edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to support this bill. I also won't take much time but would like to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Gerry Brownlee for what he did during that period. I remember my son moved after the February earthquake to Christchurch and the resilience shown by the Cantabrians also should be commended in this House. I hope that the plans which are in place which were left by Gerry Brownlee will be carried on with this bill. I support this bill.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): As someone who spent a month in the red zone immediately following the earthquake seeing Christchurch at its worst I feel privileged to be able to stand and speak on this bill. It is a significant stepping stone in Christchurch moving back to the beautiful city that I once lived in and I'm sure it will be again. I commend this bill to the House.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to stand and take a short call on this amazing bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee. When I went to Christchurch he was described to me as the godfather of Christchurch and I totally believe it. Without any further ado he has done an amazing job in Christchurch along with the Hon Nicky Wagner and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe. Look I just really wanted to make a very brief comment having heard Mr Doocey speak and really it's about cooperation. I want to recognise now in Canterbury and Greater Christchurch how important cooperation will be. There are plenty of vehicles for that cooperation: the Greater Christchurch Partnership and the Canterbury Mayoral Forum who's going to shout me lunch in a couple of weeks' time I understand. I'm really looking forward to doing that. I would invite Mr Doocey to come really across the floor and to really join in with that partnership because we've still got a lot of work to do.This is a great piece of legislation. It's one which really puts it back into the hands of the community including the MPs and the local body government. I look forward to working with Mr Doocey and every other Christchurch member on this. I commend the bill to the House.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): First of all I would like to acknowledge the great work and outstanding contribution of the Hon Gerry Brownlee for the regeneration of Greater Christchurch. I've been back to Christchurch many times since the earthquakes of 2010-2011 and it was sad to see the damages to the beautiful garden city. Nevertheless I have seen the redevelopment of a city. I've witnessed events in the beautiful modern city library and I stayed in new hotels and I could see fewer and fewer pieces of land in the city and also I could see more and more people in the city. So it's like Christchurch has been reborn.Now following the earthquakes Parliament passed the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. The intent of the Act was of course to put in place alternative and extraordinary legislative and institutional arrangements to support the regeneration of Greater Christchurch. Though the intent was good—however the Act was fully used—it became clear that local authorities were not particularly interested in the particular Act and so much of the power in the Act was kind of redundant.In 2016 Parliament passed another bill—that's the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. This Act would enable local—Hon Member: Sit down.Dr JIAN YANG: Down?
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Look thank you Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate the opportunity to take a very brief call on this matter that the Minister is raising. The Minister in his comments regarding the select committee timing and pointing back to the legislation that was enacted by the last National Government in 2010 neglected of course to point out that the circumstances of that legislation were significantly and completely different to that that exists today. This was legislation that the Government promised would be in place within its first 100 days of taking on the Treasury benches. And of course that's a failed promise another lack of delivery. And now for the Minister to somehow imply that a truncated and shortened select committee process should occur simply because the working group has already done some work on this is a slap in the face to parliamentary democracy. It sounds now like the Minister is saying that just because the Government sets up a working group they can somehow make shorter the constitutional process that we have developed over decades in this Parliament that involves select committee scrutiny. We will be opposing this legislation as it progresses through the House but we will also be taking advantage of the opportunity that is availed for the Opposition through select committee proceedings to hear from people who are going to be actually disadvantaged by this legislation—people who are not going to have an opportunity to negotiate terms and conditions on an individual basis to suit them and their employer and to make the most of their creative skills in an area that New Zealand has become internationally famous for. So we think that this motion to have a truncated select committee process and an earlier than usual report-back date is not a very good use of parliamentary process. We absolutely reject the notion that simply because one of the Government's literally hundreds of working groups has done some work that somehow Parliament should be bypassed and that due process in this place should be somehow diminished. So we don't support the motion.
