I think that sensible approach and pragmatic approach to superannuation has probably shown up in this bill. We're of course supporting it but what people don't realise you know is that superannuation at the moment accounts for about 5 percent of our total Government spend and it will double over the next few years. But without measures like this which by the way are incredibly well-supported in public polls—this is a way of trying to make sure superannuation is paid to those who are most deserving and appropriately but also meeting the financial needs of future payments and that will be required to be paid by younger people in New Zealand and that's why we're supporting it. Well done.
SpeechRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Speaker I rise to take a relatively brief call on this legislation to support and congratulate Mark Patterson for bringing this legislation before the House because I think it is of considerable merit for this to be considered by a select committee. If I could make a few opening points about New Zealand superannuation: it is by comparison with the rest of the world a very very generous scheme. It is universal. It's not means tested in any way. I do recall going back perhaps 30 years two Governments had a go at thinking about it with a fair reaction—an electoral reaction—that was suggesting it's dangerous to ever consider means testing superannuation. But when you consider it's available universally at 65 years of age it is a generous scheme and frankly—[Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the lobby please or seated. Sorry to interrupt.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: As I was saying it is a very generous scheme and I think it is time that at the age of 65—at some stage it needs to be considered.But in regards to this particular legislation the eligibility for someone who has only been in New Zealand for 10 years that seems to me over generous. If you think about somebody who spends most of their working life in another country builds up a substantial nest egg and then arrives in New Zealand at say age 54 completes another 10 years of work here in New Zealand and then becomes as eligible for superannuation as somebody like myself who has devoted the whole of my working career to businesses here in New Zealand that seems unfair to me.But the point I hope that the select committee will tease out is the sudden nature by which this legislation would transition. The reason I say that is if you set a date by which Royal assent means this suddenly changes and it goes from 10 years to 20 years then you'll have the very unfair situation where if say Royal assent was 1 April on a particular year somebody who had been here and completed their 10 years on say 29 March would suddenly be eligible and somebody else who completed their 10 years on say 4 April would be ineligible and would have to do a further 10 years of work. I think the select committee needs to look very carefully at a transition measure whereby some justice and fairness is delivered if this legislation successfully passed. But I commend the member Mark Patterson for giving this bill to the House—a chance to examine the issue.
SpeechVOTINGCorrection—Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members before we progress to the next item we have a correction to a vote. When the House was considering the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill before the dinner break the result of the vote on the second reading was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 64 Noes 56. The correct result is Ayes 65 Noes 55. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Voting — Correction—Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill
SpeechSITTINGS OF THE HOUSERt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): In view of the fact that the Hon Nicky Wagner is still on a flight and returning to Wellington I ask that the House adjourn early for a dinner break so that she can take her call at 7.30. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That's Nikki Kaye? Hon Members: Ha ha!ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Points of order are—Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Sorry I apologise. I meant the Hon Nikki Kaye. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): So leave is sought for that. Is there any objection to that? There is not. Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Rurawhe AdrianASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Hon David Bennett: God the Speaker is as bad as the Labour Party.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Hon David Bennett will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon David Bennett: Withdraw and apologise.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Did you do that properly?Hon David Bennett: Yes.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I don't think so. Stand withdraw and apologise.Hon David Bennett: Withdraw and apologise.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you.
SpeechDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to speak at the second reading of the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill and we've traversed a lot of issues today but one thing we can all agree on is the importance of first responders. And again on this side of the House there's been a lot of acknowledgments and I want to echo that and thank all of our first responders whether they're front-line police officers emergency services staff members of the public volunteers—whoever you are. First responders do a fantastic job and an important job in our community.This bill of course we're supporting at this stage. We have supported it up until this stage and I won't take too much of the House's time other than to say that National's position has always been clear which is look if you do a crime you seek the punishment for that and all this bill seeks to do is to create a new offence for those that injure or have the intent to injure a first responder.The specifics of the bill are around of course the minimum mandatory sentencing requirements and that's something that we do have an issue with on this side of the House and will be seeking some amendments possibly in the committee of the whole House. And then of course there's a maximum of up to 10 years' imprisonment based on that offence. As I said we've supported all the Supplementary Order Papers to this bill—the amendments to this bill—in select committee.I do want to acknowledge Darroch Ball the member who has raised this issue. It's an important issue; so thank you to Darroch Ball but also to the Justice Committee of course. It's a pretty entertaining select committee to be on and there's a lot of passion in that select committee. That's it from my perspective at this stage. I commend this bill to the House.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill. I just want to acknowledge Darroch Ball for bringing this piece of legislation to this House—a piece of legislation which will create a new offence of injuring a first responder or prison officer with intent which has a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison including emergency health and fire service staff and the offence of assault on police prison or traffic offences.I just want to acknowledge that the issue that this member is bringing to the House is a very important one and I think particularly pertinent as we all remember Constable Matt Hunt who was tragically killed in the line of duty only a few days ago. It reminds the public and it reminds members of this House and it reminds me as National's spokesperson for corrections of the work that our first responders do our corrections officers do those on the front line in our hospitals in our ambulance services and how they go into situations that we would rather not go into and put their lives on the line for our safety and for our health and for our security.So supporting the intent of this piece of legislation is what the National Party is doing here in saying that we back our first responders we back our corrections officers we back them in the work that they do and when they face these circumstances of being assaulted on the job that the law is there to support them and to say that there will be an offence. But as has been highlighted by colleagues of mine and members on the other side of the House the concern that we have over this piece of legislation is the fact that it puts in place a mandatory minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment. There's something of significant concern over that due to the fact that this could be used in a variety of circumstances whereby an assault takes place and the circumstances may not be one which would warrant such a sentence of six months minimum to be given.There have been many examples of people who may assault somebody in a moment of rage or a moment of frustration or a moment when they may be in difficult circumstances whereby a six-month sentence would not normally be applied by the courts. I do note that it is an aggravated factor already in sentencing that where someone does assault a police officer or a corrections officer that has to be taken into account already at sentencing. So we do have significant concerns over how this could be used and how it could impact on people in those circumstances. I do note the bill does talk about circumstances where if a sentence of imprisonment would be manifestly unjust it would not be applied but that is a very high threshold. So we will be raising questions on this piece of legislation as it goes to the committee of the whole House but as I said we do support the legislation in its intent. Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Ginny Andersen—5 minutes.
SpeechGARETH HUGHES (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I didn't want to interrupt my colleague but I have a question of order in the House. We're talking about quite a sensitive matter here and I noticed the member Chris Bishop had his back turned to the Chamber for four minutes had an incredibly loud conversation and I found it quite disrespectful and disorderly.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The responsibility for what goes on in the Chamber is the presiding officer's. I did notice the heightened level of conversation on both sides to be frank. One of the other things that you've pointed out is—gosh I'm trying to think of the correct word—more tradition than actual rule. However it's noted and thank you for waiting until the end of your colleague's speech. But members have a bit of respect for other members while they're delivering their speeches I guess.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Given the significance of this bill to the people of Auckland I seek leave of the House that other Auckland-based members in the Chamber be afforded a speaking slot on this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.Bill read a third time.
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — Third Reading