edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker but I don't think I need to take five minutes of the House's time. Far be it from me to waste the House's time. That is after all the Government's job as we've heard tonight—believing it to be a good idea but not appropriate for the member to waste the House's time but they might pick it up and do that themselves later. There have been some pretty generous comments and I am grateful for them. They're less generous in terms of actual support which is of course what counts but never mind. The only thing worse than identical names is identical speeches so I will make a couple of different remarks. Of course the only thing worse than identical speeches is identical phrases within the speeches and I know I've just done that but that was out of a sense of irony. You'll indulge me I think at this late hour—the dying days of the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. I'll take a moment to reflect on that. Confusingly similar names are a problem actually. We have a Labour Party in New Zealand there's a Labour Party in the UK and there's a Labor Party in Australia. The only saving grace for the Australian version is it's at least spelt differently. I'd be inclined to say they're all as bad as each other but then I heard Duncan Webb's speech and I believe that the New Zealand version may be the worst of the lot. I set out at the start what I thought was a reasonably rational rationale—can I say that? Too late I have. Anyway I've set out what I thought was a reasonable basis for the law. I didn't claim it was anything particularly large—indeed it's not—and no one here would make the mistake of thinking that. Even the most generous supporters of the bill wouldn't claim that it's going to save every problem in the world. But I will just say at the risk of being ever so slightly defensive that it was interesting to hear Dr Duncan Webb rebuke me for almost wasting the time of the House when I remember that he spoke at some length on no lesser subject that the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill and that was produced with the resources of the whole Government in the last term I believe. Actually maybe it was a member's bill. In any case it came from that side of the House. Hon Member: It was Andrew Little's bill. CHRIS PENK: In fact it was Andrew Little's bill wasn't it? It was the Minister of Justice no less who thought that that was an appropriate subject for the House's time and argued that there was a major problem to be solved a big walnut to be cracked with that sledgehammer. So anyway I think we've got to the end of the road by the sound of it but I do thank those who have taken the trouble to support it in good faith and even those who did not for—I'll take them at their word—taking it seriously as far as it went. There we have it I think. For what it's worth I do commend the bill to the House.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a short call on the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge my colleague Chris Penk for bringing such an important piece of legislation to the House which does make an important difference. You hear members on the other side talking about how little this bill is and how small a change and saying that it makes a small difference for businesses. These guys are the guys who just deride anything which is to do with business and the important role that business has in society creating jobs and growing our economy. This is an important part to ensure that the regulations and the legislation which sets up our businesses is efficient works and does protect the names of these businesses in this important piece. I'm not quite sure exactly what the Government's position is on this. Some of their MPs have said Lovely idea" "Great idea" "Well we'll put it into our regulatory systems bill" and other MPs have said "Terrible idea" "What a terrible thing to do" "Why on earth would we do such a terrible thing?" so I do implore you Madam Speaker whether a personal vote is required on this piece of legislation because the Government benches do seem to be quite divided. But look this is an important piece of legislation. I'm very pleased that my colleague has had it pulled and I look forward to it being supported by a majority of members of Parliament very soon. Thank you."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to make a very short call addressing the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the two previous speakers who have I think given a very fulsome explanation of not only what's in the bill—what's in a name—as well as identifying that both sides of the House are very much keen to address the issues that this bill addresses. What this bill does and I just reiterate it briefly is amend the Companies Act to correct a legislative issue that allows for identical names of businesses to be registered in Aotearoa. This is a common-sense change one that is very much identified by how brief this bill is so the Greens will be supporting this bill at first reading. The one thing that we just want to note is an issue that could potentially arise if someone registered a Māori-named company and gained exclusive rights to that name when they have no connection to it. We do hope that the select committee will address this issue and consider it. But otherwise we also hope that the discrete nature of this bill is addressed promptly either by this member's bill or the Government's bill in omnibus form. Thank you.
Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging my colleague and friend Chris Bishop who has had the good fortune to have this bill pulled from the ballot as well as the good sense to have put it in there in the first place! I salute those who provide free legal services. We've heard about a number of those tonight those connected with members—Mr Nash Sr and others many no doubt sitting in the Chamber who themselves have been in that position. For others the phrase pro bono" probably indicates that they're in favour of the music of U2! But nevertheless there have been some intelligent contributions on the subject of pro bono legal services. And I do want to distinguish the kind of free legal services that some of us provided as junior lawyers when we were simply slack at recording our time when we were meant to be doing that in our various firms!The phrase "pro bono" of course means "for the good". So it's for the public good that we have the ability for lawyers to provide their services for free. That's a good thing for society. It's a good thing of course for the individuals who are helped in that way be it natural persons or perhaps clubs or other groups within the community and that's the very opposite of misconduct which of course is the technical way that the law would have to view such services being provided if outside the scope of the normal employment of a person who happens to be a registered lawyer but is otherwise acting outside that realm. So the idea is good. The provisions in the bill seem good. I think it's reasonable to say that these could be looked at by the select committee and the bill advancing to that stage is good as well. I commend it to the House."
Tuiono Teanau; Salesa JennyTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. The Greens support this bill and I support the emphasis that the last two speakers have put on celebrating the work of community law centres—I've got quite a few friends that have worked in those—and acknowledging the work that they do across our country making access to legal advice accessible for all of our communities.My understanding of this bill is that it allows a lawyer who is an employee—for example law practice or in-house lawyers—to do free legal work other than for the lawyer's employer on conditions set by the New Zealand Law Society. This is something that the Greens support because what it really gets down to is that it helps to encourage volunteers within our society and those lawyers within our society that do pro bono work are a good example of that. One of our Green Party policies is around ensuring that Government policy across all departments recognises the contribution of volunteers and fosters a culture which promotes and supports volunteering in a key part of your community life and that's the direction this bill is taking.I just think on the amount of pro bono lawyers that I've worked with over the years who have been able to work on environmental issues or work on issues within the community and what this bill does is makes it a lot easier for them to do that. On that the Greens support this bill. Cheers.Dr Emily Henderson: Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Dr Emily Henderson.
Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Mallard TrevorBUSINESS OF THE HOUSESPEAKER: Now I just want to consult with the shadow Leader of the House who has the next bill in his name. We've really got two choices: one he could give us five minutes and have five minutes after dinner or people can talk amongst themselves until the people are in here for the next one. Chris Bishop: I'm going to do the five minutes. SPEAKER: You're ready to go.
Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I'm going to take a short call on the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). The House is in general support of this piece of legislation. It makes a change to the Holidays Act and it clarifies some detail within that Act about the bereavement leave that women and their families their partners surrogate parents will now qualify for. I have no issues with the content of the bill. Where I do have some concern is about the timing of it. I believe it was highlighted by Angela Roberts in her piece when she talked about women who tragically experience miscarriage over and over again. The onus for the support—the financial support for these women and their families that go through these tragic losses—now falls back on employers and I just feel that in this time with some of the strain on business when we have spent two years getting this bill to this point delaying it for a small amount of time would have probably been the right thing to do. But we are here in this House to see it through its passage and I commend it to the House.
