edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mallard Trevor; Brownlee Gerry; Shaw JamesSPEAKER'S RULINGSEnd of Life Choice Bill—SpeechesSPEAKER: A number of members have contacted me in my office with regard to the End of Life Choice Bill and I thought while all members are here it would be appropriate to indicate to them the basis on which I will be granting calls. I'm going to start off by saying that in the end the discretion is mine and will be applied strictly and without argument. Factors which I will take into account are whether or not members have had previous calls on the debate—and this is in no particular order—seniority of members the time they spent on the Justice Committee their willingness to sit through the debate and to listen to other members and the number of times they have attempted to take the call. I will attempt to get some balance—although I don't know the views of all members—around sides of the debate for and against. I will attempt to get some balance around the House as far as parties are concerned. I will also attempt to give people of a variety of religious beliefs and from different ethnic backgrounds the opportunity to state cases on behalf of their religious or ethnic communities. There will be eight 10-minute speeches and 12 five-minute speeches—not necessarily in that order but it is my intention to start with the 10-minute speeches. If people who would like to have a call early in the debate but only want five minutes indicate that to me by way of a note that might give them a slightly better chance than they would have on all of the other criteria to get a call. Would some honourable member care to move that the House—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker I was waiting for you to sit down before I leapt to my feet. Look thank you for your indication of how you intend to make sure the House gets through what is a very contentious and quite difficult bill for many people but I'm just wondering: have you had any indication as to whether there might be any amendments to the second reading motion at this early stage? SPEAKER: I am not aware of anything being tabled; no one has given one to me. Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again thank you for the clarification. I just wanted to check on your point about trying to get a balance between people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds if you would include people who do not hold a religious belief as one of the religious beliefs that would be represented in that category? SPEAKER: Absolutely.
Tuesday 25 June 2019 - Volume 739
Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bills read a second time.
Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill & Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill — Second Readings
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.
Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill be read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
11. Question No. 11—FisheriesJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of FisheriesQuestion No. 11—Fisheries11. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of Fisheries: Why is Cockle Bay subject to a season ban when Eastern Beach Ngunguru and Whangateau are closed for the taking of cockles despite having a higher cockle density and is he confident that the season ban at Cockle Bay is sufficient to protect the cockle fishery from over-harvesting?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): Because in the other bays there is actually evidence that shows there is a downward trend in terms of cockle numbers. However the evidence in Cockle Bay does not show such a trend. However if the scientific evidence does begin to show such a downward trend then we will take the appropriate sustainability measures.SPEAKER: I'm just going to ask Mr Nash: next time when he answers a question can he make sure he's talking to the mike. Thank you.Jami-Lee Ross: Will he review the partial closure at Cockle Bay given that the beach has been depleted so much that it now has fewer cockles than those comparable beaches where complete bans on harvesting are in place?Hon STUART NASH: What we will do and what we always do with fisheries is take an evidence-based approach and if the evidence does show a downward decline like it does in the other beaches mentioned by the Minister then we absolutely will look at sustainability measures but at this point the evidence does not point to a downward trend. But we are monitoring this if not every year then at least once every two years.Jami-Lee Ross: How does he account for his belief that there has not been a downward trend at Cockle Bay given the number of cockles in 2011 has been declining since that year and all of a sudden in one year it doubled in 2018?Hon STUART NASH: When I talk about taking an evidence-based approach in terms of density—that's cockles per square metre—in 2014 there were 212 per square metre in 2016 there were 136 per square metre and in 2019 there were 275 per square metre. As mentioned if that trend continues downwards then we will have a look at sustainability measures.