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It's hard to know whether they're deliberately or wilfully or haplessly ignorant over on that side of the House.Ten years ago when the National Party introduced legislation and rammed all three stages through the House under urgency in a single day that was a dark night for our country with that Hobbit law". There was no consultation of the affected workers no select committee—a complete abrogation of the democratic process. Film workers lost their ability to challenge their status to bargain collectively or to challenge unfair dismissals and other rights. And yet Nicola Willis gets up and talks about the importance of contracting. Well here's quickly what this bill does which is value contracting. Contractors doing screen production work must have written contracts with mandatory terms about contract termination and protection from bullying discrimination and harassment a new duty of good faith to require parties to a contract not to mislead or deceive one another—can't argue with that. Contractors doing screen production work will be able to bargain collectively in a tiered dispute resolution system enabling them to resolve issues that may arise. That's what this bill does. It's actually valuing contracting. It's ideological opposition over there it's bad faith and it's sour grapes because 10 years after their dreadful law passed we're undoing it. I dedicate this to the spirit of Helen Kelly and absolutely commend it to the House."
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to take this opportunity to put on the record how much Wellington values our film industry. It is a really important industry that creates hundreds if not thousands of jobs and significant economic opportunity in this city not only for those who are working on these incredible Weta productions and making the props and doing the incredible digital work but for the constellation of businesses around them—everyone from the people doing the drycleaning to providing the catering to doing the houses—and Wellington would be much poorer without our incredible film industry and the creative talented people who support it.I also want to put on the record the value of contracting arrangements. It is a tendency in this House on the other side from time to time to make out that anyone who is a contractor is somehow in a poorer position than someone who is an employee. I would suggest to those who hold that view that they go and talk to people who choose to contract because of the flexibility it gives them. The contractors I've spoken to many in the film industry are very happy with the employment arrangements they have. They note that their industry is quite particular in the way that it operates and that that flexibility has been useful not only to them but to their colleagues and the way that our New Zealand film industry has been able to adapt and innovate. I believe that valuing that role of contracting is important across our economy. Yes many jobs are absolute employee-employer relationships and I stand for protecting the rights within those relationships but we must acknowledge the spectrum and the fact that many want to be contractors.So the real question for this bill is—we know that Labour made a big promise. They said they'd remove the Hobbit bill". Well actually the core part in the "Hobbit bill" was a carve-out for film industry employees. They're not going to tell the unions this but the carve-out is still there. So the real question is: is this bill anything more than a sop to the unions who they've disappointed on so many fronts? And I'd suggest to you that where a change is simply a Government trying to deliver on an election promise that was flawed to begin with it's probably a change not worth making. Thank you."
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): This bill does three things. It is a requirement for workers to have written contracts which will contain mandatory terms and conditions about termination protection from bullying discrimination and harassment. Second it sets up a framework in which collective contracts can be negotiated setting minimum terms for contractors. And third it has a disputes resolution process. It's a good bill. I don't want to hold it up any longer. I commend it to the House.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Screen Industry Workers Bill which the National Party is opposing. This bill is repealing a law which has stood the test of time which has made a difference to our economy which has brought to New Zealand industry and jobs which we would not have had in our film industry if the Hobbit law" had not been put in place in 2010. This bill represents a broken promise by the Labour - "Winston First" - Greens Government. They promised that in the first hundred days—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Use full names.SIMEON BROWN: Sorry the New Zealand First—yeah that's correct. They're in coalition but not the other one; they're in confidence and supply. Just thought I'd clarify that as well. They said they would deliver this within the first hundred days but it took two and a half years of a working group—one of their two-hundred-and-something working groups—to even bring this bill before this Parliament. Dan Bidois: What an incompetent Government. SIMEON BROWN: Two and a half years—what an incompetent Government; exactly Mr Bidois—to get a hopeless Government to bring one of their promises here before this this Parliament. And now they're hoping to ram it through before this Parliament rises for the election later this year. This bill is going to be a dampener on the film industry in New Zealand. It is going to increase costs and lead to fewer films being produced here in New Zealand—fewer jobs fewer opportunities for New Zealanders. This bill will empower the unions as they seek to take collective action against the film industry.Yes I note in this bill they won't be able to take collective action during the time that the collective bargaining is happening but just you wait mark my words collective action more strikes are coming to New Zealand and are just around the corner. We will not support this bill."
