edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): I could offer that member Chlöe Swarbrick a woollen blanky to soften the reality that this country can't afford to keep spending keep taxing people. We have to have a change and that's what this Budget shows. We've heard from the Greens member her proposal for a wealth tax—it's economic illiteracy. You can't tax your country into prosperity. We've heard more slogans but no substance no solutions. We can only grow our wealth so that we can offer better conditions for New Zealanders so that New Zealanders can actually keep more of what they earn. We can also do that by shrinking the size of the State and making sure that the Government doesn't have its hands deeper and deeper in people's pockets.We heard no solutions from Labour. They're going to spend a lot more time in the wilderness before Kiwis look to them for salvation again. Once burned many many times shy. This coalition Government understands that spending money is not the measure of success unlike the previous Government it's actually getting results that count.ACT is proud to be part of a coalition Government that's already found $7.5 billion in savings in last year's mini-Budget and another $1.5 billion in ongoing savings over the past few months as Ministers worked to prepare this Budget. That includes $107 million found from the Healthy School Lunches programme while actually extending that programme to feed more children in need in early childhood education. We've found $486 million just knocking around in the bottom drawer at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment which we can return to the centre to provide for tax relief as one of the benefits for New Zealanders.Now it's true that ACT would have preferred to go further with spending cuts and tax cuts to let Kiwis keep even more of what they earn. But it's also true that a Government without ACT would not have gone as far. That is why ACT is proud to support this bill and we're proud to be offering tax relief to New Zealanders in Budget 2024.
Bishop ChrisHon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Brownlee GerryAPPROPRIATION (2023/24 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLFirst ReadingSPEAKER: The Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill is set down for first reading immediately. The remaining bills in the urgency motion are set down for first reading presently.
Brownlee GerryINTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce bills. CLERK: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill introduction;Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill introduction; Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill introduction; Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill introduction;Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill introduction; Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill introduction;Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal)Amendment Bill introduction; andAccident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans)Amendment Bill introduction.
Bishop ChrisURGENCYHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the first reading of the Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill the introduction and passing through all stages of the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill and the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill; the introduction first reading and referral to select committee of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill; the introduction and passing through all stages of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill and the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill.As is tradition on Budget day the Government is progressing several bills through urgency as part of the Budget process. And I note for the House's edification that we have made a change from the approach of previous Governments in which the Opposition would find out about what bills were being introduced at the moment they were introduced and the Opposition had approximately 10 minutes to figure out how they were voting or indeed what they were going to say about those bills by providing copies of the bills to the Opposition at 2 o'clock when the Budget was introduced. So they've had a reasonable amount of time. I accept it's not an ideal amount of time but at least it's more time than any Opposition in the past has had. .The Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill delivers on our commitment to deliver tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders. The public finance bill and the waste minimisation amendment bill reflect new savings measures in Budget 2024 and the land transport bill that I've just mentioned is required to ensure that changes to the Clean Car Standard targets can be made as soon as possible to increase certainty for the vehicle industry. The local government water services bill and the resource management amendment bill are being referred to select committees but are also required to pass with pace. The local government bill is the second step in the Government's Local Water Done Well policy. And the marine farm bill extends marine farm consents by 20 years under the Resource Management Act. The Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill will reduce a regulatory burden and remove compliance costs that have been put on forest businesses. And the accident compensation bill is a bit of a tidy-up bill. It makes it explicit that ACC can charge debit interest where levies are paid by instalments. As I understand there is some current ambiguity in the legislation. Both those two bills need to pass by 1 July so there is urgency to ensure that occurs.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Debate interrupted.
Bishop ChrisHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move That this debate be now adjourned.
Waititi Rawiri; Brownlee GerryRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order Mr Speaker. We have 20 minutes. I'm asking for leave from the House for a split call for Te Pāti Māori today.Rt Hon Winston Peters: You can't do that now!SPEAKER: Just so the House is aware Parliamentary Practice 19.4.2 I think makes it possible for that action to be allowed. Therefore expect two 10-minute calls.
Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Willis NicolaFirst ReadingHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill — Introduction
Brownlee GerryAPPROPRIATION (2024/25 ESTIMATES) BILLIntroductionSPEAKER: The Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill is set down for first reading immediately.