10. Question No. 10—PoliceGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 10—Police10. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: Will the extension of video victim statements in Budget 2019 help victims of family violence; if so how?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Budget 2019 provided a major boost of $41.8 million to police's raft of family harm initiatives and more specifically $5.86 million was earmarked for victim video statements. Victim video statements provide police the ability to take online statements from victims of family violence. By using video victim statements police are helping reduce the trauma for up to 30000 victims of family violence every year. This funding directly provides victims of sexual violence with the ability to provide evidence in court in alternative ways to help reduce the risk of experiencing further trauma. Breaking the cycle of family and sexual violence and better supporting survivors is a major feature of the Wellbeing Budget.Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on recent evaluations about victim video statements?Hon STUART NASH: In 2018 an evaluation was carried out by the University of Canterbury and the New Zealand Police on the use of video victim statements. The report described that there were often multiple complex reasons for victims' retractions of their statements including in some cases direct pressure by the offender on the victim to recant victims not wanting to end their relationship with a violent partner and most frequently fear of retaliation. The results showed a 50 percent increase in early guilty pleas as well as an increase in overall guilty pleas of 77 percent. These results indicate that video victim statements be used to reduce demand pressures on the criminal justice system due to a reduction in cases proceeding through the court system saving both time and resources. In addition witnesses do not have to appear in court reducing the chance of additional trauma.
7. Question No. 7—EducationDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the review of vocational education?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes in the context in which they were made.Dr Shane Reti: Have 80 percent of submissions to the review not supported the idea of a single New Zealand institute of skills and technology?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I understand that the Minister is yet to receive a full breakdown of the submissions. There are parts of the discussion document that they support and there are parts that they have concerns around but we are looking forward to receiving that breakdown from officials shortly.Dr Shane Reti: Under the review will the organising of apprentices that currently sits with industry training organisations be transferred to providers such as polytechnics as per the leaked Cabinet paper?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Firstly there has been no leaked Cabinet paper because there has been no actual Cabinet paper. If the member is talking about a draft document that he has seen then those decisions are yet to be made so I cannot confirm nor deny.Dr Shane Reti: Under the review will the New Zealand institute of skills and technology hold the cash and other assets currently owned by polytechnics?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: At this stage Cabinet has made no decisions about the submissions made the discussion document and Cabinet has not seen any Cabinet papers. So I'm unfortunately unable to confirm or deny.Dr Shane Reti: Under the review will polytechnics still be able to have campuses and provide services outside of their region?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Unfortunately there have been no Cabinet papers go to Cabinet. Cabinet has made no decisions so at this stage there is no way to actually answer the member's question—because there has been no decision made.
6. Question No. 6—TransportPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 6—Transport6. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: Will the boost to rail in the Wellbeing Budget benefit New Zealanders; if so how?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes rail has huge benefits for New Zealanders' wellbeing including unlocking regional economic growth reducing emissions and traffic congestion and preventing deaths and injuries. Also our Government is helping create 40 new jobs at the KiwiRail Hutt workshops through our investments in rail including the Hamilton to Auckland commuter service which will start next year.SPEAKER: Question No. 7.Paul Eagle: Supplementary.SPEAKER: Well the member needs to stand up rather than talk to the person beside him if he wants a supplementary.Paul Eagle: Sorry Mr Speaker. What investments has Budget 2019 made in KiwiRail's business?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well rail Ministers—myself the Deputy Prime Minister Minister Robertson and the first citizen of the regions Shane Jones—announced this morning that KiwiRail will kick off the process of getting more than 100 new locomotives and 900 new container wagons as part of the Wellbeing Budget's $1 billion investment in making sure that New Zealand has a reliable and sustainable rail network.Paul Eagle: Where will these investments be made?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The benefits will be felt throughout the country. The new container wagons will be used in the busiest corridors including Auckland-Tauranga Auckland-Christchurch and all lines serving the ports. This will allow the worst of the 900 existing wagons to be retired with a small portion of those being repurposed to carry logs. Part of the funding package will go towards replacing the tired and worn out old—Hon Shane Jones: Tired.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —50-year-old locomotives in the South Island—SPEAKER: Order! Mr Jones turn it down.