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill is about a deeply personal matter: about miscarriages and stillbirths. I want to take the time to acknowledge the women in New Zealand who have suffered a miscarriage or a stillbirth and some people have suffered many many. I think a lot of us will know people who have. I also want to acknowledge the partners who are there who don't suffer the miscarriage but they feel that grief and they support their partners in that grief too and that's a deeply personal matter between a couple.I think really everybody is different. I know some people who as work colleagues love to share every element of their family life and I absolutely love to hear when someone's kid has done at well at school and when someone has won the swimming competition and done ballet. I think that's absolutely wonderful. But we also know people who are very private—and that's as it should be because everybody is different—and they don't share those personal aspects of their life and you don't really know when they are grieving. But that comes from a lot of life experience too. I know people who don't share those stories because they've already been put in that awkward situation of having shared the fact that they are trying for a child and they've had a miscarriage everybody now knows that they've had a miscarriage and they'd prefer not to have to go through that experience again of that awkwardness of those encounters with their colleagues about what they should and should not say. I think we do need to get better at knowing how we support our colleagues when that does happen but ultimately it is a personal issue and employers will want to do the right thing. I deeply believe that employers do want to help their employees when they are suffering and grieving from the loss of a child and from a miscarriage.I would really hope that every person has a happy story—people who really want to try to be a good mother and be a good father and know that for some instances this is what they've always wanted to do in life. I know many women who I've grown up with who just say this is the one aspect that they would just love to be—they'd love to be a mother—and unfortunately that doesn't happen. We need to acknowledge those people. They don't have a child that dies; they have a miscarriage. Life is just not straightforward. The ACT Party acknowledges that this bill is just a minor technical change. It removes an ambiguity in the law and currently an employee can access three days of bereavement leave on the death of a child. All that this law would do would allow it to apply when that happens in the case of a miscarriage as well. I believe that is a good use of leave—much much better than for example a five days' sick leave increase. I think that this is the right thing to do and ACT will be supporting this bill. Thank you.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Sue Haldane for Rare Disorders NZ requesting that the House urge the Government to acknowledge the universal challenges faced by people living with a rare disease and the unfairness within the current system by committing to the development of a New Zealand National Rare Disorder Framework.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.A paper has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Crown Infrastructure Partners amendment to the Statement of Performance Expectations for 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Health Committee on the:2019/20 Annual review of Te Aho o Te Kahu – Cancer Control Agency2019/20 Annual review of the Pharmaceutical Management Agency2019/20 Annual review of the Waikato District Health Board2019/20 Annual review of the Capital and Coast District Health Board and the Hutt Valley District Health BoardReports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:2019/20 Annual reviews of the Arts Council of NZ Toi Aotearoa Broadcasting Commission Drug Free Sport NZ & Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga2019/20 Annual reviews of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples Ministry for Women & NZ Artificial Limb Service2019/20 Annual reviews of the New Zealand Film Commission and the New Zealand Lotteries CommissionReports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:2019/20 Annual review of Air New Zealand Limited2019/20 Annual review of the Airways Corporation New Zealand Limited2019/20 Annual review of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand2019/20 Annual reviews of City Rail Link Limited Maritime New Zealand Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited and Transport Accident Investigation Commission.SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill introductionSocial Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Speaker's Statements — Government Order of the Day—Motion to Discharge
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSGovernment Order of the Day—Motion to DischargeSPEAKER: Members yesterday the House accorded urgency to the passing through remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020–21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill. The Hon Michael Woodhouse moved a motion to discharge the order of the day of the committee stage of the bill and to refer it to a select committee. The question was put and a party vote held. The motion was defeated. I should not have put the question. Once the House has agreed to pass a bill under urgency a motion to discharge the bill and refer it to a select committee is not in order since it is inconsistent with that decision. I refer members to page 199 of McGee and to page 19128 Volume 580 of Hansard where Speaker Kidd made the ruling on this matter. I apologise to the House for my error.
Motions — J-Force Arrival in Japan—75th Anniversary
Whaitiri MekaMOTIONSJ-Force Arrival in Japan—75th AnniversaryHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister for Veterans): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to note the 75th anniversary of the arrival of J-Force in Japan.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I move That the House note the national commemoration on Friday 19 March that marked the 75th anniversary of the arrival of J-Force in Japan and honour the contribution of more than 12000 New Zealanders who took part in the post-war occupation of Japan between 1946 and 1949 including the 15 who died while serving in the country.Motion agreed to.
Dean JacquiWEDNESDAY 24 MARCH 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 23 March 2021 (continued on Wednesday 24 March 2021) - Volume 751
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill.
Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
White Helen; Dean JacquiHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of this bill and I do so as a scooter user. I think this is where I differ from Julie Anne Genter in that I found the bike a little bit difficult to get around on and a scooter in my area means that you can actually go almost anywhere much faster because of the congestion in Auckland as our Minister works valiantly to actually put that city to rights in terms of transport as does the council. I take Julie Anne Genter's point that what we are doing when we use these other modes is also connecting up with the train system because a scooter could get me to a train which would actually get me to Chris Penk's electorate if I needed to and maybe on to a horse.I think that what I've seen and observed in this area is a stunning shift in the way that we think about things. What really provoked my thoughts was Maureen Pugh's comment that the Minister of Transport's job is to build roads. We have gone so far beyond that now and you can see that in the changes in this legislation because the administrators are being asked to do so much more. The boards will be enforced in terms of their numbers but their tasks will also be different. They are looking at a different way of working in the world.I remember when there was a real investment in trains in Auckland there was a complete underestimation of the uptake of those trains and the same was true of bus lanes. We just did not know how many people would be involved in those things. So basically what we do in this situation is we put in place legislation which encourages the actual market for this and we can see here this beautiful transport instruments provision which will do that. It will put all the administrative work into the right places. It will reinforce that system. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock today.The House adjourned at 11.40 a.m. (Wednesday)
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker for another go at this one the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. I have actually spoken on it before a number of times. I feel like I've spoken—Hon David Bennett: Arr!CHRIS PENK: —about it on more occasions than it's come up in this House so I don't know how that's possible it just kind of feels like that somehow. I sense there's an encouragement for me to emphasise the seafarer welfare but I won't in fact.I just want to make a couple of points pretty briefly. One is actually a reasonably serious one. Transport we often think of in quite technical terms but it's the effect on people's lives not only from a life safety point of view but also the way that we interact in society people spending more time transporting themselves when they need to are away from their families workplaces whatever. That was a point that was made really clearly in a local meeting that I attended last weekend in Kūmeu and surrounding areas and this Friday coming up I've got a meeting in Warkworth about issues to that area. And I'm always reminded in the community away from this place how important these matters are for all those in our community.I think sometimes there's a discussion that's really based on a false choice in this place. We hear on the one hand roads are evil and should be banned—I exaggerate but only slightly. And on the other hand only roads are the way ahead. Of course that's a false choice. Of course the truth lies somewhere in between which is that if we have the right kind of transport for the right place then we'll all be better off for that.This bill does have a pretty mode-neutral feel to it although I can't resist any opportunity to weigh in on the subject of active transport. Walking and cycling are good things in themselves but representing a rural area as I do I'd like to fly the flag again as I do from time to time for horse transport for those who would ride in areas such as Kaipara ki Mahurangi. It is important for them to be safe. And I wrote to the last Government the Minister who was the Associate Minister of Transport I think with that delegation didn't get very far with her but I'll try again maybe. I've reminded myself and my colleague and friend across the House talking about active transport in those terms has reminded me as well.So the bill's pretty technocratic it's pretty detailed but none the worse for that. I've enjoyed the debate and discussion but I don't wish to prolong it any further. So with that like others on this side of the House I commend it to the House.