Willis Nicola; Brownlee GerryBUDGET DOCUMENTSHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I present the 2024 Budget speech the Budget at a Glance 2024 the Tax at a Glance 2024 the Fiscal Strategy Report 2024 the Child Poverty Report 2024 the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2024 the Summary of Initiatives 2024 and the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the Year ending 30 June 2025.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Willis Nicola; Brownlee GerrySUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES DOCUMENTSHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ending 30 June 2024.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk.CLERK: Petition of Entrust requesting that the House change the Income Tax Act to enable it to become a listed portfolio investment entity.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Government responses to the petitions of Mohamed Soliman Kate Stone and David Cumin.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Review briefing on the 2022/23 annual review of the New Zealand Qualifications AuthorityReports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Controller and Auditor-General Draft Annual Plan 2024/25 and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Financial Stability Report May 2024Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Complaint about the E-Scooters (Declaration not to be motor vehicles) Notice 2018.SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill has been set down for first reading.
Voting — Correction—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill
Brownlee GerryVOTINGCorrection—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment BillSPEAKER: Members on 29 May 2024 when the committee of the whole House was considering the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's Amendment Paper 30 was incorrectly announced as Ayes 28 Noes 77. The correct result was Ayes 38 Noes 77. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 30 MAY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.
Wednesday 29 May 2024 - Volume 776
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move That debate on this question now close.Motion agreed to.
Rutherford Tom; Smith StuartTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much Mr Chair. As my colleague James Meager the MP for Rangitata did allude to in his contribution just before I do want to talk about some new material now. We had colleagues from the other side of the House heckling saying New material new material." Well here's some new material and wake up because one of the aspects included here is around the provision of water which we actually haven't had any discussion or contribution or just debate on. What it says here is: "We recommend inserting new clause 9 to amend section 116(2)(c) of the Act." Now the amendment would make it a compulsory condition of off-licences that drinking water must be freely available to customers at a designated place on the premises while grape wine—grape wine Mr Webb not vegetables or not fruit.James Meager: Here's a list of vegetable wines.TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah yeah. I'm just having a look here. My colleague brings to my attention a list of vegetable wines: carrot corn cucumber sweet pea pumpkin sweet potato zucchini and the chief whip said he had parsley wine—parsley wine. Goodness me! But this is particularly focused on grape wine as being sold as a sample. There is already a requirement that says in section 116(2)(c) for when alcohol is being supplied free as a sample. But when you're moving to what the provisions of this bill are enabling around having cellar-door tastings sold rather than as free this is looking to amend it around ensuring we've got water available. I'm keen to understand from the member in charge of the bill around why provision of water and having it readily available is actually really important to patrons and to the cellar-door sellers themselves and in that space—[Passed a glass of water]James Meager: A provision of water.TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh yeah thank you. There's my provision of water. I needed it. But why having that available is actually really important because if I think about it if I'm heading out to have my cellar-door tasting—I might be going with my colleague Mark Mitchell and I'm getting slightly parched and I've had a few of my wine tastings and I think "Oh actually I might have some water instead." Having this provision of water being available when I'm purchasing the wine rather than when I'm having it sampled as free as it is at the moment is actually really vitally important to me as the patron. So I'm keen to understand why that's the case and I'd invite the member to respond.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well I thank the member but I think he answered his own question. He had a glass of water there and that is why you have water there. If you've got alcohol available you should always have a non-alcohol option and that is water in this case and they'll have to provide it. All wineries would do that anyway because people often like to rinse their glass between different samples if they're just using one glass."
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move That debate on this question now close.