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —which will mean more reliable services and lower maintenance costs. After the chaos that Auckland commuters faced last week it's also important to reassure New Zealanders that we are investing in tracks bridges tunnels signals and control systems around the country to make train services more reliable.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister tell the House and the country how the regions and provinces are receiving these visionary policies?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well the response from regional New Zealand has been tumultuous particularly with the recent reopening of the Wairoa to Napier rail line which has long been a symbol of the regional neglect and the running down of those economies.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made about the review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It's a topic of great interest to the House. The coalition Government has been reviewing the 30-year-old Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act to make sure it is fit for purpose for the 21st century. Last year we delivered on phase 1 of the review by updating our monetary policy settings so that the Reserve Bank takes employment outcomes into account alongside price stability. Phase 2 of the review focuses on the financial policy and prudential regulation side of the Reserve Bank's operations. Yesterday I announced a number of in principle decisions that Cabinet has made. These include that the Government will introduce a deposit protection regime in New Zealand to bring us in line with the rest of the OECD. I also announced further—SPEAKER: Order! That's enough and could well be going beyond the question.Kiritapu Allan: Why did the Government decide to implement a depositor protection regime?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand is an outlier in the OECD in not having a formal deposit protection regime to support Kiwi depositors in the unlikely event a bank were to fail. We know that depositor confidence can help support a strong banking system. The Government has listened to advice of the OECD the IMF past Reserve Bank Governors and sector experts to introduce depositor protection in New Zealand. The proposal being discussed is for a regime with a $30000 to $50000 limit which would cover 90 percent of the deposit accounts in New Zealand. This is an initial suggestion based on advice and we welcome New Zealanders' views on this range during the phase 2 consultation process.Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government looking to strengthen the Reserve Bank's enforcement powers?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A number of countries around the world including the UK and Australia have strengthened their accountability regimes including for bank executives to make sure that they are fit for purpose and include the right balance of measures to hold banks to account. Cabinet has now decided that now is the right time to look at whether the Reserve Bank supervisory regime is sufficiently strong. That includes the enforcement tools the Reserve Bank has including whether penalties are tough enough to discourage certain types of behaviour. The review will look at elements of overseas frameworks with final decisions to be announced in 2020.
Whaitiri Meka; Rurawhe AdrianHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Mr Speaker kia ora—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but it's come time for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It's a great privilege to rise briefly for this call. This event occurred on 9 October 2011 which was obviously round the Rugby World Cup tournament. I commend this bill to the House.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): The previous speaker on this bill Alastair Scott said that it was really quite a technical bill. Let me see if I can bring this bill alive a little for the people who are watching at home. The way to think about this bill is that it is a seatbelt bill—it's a seatbelt bill. So let me explain what I mean by that. As we all know most of us most of the time when we get into cars don't end up in accident situations. Most of us don't run into trouble. Most of us complete our journeys most of the time without ending up in an accident. Nevertheless most of us most of the time when we get into a car put our seatbelts on. We put our seatbelts on because that minimises the risks that we're going to bear in the actually somewhat unlikely event of an accident. So that's what a seatbelt does. It minimises a quite unlikely risk but it's a risk that if it occurred would be disastrous could be lethal could certainly end up in real trouble for us. So a seatbelt bill is a very simple measure—well a measure that if you take it guards against an unlikely risk and this is exactly what this bill does. It guards against an unlikely risk but a risk that if it occurred would be very problematic and difficult.Coming as I do originally from Taranaki I understand what the waters are like there. Some days it is calm and peaceful some days actually there is usually quite a breeze and some days the storms rage in from the Tasman.Barbara Kuriger: Not often.Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Not often but they do happen. In those situations an oil spill will be extraordinarily difficult to clean up. The pollution would be spread far and wide. The sort of disaster that could occur were there an oil spill—well it's hard to contemplate actually just how much it might cost to clean up that oil spill. So even though the operators of oil rigs these days do take safety very very seriously even though the operators of oil rigs these days do take the idea that there might be an oil spill very very seriously indeed and do guard against it if there was an oil spill it would be disastrous. What this bill does is provide protection in the case of that unlikely accident. It's a seatbelt bill and I commend it to the House.