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's always a privilege to talk about anything that's got the words Chatham Islands" in it of course but more seriously this is a bill that really has its history in regulatory compliance and safety. I remember talking in the second reading to this and that was the impetus for doing a lot of this work—you only need to do a short google to look back at the history around compliance. There were lots of issues and I'm proud that this Government has pulled it together and gone "Let's get this sorted." And so we had appointments made. We've done some of the detail. It's not too fancy but it is important and it does save lives and I think that's something that has been lost in some of the speeches because we've got distracted by roads and a whole range of other things. But what this is this is about compliance and safety so I'm really proud to be able to speak one last time on this.In my honorary consul role for the Chatham Islands I have found out they've already been operating as a regional council because things down there—I don't know how much attention they pay to mainland legislation but I was informed that we were already a regional council. I guess this just gives them the formal blessing if nothing else. So good on this paper good on the Minister and thanks to all those who have spoken and of course the select committee. I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tena koe Madam Speaker. I am very happy to rise to take a brief split call on the third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Particularly so to follow that member Mark Mitchell where I can give him the assurance that this big red bus has wheels and they are going round and round as opposed to the static nature of the blue bus on the other side of this House perhaps. But I do want to say that what we have heard today is that this is an important piece of legislation. It's practical it does have common sense and the fact that it is going to be supported from across the Parliament demonstrates that fact as well. We've heard also today about the multimodal approach with this being an example of where this piece of legislation will play its part and so I certainly support the views that have already been expressed by colleagues on that particular issue as well.When I turn back and look at this legislation at a local level I think of the Manawatū Tararua Gorge project—Te Ahu a Turanga—a great project that is delivering for my local community. Even though that is around connecting east to west part of that project does have components of active transport as part of it. And so this piece of legislation will ensure that projects such as that can actually relate to the regulatory instrument and the various regulations and rules that will make things a little bit easier for community groups—for communities to be able to support active transport alongside other more traditional modes and means of transport in community as well.It's around being refreshed it's around keeping up to date and being relevant—and that's what this Government is all about. On that basis we will support this bill and happy to commend it to the House.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Speaker. I intend to take just a short call on this the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. I didn't sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee but I thought that my colleague Chris Luxon gave it a very good rundown in terms of the process. I think that because the committee received just nine submissions that is probably indicative that it is a very technical bill. I'd like to acknowledge my good friend and colleague Paul Eagle for his advocacy for the Chathams. I think that the bill does contain some—Hon Kris Faafoi: That's High Commissioner Eagle" to you!Hon MARK MITCHELL: Ha ha! I know that Mr Eagle is a huge advocate and fan of the kai moana in the Chathams and this is a very good part of the bill. So well done.I want to acknowledge the valiant speeches by Greg O'Connor Shanan Halbert and Terisa Nga-ba.Terisa Ngobi: Ngobi.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Ngobi sorry. Fundamentally reading this bill—and by the way it says here "to enable a quick response to change."; if this bill allows the Government to have a quick response to change bring some more bills in and we'll support them all! We'll get them all through no problem at all. Valiant speeches trying to get the bus going a bit quicker: Shanan Greg and Terisa all at the back of the bus there pushing as hard as they can those legs going as quick as they can but unfortunately they suddenly realise there are no wheels on the bus—so it is a bit hard to get a bus moving when there are no wheels. The reason why I say that is in response to some of the comments that Mr Greg O'Connor made.The reality of it is this: if you look around the country—and I'll take my electorate for example—the only real transport projects going are the ones that the National Government started. I've got the Pūhoi to Wellsford a very popular road—the road of national significance. I've got the Matakana Link Road extremely important; started by the National Party.But the one road that we do need in my electorate is Penlink. There's been a promise by the Government to deliver Penlink and it is meant to start this year. The funds have been allocated but the funds haven't been released. So if you want to get the bus moving a bit quicker release the funds and actually start building some roads.But we are in support of the bill. It is an important bill. It is an omnibus bill. I am very happy to stand and support it. Thank you."