Nakhle Rima; Smith StuartRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you Mr Chair. I would like to thank the member in the chair as well for his patience as we navigate through these questions. What I'd like to draw your attention to please just for some thoughts some feedback is firstly on the subject of—since we're talking about beer and brewers I'd like to ask the member what he thinks about the person that made the submission on behalf of the Brewers Association of New Zealand Mr Stuart Smith. You may recall that the question was posed to him what the definition of craft beer" is and he acknowledged that there isn't actually a definition of "craft beer". So if you do recall that conversation taking place Mr Smith.Following from that since Amendment Paper 31 suggests putting in "brewery cellar door" and mead "meadery cellar door"—English is my second language—what do you envisage the impact would be on passing your bill if we were to enact these amendments with all these rafts of different definitions that need to be made and the conversations we'll have to have around that? Do you envisage that it would be quite a swift affair given how many conversations were made just about the definition of "winery cellar door"? Or do you envisage that it will take an extremely long time thereby impacting the purpose the scope of your bill and the ability for us to just pass this bill? As you said there's a few ideas for members' bills coming up.So first about the submission given by the Brewers Association where it was acknowledged that there's no actual definition for something as common these days as "craft beer" and second the impact of applying Amendment Paper 31 to the progress of this bill. Thank you.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the member for the question. Actually yeah the Brewers Association of New Zealand spokesperson did—it wasn't me I don't think who'd asked that question. But the definition of a "craft brewery"—well there isn't one. Nothing in the law anyway or the standards that I'm aware of. But the reason Amendment Paper 31 is you know one we're opposed to I've just explored before. Basically there are so many other variables that haven't actually been addressed through the good work that the Justice Committee did on this bill. If someone wants to bring a bill along that line—and I'm expecting to see Dr Webb's name on one of those bills in the ballot very shortly—that would be where they would go through all those potential fish-hooks that could be ironed out. A worthy idea but not suitable in this bill in my opinion."
Wade-Brown Celia; Smith StuartCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): First of all I wonder if the member could—and I'm most surprised at my colleague over the Chamber for actually misreading the amendment bill where it says in replacement section 17(2) inserted by clause 6 that the licensee can also do one or both of the following: supply alcohol for free or sell alcohol as a sample. I'd like the member to confirm that there is still the choice for the licensee to do whichever suits their business model appropriately.I'd also like the member to answer why—and I'm speaking here as somebody who actually has made raspberry wine rhubarb wine elderflower wine and elderberry wine so I have some experience here. Tonight at the British High Commission I enjoyed something slightly surprising a zero-alcohol British chardonnay so you never know what's coming next.But getting back to this there is no reason that we should be putting grape wine on a pedestal compared to the most excellent ciders and fruit wines. I mean if you look at the South Island production of blackcurrants and things like that let's be a little bit more innovative. Let's look at the different producers. Can you tell me why you are fixated on Vitis vinifera rather than any other plant that can be used to produce a pleasant tasting and relaxing beverage?STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. Actually I covered that before so I think that's all been covered. So I thank the member for the question but the reality is it wasn't considered to be within scope of the bill and so we didn't consider that. It might be worthy but that's something perhaps you could take up as a member's bill. I'd probably support it.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the member for the question—it's a very good one. The select committee spent some time discussing this. Snack food is defined in regulation 10 and it includes items such as potato chips crisps biscuits crackers processed seeds and nuts. But some wineries might choose to offer cheese and other types of food. So the whole purpose of this change is so cellar doors don't have to become a restaurant. In fact it might be of interest to the member that Pernod Ricard which own Church Road they gave evidence to the select committee about their difficulties. Even though they have a restaurant they were having difficulty getting staff to staff the restaurant on the weekend and therefore they had to close their cellar door. So if this bill was in place they would be able to address that issue. So it's really snack food. I would imagine most wineries would not want to associate their wines necessarily or show their wines off at the best value with potato chips—they'd probably do it with some cheese probably. But everybody's tastes are different.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to make a call and I thank our colleagues who have traversed and had a good kōrero about wine. I wanted to ask some questions around—I've been reading the commentary but also clause 8 inserting new section 62A around snack food.I wanted to understand because it's not clear to me as a member in terms of what is stipulated in the amendment bill—and I refer to 62A. The question I have for you sir is I wanted to understand snack food because it's not clear to me the word around reasonable". So in the commentary at the beginning of the bill what it does—Tom Rutherford: More than one!LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE: Let me finish—what it talks about is the snack food. Now it doesn't explicitly state whether that's hot or whether that's cold or whether that's chips or what type of snack food. Obviously it's up to the host's responsibility but it does have a dollar sign there. So I just wanted to understand—because for some people who are not big wine connoisseurs or big wine drinkers they will want something not complimentary because obviously it's clear here that they have to pay for that and that's understandable. But what type of exact snack food?Because in my own personal experience when I've been to a place in Māngere what is important is around that snack food. Because not all people just want particularly wine; they want something with it depending on their choice. But also it's got to be very clear. So I understand the intent that you've got a choice—and especially people that like to do and visit these types of facilities but also what is available and in that it does stipulate that the host has the responsibility to provide.So I wanted to understand—because I couldn't find it in here in terms of the definition around snack food—because some people will want that offered and want to take that opportunity. So thank you."