Radhakrishnan Priyanca; Rurawhe AdrianPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's with pleasure that I rise to take a short call on the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill. Now a couple of members before me have reminisced about the Rena oil spill and funnily enough when I was considering this bill that's the oil spill that I thought about as well—1700 tonnes of heavy oil 200 tonnes of diesel and we all remember the amount of time that it took to clear up that oil spill the amount of sand that it was going to take and the environmental impact as well: spotted dotterels and there were 25 other native birds that were quite badly affected. Actually there were about 2000 seabirds that died and 20000 others that were affected and there were little jumpers and sweaters that locals made to keep some of those birds safe from the oil spill as well. Of course the cost of the clean-up of the oil spills has been modelled and the modelling shows us that the cost of an oil spill in New Zealand could actually be in the hundreds of millions or even billions in the worst-case scenario. That's why this bill amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994—really to clarify and strengthen the requirements on owners of offshore oil and gas installations to have the insurance or other financial security in relation to their liability for clean-up and compensation resulting from an oil spill. So it also clarifies that the onus lies with operators rather than with insurers to hold unlimited liability for the cost of clean-up. Actually I thought I'd just refer to a point made by Tim van de Molen the member who has just resumed his seat who talked about something about this Government and its surreptitious way to ensure that the industry doesn't exist at all—or something to that effect—about oil and gas which is absolutely untrue. This is part of the Government's plan to confront climate change and manage a just transition to a low-carbon economy. It's actually part of that deliberate planned and managed transition to a low-carbon economy that this Government is making sure that the risks of spills from oil and gas operations are mitigated in a way that is sustainable as well. Just to go back to the bill as I mentioned it clarifies. It also aims to strike the right balance between creating a regime that insulates taxpayers and communities against the majority of oil spill - related costs and ensuring on the other hand that we have a regime that is insurable on the international market. This is a bill that goes a little bit further to ensure that those potentially high costs of an oil spill can be mitigated. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Alastair Scott—five minutes.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Speaker. Isn't it a lovely night when we can all agree on this Tuesday evening? I too rise in support of this Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I would like to echo the sentiment that our marine environment is incredibly special that our ecosystems here are some of the most precious in the world and that our indigenous marine species are some of the rarest. The other thing is that New Zealanders have a very innate connection with our marine environment—and certainly with respect to the contributions already given that is highlighted by the devastation caused and the public outcry with respect to the Rena disaster. We want to make sure that that sort of oil spill never occurs again. So this bill certainly goes toward that—strengthening the requirements of owners of offshore oil and gas installations to hold appropriate financial securities and raising the framework in the upper limit to $1.2 billion.Look I do note—and of course the National Party don't have monopolies on good ideas—that this bill sprung out of a Cabinet paper that was designed while the National Party was leading the Government. So it is this new Government the Labour-led and New Zealand First-led Government that has taken this National Party bill reframed it and introduced it to the House now two years after that review was complete.As my colleague Mr Jonathan Young has said originally the framework was up to $600 million and has been raised without detail to $1.2 billion. So questions will have to be asked in the select committee with respect to the raising of that limit. But regardless this side of the House stands in unity that we believe that our marine ecosystem does require protection. It does require a framework that if there is an oil spill and a disaster the company should take that liability and clean up that work.But in conclusion it's not all about evil profiteering of oil and gas installations and providers. They are in partnership with the Crown. It should be mentioned that they are responsible operators as well. I understand from Mr Young that Todd Energy sponsor many community events in the Taranaki region including looking after and funding the New Plymouth aquatic centre. So look it's not all about dirty corporates; it's about a partnership. It's about putting a framework in place that does protect our marine ecosystem and being responsible all round with respect to our environment and energy moving forward. For that reason I support this bill.
Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a wonderful opportunity to take a call in the first reading of this Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill. The National Party stands in favour of this bill. It's taken a wee while to get here and it's all about basically an insurance premium for these companies to have to hold which makes good logical sense and lifting that upper level.Reading the bill I was thinking back to the Rena shipwreck that occurred on 5 October in 2011. While that isn't an offshore installation certainly what played out meant that a lot of that very heavy machine oil ended up on the coast and had a big impact on the Bay of Plenty. In fact I was the associate transport Minister at the time and Steven Joyce was the Minister so I was dispatched on a regular basis to go up and check in on how the recovery was going on the Rena. Nick Smith the Minister at the time—he described it as the worst maritime environment disaster in our recollection of this fine country of ours. Certainly it was a massive event and the clean-up took a long period of time.I happened to be a duty Minister in the summer that followed. For those on the other side of the Treasury benches that have been Ministers over the summer break they will probably run a similar scenario to what we did so that everyone could have a break. So I happened to be the duty Minister would you believe when the Rena broke in two. That created quite a bit of a frenzy that occurred on the 9th of the 1st 2012. The reason I tell you that story is that it's always important when legislation goes through this place to talk about life experiences—and that was a live experience for New Zealanders particularly for the Bay of Plenty to have to deal with the aftermath of the Rena something that impacted in the vicinity of about 20000 seabirds—and in fact 2000 seabirds were estimated to have been killed. I went and visited the great work that Massey University were doing cleaning up these seabirds that had been rescued that had effectively been caught up in this terrible waste oil.So this bill that we are debating this evening that the National Party supports is very important. It basically says that owners should hold the necessary insurance. Those people listening out there on a Tuesday night at 9.30 will think that this is a good pragmatic bill. The National Party supports it.
Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National): Good evening Mr Speaker. I'm happy to be able to take a call on the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. The bill supports New Zealand's responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It seeks to protect children and young people from the risks and harm caused by second-hand smoke. It's all very good. As New Zealand journeys to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 anything that that can be done to achieve this target should be helped. We strongly recommend however that a few little issues be dealt with at the select committee.The purpose of the bill is very commendable. It is to prohibit smoking inside an enclosed space where there are young people. Mostly those who will be doing this would either be family members or parents so we have another main reason for this problem which is irresponsible parenthood which is another discussion altogether.We have heard members talk about their own younger experiences in cars where parents had smoked. I had that myself. My father was a heavy smoker. We had a bigger vehicle. It was a Kombi a Volkswagen—a big van—and so we had a little bit more space. But he stopped. He stopped smoking in the car and it wasn't really because a law was passed where he was afraid that a policeman would spot him and fine him. The change that occurred with him happened because he had learned of the consequences of what he was doing. He had figured it out and he became responsible and decided to stop.Smoking in cars has been a persistent problem but the Ministry of Health itself found that the decline of smoking in cars was directly related to the decline of smoking in general. That seems to indicate that the root cause is the smoking in itself. In fact we would probably all be aware that many many smokers would not be smoking with their own children in the car most of the time. Essentially I was just thinking that despite that finding of the ministry and despite their having confirmed that the possibility of a high number of people stopping smoking because of this change cannot be predictable maybe the solution should be something more related to a health-based approach an approach where a strategy could be focused on the stopping of smoking. This is why my colleagues have mentioned vaping which actually would reduce the amount of smoking in itself.So I would like to propose and strongly recommend that the select committee take a closer look and check out whether really the bill's purpose can be achieved when even the ministry has already said what they have said—that it is smoking that needs to be cut down in numbers. Apart from that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Parker DavidIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2019/20) BILL Third ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a third time.
Parker DavidAPPROPRIATION (2018/19 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLThird ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.
Robertson GrantIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2019/20) BILL First ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a first time.