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): What a load of rubbish he just talked about just then—absolutely no idea about what the industry are thinking what they are saying. If he had any clue about what exactly the film industry wanted then all he would need to do is tune in to some of the narrative some of the conversations that are going on. And here's one that's gone on: Robyn Malcolm a proud New Zealand actress she was the one that actually sent a message through to Radio New Zealand saying that at the time when the news was put out there that we were going to be doing this she was delighted the law would be repealed; she cried in the airport. Here's a quote from her: It was a hellish time for all of us and I'm so happy that our new Government has seen to right this wrong straight off the bat." She described the National Government's decision to change the labour laws for a Hollywood production company as "nothing short of embarrassing". She said the only protection that actors have is their ability to collectively bargain. This is a very unusual inconsistent and potentially very exploitative industry and the previous speaker knows nothing about it. So I would encourage him to actually go and have a conversation with some of the people that are working in the screen production industry because what this is is absolutely a protection of their rights their ability to collectively bargain to make sure that actually we do have fair systems and fair agreements when it comes to our screen industry. So I absolutely commend this to the House and it will pass. Kia ora."
Mahuta Nanaia; Tolley AnneHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): That member doth protest too much. The Government is proud to support the Prime Minister's statement because we know in these brief couple of years and a little bit more to go while we've achieved much—and many members on this side of the House have said that—there is so much more to do. But there's a saying: if you want to see our work look around—look around. We have a confidence and supply and coalition partner that is working constructively with the Government to achieve so much for people because we do believe that New Zealand is a great place to live in and to raise our children where we should have a fair and decent society that invests back into our community. But in a nutshell we're doing so much and we have so much more to do.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired. The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges be agreed to. [Interruption] Excuse me I'm putting the vote.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 5 MARCH 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered by the House next week will include the committee stages of the Abortion Legislation Bill and the Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill and the first readings of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill. Following the conclusion of the debate on the Prime Minister's statement today the first members' day of the year will take place next Wednesday 11 March. A two-hour debate on the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement will also take place on that day. There'll be an extended sitting on the morning of Thursday 12 March.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Noting that we've now got to a point where if there are new bills introduced to the House for first reading there's not sufficient time for a select committee to go through its normal phases or normal processes and return it to the House for consideration prior to the election are we to anticipate that there'll be no new legislation introduced by the Government between now and the election or are we in for significant bouts of urgency or extended sittings over the next couple of months?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I think the member is labouring under a misapprehension that in fact the only way to send a bill to a select committee is for six months and if you don't do that you have to pass it through all stages under urgency which of course was the pattern when he was the Leader of the House. On this side of the House we have gone to great lengths to ensure that bills are sent to select committee for scrutiny even if that sometimes means that the time frame that they are at select committee is a little shorter.
Wednesday 4 March 2020 - Volume 744
Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That this debate be now adjourned.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.
11. Question No. 11—FinanceCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 11—Finance11. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm it is his view that the reality is fossil fuel investments are likely to be investments in stranded assets"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes and that's why I'm pleased our Government has announced that from next year default KiwiSaver providers will not be allowed to invest into fossil fuel production. New Zealanders expect our Government to lead on the long-term issues facing our country like climate change and aligning retirement savings security with tackling climate change is an excellent example of taking action on two long-term issues together.Chlöe Swarbrick: What reaction has he seen to the Government's decision to require default KiwiSaver funds not to invest in fossil fuels?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: By and large I've seen a very positive reaction from people who are focused on the future of this country who are determined that we will have a sustainable economy. There have been one or two negative people with their eyes firmly focused in the rear-view mirror but the National Party will catch up one day.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with former New Zealand Superannuation Fund CEO Adrian Orr that and I quote "The climate change challenge [means] Traditional ways of producing [and] consuming are fundamentally changing and we have to invest and move with that."?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely and Mr Orr when he was with the super fund began their journey in that direction. It's obvious to this Government that the global economy is already changing to meet the challenge of the climate crisis and New Zealand needs to change too.Chlöe Swarbrick: So given that the super fund has been divesting its fossil fuel portfolio since 2016 should we expect to see the ACC fund and other Government funds following their lead taking action on climate change?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The super fund's world-leading approach to climate change and investment is something that we should celebrate. The responsibility for managing ACC's investment funds lies with the ACC board which through its investment subcommittee regularly reviews and approves its investment guidelines including its ethical investment policy. While this independence is important and is governed under law I have written to all Government investment funds to outline my expectations around investment practices. This includes regular reviews reflecting best practice and ensuring that we meet the highest ethical standards as New Zealanders would want us to do.Chlöe Swarbrick: That said has he had a response from those Crown investment entities that he wrote to in October last year asking them to ensure that they continue to support the overall goals of the Government as we move towards for example a low-carbon economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have had a response from those agencies. They've all described how they take account of ethical environmental social and governance factors in their investment decisions and I will continue to take an interest in how that work progresses."