Wade-Brown Celia; Smith StuartCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you. Thank you for bringing the member's bill. I've got some questions. It was the first select committee I ever sat on—I think it was the day after I had my swearing-in as we would call it.I want to ask the member who brought this bill why the definition of wine" is so narrow given that we have got—and I've looked up the definitions under the original Act the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act and there was absolutely no mention of cider or perry except as fruit and vegetable wines.We heard from a lot of different people at the select committee. We heard from the really high-end Wairarapa wineries like Ata Rangi where they cannot afford to give away free samples of the top-level wines. We also heard how attractive cycle tourism is whether it's Otago or again the Wairarapa or I'm sure Marlborough as well. But there are cideries that could be included as well. There are craft breweries that could be included as well. You think of the Nelson area and the specialist hops that are grown there. I think it's important to support these producers of these slightly different products. I'm really disappointed that Catherine Wedd isn't here and couldn't talk about apples and the importance of apples but there we are. I can talk about the importance of apples and cider in the Wairarapa.I'm particularly interested in whether you can expand the definition of "wine". I think the question of location and distance—not having anything there is a bit dangerous but I'm not certain of the 10 kilometres radius either at the moment. So if you could enlarge on those points.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for our newer members it's important not to refer to the absence of other members from the House.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you for the question. I do remember you in that first—you'd just given your maiden speech virtually and were in select committee and asked a lot of relevant questions so it was a great start to your parliamentary career. Actually the questions you asked were quite valid. The issue is that wine is defined in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act so it has to be referred to in that way. We can't expand the definition of it in this bill. So you could bring in a member's bill for ciders and so on and have them treated similarly but you wouldn't be able to do it in the way this is being done in this bill. We know that because it was suggested by one of the members on the committee at a select committee and the clerk said it would be out of scope of the bill and wouldn't be able to be considered so we didn't do that. So it's pretty clear and cut and dry. That's not to say I've got anything against cider or mead or other products but this is a narrow bill as I said and it addresses a very small anomaly in the law and that is why it has got to this stage so far in the process."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you for the questions to both of the members. It was quite interesting hearing about your teenage years there and the wine that you had which was glitchy. It was not a descriptor I've used when tasting wine but it's interesting none the less.So going to the second part of your question why is this for wine? Why are we discriminating between wine and beer? Well wine and beer are different; they're quite different under the law as well. What you've described and your desire to support the brewers sounds like an excellent member's bill for you to bring to the House. Members' bills are about narrow issues that you can generally get agreement with to be successful and that was why I bought this bill in the way it was.We've been through the select committee process already and we've heard evidence and improved the bill. We didn't do that with beer in mind. I note that one of Dr Webb's Amendment Papers alludes to having beer available in a tasting size of 115 millilitres versus 35 millilitres for wine but beer can have alcohol levels similar to wine. To be a wine the minimum amount of alcohol you can have to be classed as a wine under the law is 8.5 percent. There are a lot of beers over 8.5 percent and so why would you have a different tasting amount like that if it's similar to wine? So the rationale is that we didn't do the work on that. I didn't intend to bring that in. Personally if someone bought a member's bill allowing brewers to have cellar doors in a similar way under the licences that wineries have I would support that subject to it meeting all the right criteria but I haven't done that work on brewers nor have I done it on distillers. They're quite different products and they're referred to differently in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act so the work hasn't been done.If I can quote from replacement section 32(g) inserted by clause 7 it says that for kinds of premises for which off-licences may be issued which is what we're talking about here—for premises that in the opinion of the licensing authority or the licensing committee concerned are a cellar door. So you would have to convince the licensing authorities that it was a valid cellar door.Dr Webb talked about the bottom part of my electorate actually Waipara—not quite the bottom but almost—and opening a cellar door for wines produced in that area. You'd have to actually convince the licensing authority or the licensing committee that that was a valid cellar door. I can tell you from experience of dealing with licensing authorities and licensing committees although I've only done it for my own purposes that actually they are not silly people; they don't have the wool pulled over their eyes. They're very practical and they will interpret the law sometimes too harshly. So I have no fear that that will be anything that will cause any problem in the law the way it is written so thank you.