Ngobi Terisa; Dean JacquiTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Can I first just say it's really good to get support across the House on this bill and actually it makes sense because who doesn't want to ensure the safety of New Zealanders especially on our roads and our walkways? I also just want to quickly acknowledge the other members Shanan Halbert and colleague for his kōrero around the different modes and the fact that this Government is focused on all of those modes and all of New Zealand's safety while they're using those transportation modes. Safety is a top priority for our Government especially on transport so this bill ensures the effectiveness and the efficiency of our regulatory system. We know that it addresses the currents gaps and errors and duplications that currently exist. The streamlines around the rule-making process will make sure that our transport sector—so our police and our emergency services—are able to address emergencies and issues much faster. Therefore it's a no-brainer that this bill has the safety of New Zealanders at its heart and I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This is a five-minute split call—the Hon Mark Mitchell.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's an honour actually to hear from my colleague Christopher Luxon across the room and I look forward to his maiden speech this afternoon where he talks about the great things of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project and the $31 billion investment in Auckland's transport infrastructure.Understanding the deficit that we've had in Auckland's transport infrastructure for so long—I think a $6 billion deficit we've faced over consecutive decades—and as an Auckland MP each of us knows the impact on our community and the congestion that people living in Tāmaki Makaurau experience on a day-to-day basis. But our reality is that we cannot continue to just build roads in Auckland. That is not the future transport system. I've talked often about the need for many many options—that includes on my bicycle walking public transport light rail—because our vision has always had to be bigger and broader to ensure that we can get Aucklanders moving. So that's the exciting thing under this Minister under this Government that we're getting on and doing the mahi. That includes looking into the additional harbour crossing and if nobody had read up on the reports we've actually done some research and started the work to look at Auckland's additional harbour crossing and come up with actual options not pie in the sky ideas that we should do this that we should do that. We're actually getting on with unlocking Auckland's congestion issues under this Government. So I go back to this particular bill—ahakoa he iti he pounamu albeit small this bill is a treasure. Because we know with large investment in Auckland's infrastructure—$31 billion—addressing those gaps and unlocking Auckland we've got to focus on the little things. And what this bill does is that it enables Government or the Minister in particular to delegate responsibilities to CEOs to take care of some of those responsibilities and the instruments that will enable our transport system to unlock itself and get moving.So without further ado—and I acknowledge the cooperation and collaboration in the House today—I commend this bill to the House.
Luxon ChristopherCHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): It is a pleasure to rise and talk about this bill because it has actually provided great levity actually over the passing of this bill. We've had some members talk about the possibility of moa signs in Ōtira Pass; we've had others talk about the shape of traffic signals.Greg O'Connor: Arthur's Pass.CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Arthur's Pass it was; you're right it was Arthur's Pass. We've had others talk about their great love of the Chatham Islands and the food stocks that are there from the ambassador for the Chatham Islands Mr Eagle—it's been fantastic. And we've had others talk about their great love of buses. So we've really discussed and canvassed quite a big set of issues. I just want to say that for me as a new member it has been really quite refreshing to see how a bill is actually supposed to go through: from bill in first reading ultimately to how a law is passed. This has taken its time; it has taken over a year to go from first reading to third reading and be passed as a law. We've had nine submissions. We've had plenty of time to consider all the big issues. And for me it is sort of interesting because on the other hand we've just come out of a taxation or a capital gains tax bill and also a Māori wards discussion which were compressed under urgency and I thought that was the normal process. But it is good to see that there is a good legislative process.I agree with my colleague Barbara Kuriger; I think that we would love to see some more action. When we talk about a second harbour crossing isn't it interesting? The harbour bridge is at structural constraints we don't have a plan for a second crossing and then we are going to whack a SkyPath on the back of it that is going to load up to a structural load. So we need an answer for this side—SkyPath and the second harbour crossing. We need light rail fixed; it has frozen 15 roading projects. We've got the Auckland fuel tax we've waited three years for it all to come; nothing is happening there. Let's Get Wellington Moving—we could talk about that but we have already canvassed that. And we've got lots of congested and clogged cities. So there are more important things to do.But we are supportive of this bill and we commend the Minister on this very worthy and earnest piece of work because it is important and it is practical and it is very commonsensical. I know that we have talked about