10. Question No. 10—Prime MinisterHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 10—Prime Minister10. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes in the context in which they were given.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she support the inclusion of a word similar to personal" or "recreational" in the cannabis referendum question to ensure there is no confusion with medicinal cannabis?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My view is that there won't be confusion. Of course New Zealanders know decisions have already been made on medicinal cannabis.Hon Paula Bennett: Then why did she say recently and I quote "I think there is value in making it clear that laws have already been changed around medicinal cannabis and we wouldn't wish to confuse the situation."; and if so why won't she commit to a referendum question that makes this clear by the inclusion of the words either "personal" or "recreational" use?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The clarity is provided by the fact that the members of the public are being asked a yes/no question on something that doesn't currently exist in New Zealand. We already have medicinal cannabis use because we have already passed provisions for that. Secondly—[Interruption]—secondly Dr Smith—we have a draft bill that individuals will be voting on. Thirdly we will have a public campaign to provide information to members of the public on this issue and we've been involving the likes of the Chief Science Advisor in providing that information as well. I think members of the public will be very well versed in the issues that they will be voting on.Hon Paula Bennett: When the Government's own website set up to inform this campaign explicitly and repeatedly uses the term "recreational cannabis" why will she not simply commit to putting that in the question so that we can avoid any confusion for the public?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member doesn't seem to want to even ask the public in the first place. But secondly—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —we of course have views—Dr Smith maybe a couple of seconds in I will. We've also sought advice from the likes of the Ministry of Justice and those who have provided their expert view on the clearest way that we can communicate this issue. They of course went through the tricky issue of a two-part referendum on the flag and they have some experience in framing questions in such a way that they are as simple as possible for the public to participate."
8. Question No. 8—Commerce and Consumer AffairsDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 8—Commerce and Consumer Affairs8. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: How is the Government improving returns for default KiwiSaver fund customers?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The Government aims to improve returns for people who have their KiwiSaver in what is called a default fund. We are doing this by moving from the current conservative investment mandate to a balanced investment mandate. Over the decades that people save in KiwiSaver this has the potential to add tens of thousands of dollars to their KiwiSaver balances in order for them to better provide for themselves at retirement. We're also introducing new obligations on default fund providers to engage with their members to help them make more informed decisions about their retirement savings so they can have the best settings to suit them.Dr Deborah Russell: Why is the Government making these changes?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Just a little under 700000 New Zealanders are in default KiwiSaver funds. They were automatically enrolled in those when they started a new job and 400000 of them have not done anything to their accounts since they started. We want all New Zealanders to maximise the benefits of KiwiSaver and we want default providers to do more work with their customers to get them the best KiwiSaver balances for their retirement. The balanced setting might not be right for everyone but when working with customers KiwiSaver providers can help their customers choose the right settings for their retirement.Dr Deborah Russell: How is the Government dealing with the fees charged by default KiwiSaver providers?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We want New Zealanders to get better value for money from the fees that are charged as part of their KiwiSaver. In many cases we know fees can make a big difference to the amount of money people have for their retirement over the long term. The fees each provider charges will be factored in too when the Government appoints the default providers later this year and we'll also require that fees are presented in a simple and transparent manner.Dr Deborah Russell: What other changes has the Government made to help default KiwiSaver fund customers?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The other changes are that we're also placing responsible investment obligations on default fund providers. We know from the consultation process around this that 83 percent of New Zealanders expect their KiwiSaver investments to be invested responsibly and ethically. These obligations will include sector exclusions such as manufacturers of illegal weapons as well as investment in fossil fuel production.