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. The member in the chair Stuart Smith will be aware that I have a number of Amendment Papers which are aimed at addressing some of what I see as the anomalies or shortcomings in the legislation. I thought I'd just start if I may with Amendment Paper 30 and that's really about what a winery cellar door is. I'm concerned that the bill as it sits on the Table enables a so-called winery cellar door to in fact be a great distance from where the wine is produced.I'm aware that there's the requirement that a licensing officer has to have the opinion that it is a winery cellar door but winery cellar door"—that must be within the legislation. As amended by this bill a "winery cellar door means retail premises"—this is in clause 4 of the bill—"operated by a person for the purposes of selling grape wine (as defined in section 58(3)) that is made by or on behalf of that person—(a) [either] on those premises;"—that's a real winery cellar door—"or (b) from produce harvested from land occupied by that person". So it could be that the grapes are grown in Waipara in the Canterbury region—fantastic wine comes from there—but the cellar door could be in Blenheim or Christchurch. It could be a great distance away because that's what a "winery cellar door" means.I accept that you could have your vineyard in Omihi just outside of Waipara and then your cellar door in the township five or six kilometres away; that kind of works I understand. It's within what's expected—it's in the wine region. But certainly not 50 60 100 500 kilometres away. My Amendment Paper 30 adds to that and says that "the retail premises are located no more than 10 kilometres from where the main ingredients were grown or the wine was manufactured". It makes it—and the member in the chair will remind us—it attaches the cellar door to the geographical region from which the wine in this case was produced. I'm wondering if the member will support that and if not can he—because I understand that in his view the cellar door must be close to the vineyard but that's not how I read the legislation. If he can work through how I've got that wrong then my Amendment Paper is redundant but I honestly don't see how that could possibly be the case—Hon Matt Doocey: What that you couldn't be wrong?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —in which case will he—I can't see how he could work through it in a way that doesn't lead to that conclusion Mr Doocey. Me being wrong—it's possible. Hasn't happened so far but it's possible! But frivolity aside you know I understand the member's intention but I honestly don't think the legislation's quite got there. If I'm wrong in his intention or I'm wrong in the interpretation I'd be keen to hear it. Otherwise will he support that Amendment Paper?"
Tuiono Teanau; Simpson Scott; Smith StuartSALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL (WINERY CELLAR DOOR TASTING) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members the House is in committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. The Business Committee has determined that the powers of this committee be extended to consider out-of-scope amendments in Amendment Papers 31 and 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Members will be aware that personal votes will be taken on substantive questions such as votes on amendments or on the question that a part stand part. However in accordance with Speakers' ruling 73/4 party votes will be taken for votes on procedural matters such as closure motions. We start with clause 1.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Point of order Mr Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that clauses 1 to 9 stand part.Clauses 1 to 9STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you members. This bill is an important bill for the wine industry. It will fix a longstanding anomaly in the law and make it much easier for wineries to operate their cellar doors by enabling wineries to hold an on-licence and an off-licence together. That can be done in some cases but it's quite difficult and this bill makes it much easier to achieve and will make it more equal across the whole country so that it's very clear how this can operate.I want to point out something about licence combinations which I've just alluded to because there has been a lot of different interpretations around the country. So I want to get it on the record what this is going to do. There is a technical anomaly in the Act as I've mentioned meaning that some wineries have to apply for a second different type of licence through a separate legal entity in order to charge for tastings. This creates additional costs and administrative burden. This bill allows winery cellar doors to hold an on-licence and an off-licence simultaneously. It means that a winery cellar door will be able to share the same licensed footprint as a restaurant or a cafe. In doing so the bill grants winery cellar doors the same exemption that is already available to hotels and taverns.So I'm quite happy to take questions on this matter. I do thank the members who have supported this bill to this stage and thank them for their contributions and I'd also like to thank those that contributed through the select committee process to get the bill in the shape that we have it in today. Thank you.