Visitors — Malaysia—Speaker
Bennett PaulaHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I believe I just have a few short minutes before—Hon Grant Robertson: Precious moments.Hon PAULA BENNETT: A few precious moments." says the Minister of Finance and I am going to take them because ladies and gentlemen I was just looking at it and there is no doubt about it that this well-meaning Budget is an abject failure—an abject failure. It fails to deliver for New Zealanders; it fails to deliver on the many promises that we have seen from this Government. It is a well-meaning Budget; there's no way that there is that level of wellbeing.We heard earlier when actually Winston Peters decided to go with Labour and form a Government and he talked a lot about how this was going to be the change and it was going to be a transformational Government and it was the pinnacle of where we were going to see—rather than the modified status quo that was National—this absolutely amazing change. Yeah nah—yeah nah. Maybe he meant that was in the big billion-dollar KiwiRail but it certainly wasn't a transformational Budget in what it could've been.So well-meaning—and I looked it up. The Collins Dictionary says well-meaning—[Interruption] I know thank you. I know you guys didn't so that's why I did. I know they didn't look at wellbeing and what it means because if they'd looked at wellbeing and what it means they'd be delivering for New Zealanders on their promises. If they knew what wellbeing means there would be more jobs for New Zealanders and not fewer. If they knew what wellbeing means we would not have New Zealanders going overseas for cancer drugs and going to Givealittle because this Minister would not even give a little to Pharmac to see them. If they knew what wellbeing means they would actually see fewer people living in cars and we'd see fewer children that are actually in poverty both of which have gone up under this Government and are not getting delivered to in this Budget. So Minister if you want to start giving this side of the House a lecture on what wellbeing is let me help you out.Well-meaning though which is what I think it actually might be because well-meaning means a person that intends to be helpful or kind but is unsuccessful or actually causes problems and that ladies and gentlemen pretty much sums up this Budget. Yep it might be kind it might even have tried to have been a bit helpful but it certainly has not delivered for New Zealanders.I have been through what I think is missing in some of it but let's get to KiwiBuild. Can we get to KiwiBuild because what—Hon Jacqui Dean: Well they haven't.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well they haven't got to KiwiBuild. Ladies and gentlemen it's like the babysitters are currently looking after the country and they've been on a little bit of a sugar rush they've spent a lot of money but it ain't going to be long before they need mum and dad back because the food's running out they're now living on the credit card and quite frankly the mortgage needs to be paid."
Martin TraceyQuestion No. 7 to Minister—Amended AnswerHon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct an answer to a supplementary question to oral question No. 7.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I have been subsequently informed that the Minister has seen a summary of submissions around the review of vocational education. I have also been informed that it is not correct that 80 percent of the substantive submissions oppose the full reforms.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 25 JUNE 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.VISITORSMalaysia—Malaysian House of Representatives Speaker and DelegationSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Hon Dato' Mohamad Ariff bin Mohamad Yusof Speaker of the Malaysian House of Representatives and his delegation who are present in the gallery and accord the Speaker a seat to the left of the Chair.The Hon Dato' Mohamad Ariff bin Mohamad Yusof accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Thursday 20 June 2019 - Volume 739
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019–20 GST Offshore Supplier Registration and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019–20 GST Offshore Supplier Registration and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third Reading
12. Question No. 12—RevenueANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 12—Revenue12. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Revenue: What concerns if any does he have regarding the operation of the latest phased roll-out of the IRD Business Transformation Programme especially in relation to KiwiSaver PIE tax arrangements?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): None.Andrew Bayly: How much money is owed to people who have overpaid portfolio investment entity (PIE) tax on their KiwiSaver and other investment income and will this be repaid?Hon STUART NASH: No money is owed. The PIE rate is the final rate of taxation.Andrew Bayly: Is the new IRD system capable of making refunds to those people who have paid too much tax on their investment incomes?Hon STUART NASH: The new IRD system will be capable of making refunds to those people who have overpaid or underpaid their tax.Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen about how the new IRD system is working following the latest roll-out of the Business Transformation programme?Hon STUART NASH: Good news. I can inform the House that as of 18 June over $313 million has been automatically refunded to taxpayers with an average refund of $432. Recent reports also indicate that the compliance cost savings for small to medium sized enterprises as a result of the changes continue to track ahead of predictions. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research noted that research and feedback seems to suggest IRD has made significant inroads into reducing tax-related compliance costs". Inland Revenue continues to work with tax agents to resolve some of the issues that have arisen as a result of the huge roll-out.Andrew Bayly: How can it be that 950000 people who have overpaid tax on their investment income will not receive a refund when the new system is capable of making such payments?Hon STUART NASH: In answer to that member at the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) the commissioner advised that due to the significant amount of operational resource she made the decision that it is better to move forward and help people get this right moving forward.Hon Shane Jones: Point of order—SPEAKER: I want to thank the Minister for my 75c.Hon Shane Jones: Point of order—SPEAKER: Is the member finished?Andrew Bayly: No. I have a further question.SPEAKER: Sorry no it's not a question; it's a point of order. So the member has finished his supplementaries?Andrew Bayly: No I've got more supplementaries.SPEAKER: Well away you go. Ask it now please.Andrew Bayly: Why did he not change the tax legislation when he had the opportunity to do so this week in the House to enable the IRD to make these refunds?Hon STUART NASH: I'll just reiterate: in answer to that member at FEC the commissioner who is responsible for the operational management of the IRD advised that due to a significant amount of operational resource she made the decision that it is better to move forward and help people get this right moving into the future."