it through the second reading and in committee as well. It is doing the practical stuff: enabling transport instruments clarifying relocation powers and minor regulatory governance improvements. So it is my great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): That previous presentation really epitomises everything that is wrong with the Opposition. Here the honourable member Barbara Kuriger is criticising a lack of progress on a particular stretch of road that is being held up by her own constituents who are using the very Act to do so that she is so critical of.But fortunately we are in an environment where a piece of legislation like this becomes necessary because so much is happening in transport and when so much is happening in transport it means that you've actually got to each time there is a new road each time something's done there needs to be new rules around it—whether it be speed limits whether it be signs something as basic as be careful of whatever the local birdlife is. So what is absolutely necessary to keep up with this work that this Government is doing is to ensure we have an efficient regulatory system around it. So what this bill does it just ensures that there's a delegation of the ability to ensure that the amount of work being done by this Government the vast amount of work being done by this Government that there is a regulatory system that can actually keep up with it.So what this does is it enables who can actually now make—we've heard the Minister describe what transport instruments are just to ensure we can keep up that efficiency with the vast amount of work we are doing as the Government. But who can do this work I think those sitting at home will be very interested to know. So in regards to the land transport it's Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency or the agency" as it's often referred to or the Director of Land Transport can do this. In regards to maritime transport Maritime New Zealand or the Director of Maritime New Zealand may make transport instruments. It also allows interestingly enough Waka Kotahi or Maritime New Zealand to delegate this power to the Secretary for Transport. And so the committee recommends a secretary so the secretary now can be allocated responsibility.So again what we have here is another piece of regulation which is necessary to keep up with the amount of work the amount of innovation and the amount of work being done by this Government to ensure that it is the dynamic Government it will need to be to recover from some fairly moribund time in times gone past. I certainly commend this to the House."
Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 6
Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 5
Rurawhe AdrianPart 5 Amendments to Railways Act 2005CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the debate on Part 5—clauses 34 to 38A. This is the debate on amendments to the Railways Act 2005. The question is that Part 5 stand part. The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 5 as amended stand part.Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 4
Rurawhe Adrian; Wood MichaelPart 3 Amendments to Maritime Security Act 2004CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members Part 2 was deleted at select committee so we now come to the debate on Part 3—clauses 14 to 20 and Schedule 2. This is the debate on the amendments to the Maritime Security Act 2004. The question is that Part 3 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'll just canvass some of the key provisions in Part 3 pretty briefly. As I described in my opening comments to Part 1 what members will find in this bill is that most of the key provisions of the bill flow out consistently across the different parts. They simply apply to different pieces of primary legislation. In this case it's the Maritime Security Act in respect of Part 3. The key provisions here are changes which ensure that the facility of transport instruments are able to apply to this piece of legislation. As we've canvassed in the debate around Part 1 this is a really important part of making sure that we have a regulatory system which can be flexible which can respond to technological changes and which enables the director of Maritime New Zealand in this case to be able to make appropriate changes to the regulatory environment to keep that landscape up to date.A couple of other changes are just worth mentioning in this part. One is a change to the penalty limits that apply to this piece of legislation. This brings those penalty limits to a level that is consistent with other pieces of transport legislation. We're currently below the limits that apply across other pieces of transport legislation and as we've canvassed as well members we are making a range of clarifications to the way that the exemptions process works. I note that in the report back from the select committee we've made that change which again is reflected in Part 1—which we've previously debated—which just clarifies that when it comes to class exemptions class exemptions will not be subject to appeal and that is because they are in fact pieces of secondary legislation which can be reviewed by the Regulations Review Committee and are also disallowable.So those I think are probably the key things to cover off in respect of this part members and I'm happy to take any questions that members may have.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 3 as amended stand part. Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Rurawhe AdrianREGULATORY SYSTEMS (TRANSPORT) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 17 March.Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1988CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members the House is in committee on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. When the committee last considered this bill Part 1—clauses 3 to 10 and Schedule 1—was being debated. This is the debate on the amendments to the Land Transport Act 1988. Simon Court had the call with three minutes and 15 seconds remaining. The question is that Part 1 stand part. The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.Part 1 as amended agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry—I'm just seeking clarification members. Sorry members we're going to have to go back. We have an amendment tabled which should have been included in Part 1 so I'll just get the correct words. Sorry members we're going to have to do the vote on Part 1 again. The first question—there's now three questions. The question is that the tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Wood to the amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in his name be agreed to.Amendment to the amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 as amended be agreed to.Amendments as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Sometimes you don't know where you're going until you know where you've come from. Some of the history of this proposed legislation that's in the bill is increasingly important and having practised tax for over a decade I'm going to take us through why we've got to this point in the bill.The history of this provision in the Income Tax Act to capture property speculators is lengthy. It goes back to the Land and Income Assessment Act of 1891 a time of high demand and scarcity of freehold land availability. It sounds familiar right?Hon Members: Yep.BARBARA EDMONDS: Absolutely. So the Government then had to act and that's why this side of the House is acting as well because we're in the same setting as we were in 1891. The underlying policy of the land rules in the Income Tax Act is that where land is treated like a trading asset—and this is important Mr Bayly—a revenue account property not capital then you tax the profits you make from it. The most significant recent changes to this provision was the brightline test in 2015 brought in by the National Government to remove the ambiguity of the intention test.Now I left the House last night after the debate feeling a bit of déjà vu. A lot of the contributions that came from the other side of the House were the contributions I heard when I worked on this bill as an official back in 2015 under the National Government and I make note that I looked back at the committee of the whole House in the Hansard. Last night a number of the contributions that they made—we had the Minister back then sitting in the chair; he took zero calls during that committee stage to clarify the policy intent of the brightline test when it was introduced in 2015. So I thank Minister Parker who sat in the seat last night and took 40 calls—we counted it; 40 calls—to help clarify those positions around the main home exclusion business premises etc. I also thank IRD officials. I know there's probably been late nights. We had a late night last night so I thank you for your thoroughness in all your workings on this particular bill.So I go back to the beginning of my contribution—that you don't know where you're going until you know where you've come from. I've come to this House having been brought up in a home where at one point we had 24 people living under one roof. I come to the House to act and to provide solutions. So that's why I'm proud of this Government for acting and I commend this bill to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm absolutely astonished that that member—the Hon Paul Goldsmith—of all members wants to dedicate a five-minute speech to the last election campaign. What the last election campaign taught us is that New Zealanders are sick of whingeing. They want to hear solutions. For many many years we've been talking about a housing crisis in this country and in every single contribution from that side of the House as we do the third reading of this bill—a bill that provides solutions—we've heard whingeing. Where are their solutions? What I think New Zealanders wish to hear on this debate of this bill—if they disagree what would they do differently? All we have heard is criticisms without solutions. In fact in credit to the ACT Party Damien Smith–whom I am becoming quite fond of I might say; a bit of a character and actually talks about the issues. We've got a situation now when we are putting forward solutions to the housing crisis. The National Party are offering no solutions and the ACT Party are offering a solution of borrowing because of good interest rates to build houses. Well that just says the situation that we're in.This bill offers a way forward. It expands the solution that the National Party brought in when they were in Government—an idea that they were trumpeting at the time but now they are critical of—and it is a prime example of opposition for opposition's sake: when it's their idea it's good and when it's our idea it's bad. The New Zealand public will see through this. They know how serious this housing crisis is and they can see through this bill that this Government is actually doing something about it. It incentivises new builds—exactly what we need to do. It disincentivises investment in existing properties and speculation in existing properties outside first-home buyers—it's exactly what we need to do. What we need is this Parliament to look at solutions and not politics. It's a lesson that this party learnt years ago. It's a lesson that other parties in this House have learnt. It is not a lesson that the National Party have learnt. For some reason they feel that the way forward for their party is to sit and whinge and bicker and moan. Where did it get them last time? This bill is about solutions to one of the biggest issues facing this country and I commend this bill to the House.