4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fa'afetai tele lava Mr Speaker. Will her Budget be a success if families do not get the $250 per fortnight as outlined in the fiscal plan and if it causes inflation to stay higher for longer? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): From my experience Ministers of Finance always describe their Budgets as a success and while there are some traditions I intend not to follow tomorrow this tradition of delivering a Budget that is and is described as successful is a tradition I intend to stick to. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will the official Government tax calculator produce the same figures for the same individual circumstances as the tax calculator provided by their fiscal plan? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well naturally the member will have to wait to see until tomorrow but I have been advised of this: the tax calculator will deliver far far bigger numbers of relief than would have been delivered by that group of people. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will low-income earners get more than what was promised in their fiscal plan like landlords have through their $2.9 billion tax break? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Low-income workers will be far far better off with this Government's economic management than they were under six years of Labour's big-spending big-inflation ways. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she understand the economic principle that even if fiscally neutral a timing mismatch between savings and spending will cause inflation? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do understand economic principles and one of those economic principles is that when inflation is roaring at a massive high—as it was in 2022 at 7.3 percent—that would not be the time to pump in the biggest amount of new operating spending in Budget history as that party chose to do in Government. For that member to stand there and pretend that she has now found fiscal rectitude when she is sitting alongside colleagues—SPEAKER: That's enough. [Interruption] The Hon Barbara Edmonds—and everyone else will listen. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Mr Speaker it doesn't faze me. Is she confident that her Budget will not exacerbate inflation or unemployment? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Joseph Griffen requesting that the House urge the Government to stop construction of 20 Kāinga Ora homes in Port Street East Feilding.SPEAKER: The petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Government response to the report of the Environment Committee on the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Space invaders: A review of how New Zealand manages weeds that threaten native ecosystemsministerial response to the referral of the petition of Alisha Riley.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Privileges Committee on the:question of privilege arising from use of official television coverage of the Housequestion of privilege concerning the defamation action Staples v Freeman andreport of the Regulations Review Committee on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2023.SPEAKER: The report of the Regulations Review Committee is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Obituary — Rodger Fox CNZM
Foster Andy; Brownlee GerryOBITUARIESRodger Fox CNZMANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Completely unrelated to the previous conversation Mr Speaker I seek leave to move a notice of motion without debate to express the House's sadness at the passing this week of jazz legend Rodger Fox.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. ANDY FOSTER: I move That this House acknowledge the death this week of jazz legend Rodger Fox CNZM and express our condolences to his family friends loved ones and the many people that Rodger touched and mentored over the years.SPEAKER: Thank you for that. I don't think we take a vote on that; we just accept that as a motion before the House—Hon Chris Bishop: I think you have to put a motion.SPEAKER: Oh do I? OK. Well before I do I'm going to say that I think the man was an absolute icon. I followed him for a long time. His final concert was actually here in Parliament two weeks ago and he brought along 24 young musicians who he was tutoring—a fantastic legacy that he leaves with so many that he has tutored over the years.Motion agreed to.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Tikanga is changing again Gerry.SPEAKER: Yeah that's right. It's me that's doing it so it's OK.
Speaker's Rulings — Contributions from Gallery—Rules and Practice
Salesa JennyWEDNESDAY 29 MAY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Tatou ifo ma tatalo. Le Atua Silisili ese e matou te sulaina lau Afio mo fa'amanuiaga ma tofi ua e fa'au'uina ai i matou. E lafoa'i ni o matou lagona ma manatua ta'ito'atasi i le amana'iaina o le Masiofo o Peretania. Matou te tatalo ina ia tonu ma fa'amaoni fuafuaga ma fa'ai'uga uma i totonu o lenei Maota Fono. Ia talosia ta'ita'i o lenei Mālō ina ia maua le tōfā mamao le fa'apalepale ma le agamalū auā le manuia ma le filemū o Niu Sila. O le matou tatalo lea e ala atu i le suafa pele o Iesu Keriso Amene.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is adjourned until 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Select Committee
Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.A party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
Goldsmith PaulInstruction to the Primary Production Committee Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: I move That the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 30 September 2024.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour): Today yet again we have legislation that is introduced to this House which shows the Government's disregard for our environment and for fresh water. I take offence when I hear people in this Chamber talking about the war on farmers something that we never did. I heard a previous member talk about Well go and see." What do I know? Well I know a lot because I live in Taranaki. I know the challenges. I leaned in and listened. I leaned in and I spent time sitting around kitchen tables in farms all around the electorate of New Plymouth in Taranaki trying to understand the complexities and how this works to get it right.But we look at this piece of legislation and I do see it as a war and an attack on nature an attack on our fresh water. An example is te mana o te wai. Te mana o te wai—the sacredness of water—which of course is the thing that gives life to us. We need to make sure that we get our fresh water right. We need to make sure that we get our soils right within the water systems ensure around the animal welfare that we need to provide in terms of the water.We worked hard. I hear lots of rhetoric around everything sort of coming out of Wellington—the bureaucrats sitting here with their pens pushing them. Well I remind the other side and the Government that it was the Labour Government that put funding into the catchment communities in the last term who ensured that they were strong and thriving. I see those in Taranaki and I see them working well. As we hear the attacks that we seem to have on farmers I wonder about our wetlands. If there's any attack that is being used within this legislation it is on our wetlands. Do you know that 90 percent—90 percent—of our wetlands have been lost since we arrived. Ninety percent. So when I see the attempt to put coal mines on wetlands to ensure the degradation the destruction of more of our wetlands of the few that we have left I think this is dangerous.But I see that side of the House seems to fraternise with the coal industry and that's their thing. I guess that's something that we're going to have to watch and follow as the weeks and months progress.This is a backward step yet again. As the Hon Chris Bishop said at the start these are just some quick targeted changes just repealing a few things and there's more to come. We're in challenging times. Our environment needs us. Our water needs us. We need to fight this and we need to fight hard."