6. Question No. 6—HealthHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—Health6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that the border controls in place for the management of COVID-19 coronavirus are adequate and were put in place at the appropriate time?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why did New Zealand implement travel restrictions from Iran only after a coronavirus-infected patient arrived and a full week after the outbreak from that country became known?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: New Zealand has consistently been one of the first countries to introduce travel restrictions. We moved in response to Iran before Australia and our move to register people arriving from South Korea and northern Italy was above and beyond what many countries have done including Australia.Hon Michael Woodhouse: On that matter why have the travel restrictions been imposed on Iran but not South Korea and Italy outbreak countries with more travellers to New Zealand?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The decision around the Iran travel restrictions was based upon the concerns around the quality of information coming out of Iran the sense that the health system was not able to respond in the way that the more sophisticated health sectors have responded in both northern Italy and South Korea.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Now that there is a case which has arrived from Italy will the Government be implementing travel restrictions from Italy and South Korea; if not why not?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We have been looking at the scientific evidence and the medical advice regularly. All our decisions have been based on medical and scientific advice. The technical advisory group met this morning and did not make any changes to the case definition. However they're now meeting daily in response to the rapidly evolving international environment and we will consider any advice we receive.Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that to the best of our knowledge the only countries that have any restrictions involving Italy as New Zealand does are the likes of Kiribati Samoa and at roughly the same time as New Zealand the UK?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: To reiterate New Zealand has been very early to move in respect of other countries. Part of having these restrictions in place early has been that that has allowed us to have more time to prepare as a country. We were the 48th country to receive our first case of the coronavirus. I think the very cautious approach we have been taking has served New Zealanders' health and safety well.
4. Question No. 4—HousingHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 4—Housing4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by the target she set on Radio New Zealand on 4 September last year that she would have a $400 million progressive home ownership scheme up and running this year; if so exactly when this year will it be up and running?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. I refer the member to my answers to oral question No. 6 yesterday when I made it abundantly clear that a paper went to Cabinet in December as was planned and an announcement on the scheme will be made in the next couple of months.Hon Judith Collins: When she said she would have a progressive homeownership scheme up and running this year what did she mean by up and running"?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I know that member was part of a Government that never managed to get a progressive homeownership scheme up and running so it's probably worth explaining what that is. What I meant by "up and running" is that there would be people who would be given assistance to purchase a house.Hon Judith Collins: Does she then know in which month it will be up and running?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: An announcement will be made in the next couple of months. I know the member is a latter-day fan of progressive homeownership and she was a member of a Government that never managed to do anything but there's not long to wait.Hon Judith Collins: Has the Minister not heard of the excellent up-and-running progressive homeownership scheme at Waimahia Peninsula then?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is run by community housing providers. This is actually about a Government getting in behind and putting $400 million into a progressive homeownership scheme. This is a quantum shift in the number of people that will be helped into homeownership because this is a Government that is putting serious effort into this area.Hon Judith Collins: Why did she repeatedly tell media in September last year that the scheme would be up and running when she can't even tell us which month?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I repeatedly told media it would be up and running this year because it will be."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yesterday and overnight a number of central banks around the world warned about the economic impacts of coronavirus including in Australia and the US. The global situation fed through to Fonterra's latest global dairy trade auction overnight where prices were down 1.2 percent to sit just below their long-run average. The fall was less than expected and an ASB economist said prices were showing signs of stabilisation. This ASB economist also said that Fonterra had reported that while there had been a slow-down in processing product was continuing to be cleared by Chinese customs and quarantine officials. This highlights how different industries are being affected differently by the coronavirus situation. It's why the Government is working with business groups and industry organisations on our response and the support that is required to protect jobs and businesses. Willow-Jean Prime: What action is the Government taking to support the economy through this period? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has moved quickly to put in place support for businesses and affected industries and employees as we continue to work with them on our response. This includes support for the tourism and fisheries industries increasing funding for the regional business partner programme with local chambers of commerce and ensuring IRD the Ministry of Social Development and other Government agencies are on the ground working with affected businesses and individuals on issues like provisional tax and income support and through the provision of temporary additional support and special-needs grants. We continue to work closely with business worker and industry groups. Yesterday the Minister for Economic Development visited the Tai Rāwhiti region and met with forestry industry representatives small-business owners and workers. The focus was on how to support forestry companies and workers including through supporting redeployment or the bringing forward of other work. We'll be discussing these proposals at the COVID-19 Cabinet committee this afternoon. Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on the ability of the New Zealand economy to respond to COVID-19? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today there have been further reports about how New Zealand is in good shape to respond to the economic effects of COVID-19. Independent economist Cameron Bagrie told Radio New Zealand this morning that New Zealand was in a reasonable space" heading into this situation saying that "New Zealand has had accelerating momentum."—things have actually been picking up. Mr Bagrie said that the Government had stepped up at the end of last year with our announcements of the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme. His comments also follow recent news that the Government ran a $1.4 billion surplus over the first seven months of this financial year and that net debt is now at 19.5 percent well below the 22.9 percent that we inherited."