10. Question No. 10—Internal AffairsMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 10—Internal Affairs10. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcement has she made regarding recognition of Fire and Emergency New Zealand volunteers?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): On Monday I announced a $4 million a year package to recognise the contribution made by Fire and Emergency New Zealand volunteers to their communities across New Zealand. These volunteers get out of bed in all weather put down their knives and forks at the family dinner table and leave their paid employment in order to serve their community. The package recognises not only their contributions but the support given to them by their families and employers. The package includes an annual contribution to out of pocket expenses of $300 and a whānau support payment of $50 per night for when they have to travel away from home for formal training.Mark Patterson: What other announcements has she made to support our volunteer firefighters?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: On 8 June I was in Southland to open the new Thornbury volunteer fire station. This new station is a prototype station that will be tested to assess whether it can be used as a design in other communities. In order to keep our communities safe volunteer firefighters in smaller rural fire stations like this one need to have the right facilities tools and technology. This is especially the case for communities like Thornbury where it is the only 24 hour emergency service.Mark Patterson: Why is it important to recognise fire and emergency volunteers?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Volunteers play a crucial role in keeping people safe. Fire and Emergency New Zealand has 11800 volunteers. They make up around 80 percent of the organisation. Volunteers attend thousands of incidents each year—not just fires but motor vehicle accidents and medical emergencies. They save lives our communities are stronger because of them and we thank them.
9. Question No. 9—Whānau OraTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Whānau OraQuestion No. 9—Whānau Ora9. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: What recent announcements has he made about Whānau Ora?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. On 30 June 2019 I announced a total funding package for Whānau Ora of $116 million. This includes funding of $80 million to expand the coverage and impact of Whānau Ora $35 million to introduce the Whānau Ora approach in the corrections system—supporting Māori under 30 and their whānau before during and after incarceration—and $1 million to research the success of applying a whānau-centred approach to primary healthcare.Tamati Coffey: What is his vision for Whānau Ora?Hon PEENI HENARE: Our vision for Whānau Ora is that Whānau Ora is the whānau-centred approach to be integrated into Government policies programmes and services across Government to improve the wellbeing of all New Zealanders. This includes ensuring Whānau Ora is adequately resourced to support whānau to achieve their aspirations is appropriately supported across Government agencies and whānau are able to play a key role in decision making for their aspirations.Tamati Coffey: How is he planning to grow Whānau Ora and whānau-centred approaches across Government?Hon PEENI HENARE: A key challenge set for this team is to work across agencies with senior leaders to look beyond existing strategic policy and financial constraints to explore new ways of designing and delivering services in a whānau-centred way. To date there has been considerable interest in the development of whānau-centred policy across Government and how it can support the Government's priority areas. We will continue to work closely with ministerial colleagues to promote collective investment in Whānau Ora and the broader adoption of whānau-centred practices in Government agencies.