Wednesday 14 February 2024 - Volume 773
Electoral (Equal Protection of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral (Equal Protection of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Motion not agreed to.
District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Motion not agreed to.
9. Question No. 9—HealthHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes in the context that they were given.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Shane Reti who said In the primary care sector it's really hard to see a general practitioner any time soon" and if so will he include access to primary care as one of the five major health targets in the coalition agreement?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I'm not in a position to discuss Budget-sensitive positions but I do agree that it is hard to see primary care.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Shane Reti that "this Government will take actions to improve the health outcomes for all New Zealanders" and if so will he make surviving cancer a health target?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: To the first arm of her question yes.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he commit to preventing the gaming of targets such as the practice of admitting emergency department patients to non-existent virtual wards so that the six-hour target can be met?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I commit to keeping a very close eye on the gaming of any targets that we might announce.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If a patient dies three hours after arriving in the emergency department has the six-hour target been met in their case and if so is this the better health outcome he's promoting for New Zealanders?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We're still to confirm what our targets will be including emergency department targets."
6. Question No. 6—Social Development and EmploymentDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 6—Social Development and Employment6. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the predicted and actual amount of time people spend in receipt of benefit payments?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The social outcomes modelling commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development shows the amount of time New Zealanders are predicted to spend on benefits throughout their lifetime has substantially increased. Recipients of the jobseeker work-ready benefit are now expected to spend on average 13 years of the future on a benefit—an increase of almost four years compared to 2017. The modelling estimated that 626000 New Zealanders who received a benefit in the last year would collectively require another 6.43 million years of income support.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice from a member of the Minister's own party. It's quite clear that the question asks predicted and actual" and yet all of the answer detailed the results of modelling and expectations and not figures that relate to the real-world experience.SPEAKER: Yeah I disagree.Dr Vanessa Weenink: What does the modelling show about the length of time young people are predicted to spend on benefit?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In 2017 the modelling showed that teenagers who went on to the youth payment or young parent payment were expected to spend 15.2 future years reliant on a benefit in their lifetime. By 2022 teenagers who go on to welfare were expected to spend on average 24 years relying on a benefit—a staggering nine extra years of their lives on welfare. That didn't seem to ring any bells of alarm for the previous Government but the increase in benefit dependency that occurred under the watch of the previous Labour Government is of real concern to us.Dr Vanessa Weenink: What did the modelling-associated report say about the impact of people being reliant on benefit for longer?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: While the report said one consequence would be additional cost to the taxpayer of expenditure on benefit payments I was most concerned that those trapped on welfare for longer would face profound impacts on their future earnings and life satisfaction and have more contact with police and mental health services than they otherwise would.Dr Vanessa Weenink: Is this Government comfortable with the trend of people spending longer periods of time on welfare as identified by the social outcomes modelling?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No absolutely not. With the report showing worse life outcomes for those trapped on welfare long term it is cruel to stand by and allow these people's potential to be wasted. We believe that New Zealanders deserve the opportunities and choices that come from employment. That starts with a Government that understands as this Government does the importance of breaking vicious cycles of dependency."