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): This bill is so not needed. The Ombudsman has an important role to play in New Zealand and for anybody in New Zealand that has had to deal with the Official Information Act or to understand a whole lot of things including—I might say the Ombudsman when he recently came to the select committee was talking about investigating effectively the drugging of people in eldercare facilities. So the office does a lot of serious things not just investigating Official Information Act requests. Now the real issue here is it was claimed that his office would somehow be diminished if in fact we set up a whole lot of Ombudsmen. But there is only one Ombudsman that reports to this Parliament. There is only one Ombudsman that covers all the big issues about transparency has a lot of say on things and for that reason it's a ridiculous waste of time really for us to bring in a piece of legislation as my friend Mr Chris Penk said that was written on half a piece of paper and I'd say it serves no substantive purpose.We in this Parliament know what the Ombudsman does. It's an Office of Parliament. And for that reason we oppose this bill.
Brown Simeon; Tolley AnneSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): OK thank you Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to take a very short call on this bill the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. I'm not going to take much time. I'm just going to say that this must be the greatest achievement of Andrew Little's time as Minister of Justice—to be able to get this bill through Parliament—the greatest achievement in protecting the title of Ombudsmen. It is a solution looking for a problem. It's a vanity project which he has long been wanting to do and now he's managed to make his greatest achievement. The National Party doesn't support this bill. We oppose his vanity project tonight.DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK?Lawrence Yule: I'll have another go.Hon Member: Wa-hey!DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh!Lawrence Yule: Well I was waiting for somebody from the other side Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Never wait for someone from the other side. I call Lawrence Yule.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Madam Speaker a pleasure to rise and speak in support on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand for a brief contribution. My colleague across the House Chris Penk made quite a lengthy one all out of his complaints about how brief this legislation was. And I must say that the opposition that the National Party is bringing to this legislation seems very much to be just opposition for the sake of opposition. And if I may we are talking about the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. It's probably worthwhile for those listeners or viewers at home to have an understanding of what an Ombudsman actually is because that is the point that we are trying to address here in this legislation. It's defined—by way of a quick google—as and I quote an official appointed to investigate individuals' complaints against a company or organisation especially a public authority". And that latter part of the definition is actually incredibly important—Hon Clare Curran: It's Swedish.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —when we are talking about—it's Swedish the term my colleague the Hon Clare Curran says and I will take that advice on board and add that to the Hansard for the sake of the public record. But that latter part of that definition is incredibly critical because what we are talking about here is certain individuals with certain expertise having the ability to investigate and hold to account other officials and official entities. For that very reason the Greens are proud to support the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill and I'd love to hear an actual substantive reason why the National Party opposes it."
Penk Chris; Tolley AnneCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker. The Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill is not worth the paper that it's written on which is just as well because there's not much of that. Only two pages admittedly printed on both sides of the paper but the first bit's blank—notwithstanding my notes which is the best bit about it. Lots of blank space in there; there really isn't much to it much like the Government's programme in this space. Even part of the content is repeating the title of the bill—well that's a sort of a standard format so fair enough. But it goes on to say you know the principal Acts"—well that much is implied in the name of the bill. There really isn't much going on here at all. This is the legislative equivalent of telling a child a story that goes "Once upon a time the end." There is actually once you go past the preamble no amble let alone post amble. The substance of it as much as there is any is protection of name and it goes on to say something very much like if you are not an ombudsman then you may not call yourself an ombudsman. It's about as meaningful as saying that if you're not Elvis Presley you can't claim to be. But at least in that case there'd at least be another provision saying that it will be an offence to step on one's blue suede shoes. So the only thing that's actually fine about this bill is the word "fine": a thousand bucks is the penalty to solve this supposedly great problem that stalks our land. I think that's an indication as much as anything of the pointlessness of it.As such the National Party doesn't support this bill. There's very little point in doing so. There's no substance. I'd say it's a big fat waste of time but really it's actually a very thin waste of time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Chlöe Swarbrick."