7. Question No. 7—PoliceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 7—Police7. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made about the firearms buy-back scheme?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Today I announced the details of the Government's compensation scheme for the buy-back of prohibited firearms. The buy-back scheme starts today and runs for six months to 20 December. The buy-back and amnesty has one objective: to remove the most dangerous weapons from circulation following the loss of life at Al Noor and Linwood mosques on 15 March. The buy-back scheme recognises licensed firearms owners are now in possession of prohibited items through no fault of their own but because a law was passed by almost the entire Parliament. I believe we have struck a fair balance and I would like to thank the New Zealand Police for their valuable and significant policy and operational work to get this historical scheme under way and managed safely over the next six months. My hope is that other members will also be supportive of the police's efforts in their communities.Ginny Andersen: What are the key elements of the buy-back scheme?Hon STUART NASH: The key elements of the buy-back scheme include: the price will reflect the brand make and model of the prohibited firearm at either 95 percent 70 percent or 25 percent of its base price depending upon the condition of the firearm; the compensation for prohibited parts and magazines will either be 70 or 25 percent of its base price depending upon their condition; dealers will be compensated for stock; and approved dealers will help police with the collection and buy-back process. Owners of some prohibited firearms will also have the option to have them modified by approved gunsmiths to make them lawful with costs up to $300 to be met by the Crown and police will also have the ability to determine the amount of compensation for unique or rare prohibited items. Police want to work closely with owners of prohibited items to help them comply with the law and they have detailed plans in place for the collection of firearms from the community.Ginny Andersen: Will there be sufficient funding for the buy-back scheme under Vote Police?Hon STUART NASH: One of the underlying issues we have been dealing with in relation to the buy-back scheme is the uncertainty around the number of prohibited firearms in our country. The Budget set aside $168 million for the buy-back scheme on 30 May. The fund has also been increased by an additional $40 million through a contribution from ACC. The total set aside for the scheme is now over $200 million. We will get a clearer picture as the buy-back scheme gets under way but as the Minister of Finance said on Budget night if we need to top up the funding we will.
4. Question No. 4—CourtsHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister for CourtsQuestion No. 4—Courts4. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister for Courts: What recent announcements has he made about settling longstanding insurance disputes following the Canterbury earthquakes?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): On Monday along with the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration the Hon Megan Woods I launched the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal to be chaired by former District Court judge Chris Somerville. That tribunal will give Canterbury homeowners a fair flexible and cost-effective way to resolve their outstanding insurance claims relating to the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes including claims with Southern Response and the Earthquake Commission. This is great news for the tired and frustrated Canterbury homeowners many of whom are still waiting for a resolution to the insurance claims from those earthquakes. Hon Ruth Dyson: What effect will the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal have on outstanding claimants? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The tribunal will be homeowner-led and will be able to tailor its approach to the needs of each case. Referral to an independent funded mediation service will be one of the options available for resolving claims without the need for a formal hearing but the tribunal will also have the ability to do arbitral decisions and to award general damages and costs. There will be no fees for access to the tribunal and homeowners will not need a lawyer. The tribunal will be a circuit-breaker for those disputes that have dragged on for too long and will provide homeowners with closure and the opportunity to move on with their lives. Hon Ruth Dyson: How will this benefit Cantabrians? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There are still over 500 active earthquake list cases in the High Court and over 250 of those were lodged in just the last year alone so we know that these issues are still affecting Cantabrians. The delay to resolve residential insurance claims has had a significant effect on Cantabrians' wellbeing. They need another option to help them reach an outcome. The Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal will go a long way to meeting this need.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This morning Stats New Zealand released GDP data for the March quarter showing that the economy continues to grow solidly in the face of global headwinds. While I would caution members from drawing too many conclusions from quarterly data GDP grew 0.6 percent in the March quarter and 2.7 percent in the year to March in line with Treasury and market forecasts. It's also particularly pleasing to see the contribution of the construction sector up 3.7 percent—in summary plenty to be cheerful about.Kiritapu Allan: How does the GDP data compare with international counterparts?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This latest GDP data shows the New Zealand economy continues to outpace many of its international peers both in the March quarter and over the year. The New Zealand economy grew faster than Australia Canada the UK the euro area and the OECD average. Today's data demonstrates the solid fundamentals and ongoing resilience of the New Zealand economy within the slowing and uncertain global economic environment.Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government supporting the resilience of the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In so many ways. The coalition Government has introduced a range of policies to support New Zealand's transition towards a more productive sustainable and inclusive economy including the research and development tax credit reforms to our skills training system investment in our regions through the Provincial Growth Fund and our record land transport infrastructure investment. Alongside this the Government's books are being managed responsibly delivering surpluses managing debt and keeping expenses under control so that we are in a position to respond as the global economy slows.