Mitchell ClaytonOMBUDSMEN (PROTECTION OF NAME) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 13 February.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in relation to supporting the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. It's not something that's going to take a lot of time to discuss and we've gone through it at great length. The sense and sensibility behind the support for this bill—[Interruption] Sense and sensibility; they should make a movie out of Sense and Sensibility yeah.Chris Penk: Hey Pride and prejudice is your party's normal thing.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Yeah it's a bit like Pride and Prejudice. It is a simple fact that the Ombudsman's role plays a very important role in society and if we don't give the certain protections that are required to protect the role of the Ombudsman then what you can have is a bastardisation of the term Ombudsman" as we've seen in other countries. I think just to name one ombudsman in Australia they have the bee and honey Ombudsman and you really could go down a very long and winding rabbit hole if we don't put an end to some of this to protect the role and the independent statutory authority that they are similar to a judiciary. They are Offices of Parliament where where there is a complaint or an issue people can contact the Ombudsman they can talk about the problem and the Ombudsman has the power to try and resolve or come up with a solution that people put forward whether it be legislative or otherwise.Currently under the Ombudsmen's rules they do have the power to object to a person applying to use the term Ombudsman and there are a number of cases where permission has been given to use it. However it takes a lot of resource financial and a lot of time resource to defend some of the applications that are coming through and this bill essentially enables the Ombudsman to unequivocally oppose some of these protections of its name. We think that this is an important step to ensure the future of the role that the Ombudsman plays and the very important role that they play in our society and that is why we will be continuing to support this through the House. Thank you Madam Speaker."
McAnulty KieranELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 20 February.KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): The member for Rangitīkei Madam Speaker. Ha ha! I just want to take a brief call on this bill and there's a couple of comments I wanted to make before I started one that one of the highlights of my time in Parliament was listening to the member for the West Coast giving a nine-minute rendition on a tax bill. It was extremely boring. The other couple of things I wanted to mention—and when you follow so many knowledgable speakers there's very little left to say actually that is credible. But I did want to say one thing and that is something that's frustrated me listening to the speeches from the Government tonight. All they can do is talk about how bad we were in Government for nine years. The great thing about that is that we won't have anything to talk about in a few months' time because they've only been there three and they will have done nothing at all. So I don't think it's really relevant that they should keep on criticising us for our nine years of failure when they have yet to prove they've done anything and might not last three. I think it would be better if they got on and talked about what they're capable of doing.Anyway I want to get on and talk about this tax bill because—DEPUTY SPEAKER: It'd be good—it'd be good.IAN McKELVIE: I don't want to talk about it for long I'd have to say. Tax bills interestingly are a necessary evil in my view and they come through Parliament frequently. It's very interesting when you look at this bill; it's amending some things that came through Parliament in the last tax bill. So that's how quickly things need to be changed in this sector and it is a very complicated sector. I think the thing that makes it so complicated is that the moment that we write a tax bill someone's found a way round it and that's one of the challenges of tax. They haven't found a way round it; they've found a way that that tax bill doesn't exactly do what it's meant to do.So it is a very challenging area. It's an area that generally the House agrees on and I think that the discussion in select committee on these tax bills is quite complicated and it's at times quite interesting. I suppose that it's also an area that you often think Well I wonder how we can get around this?" So people obviously start getting around it from the day the tax bill's passed. But they do do a lot of good work and these bills do pull together a whole lot of issues that no doubt keep numerous accountants round New Zealand extremely busy trying to understand them.But I think on the whole we support this bill. It does a good job. The Supplementary Order Paper 293 has been talked about more than I need to talk about it tonight. I think it certainly serves a purpose. I was chairman of the Special Olympics for many years in New Zealand and we saw a lot of exactly the sort of thing that comes through there around the need to allow Tim Fairhall to draw his KiwiSaver early. I think it's a good thing and a great credit to the Parliament that we've got it through. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Warren-Clark Angie; Tolley AnneANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. This sounds like an amazing bill. Everyone here in the House is in agreement. I commend this bill to the House.Ian McKelvie: Madam Speaker—thank you Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Ian McKelvie.
Cybersecurity Advisory Board — Appointments
Clark DavidCYBERSECURITY ADVISORY BOARDMembershipHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move That this House endorse the following as members of the Cybersecurity Advisory Board: Hon Andrew Little nominated by the Leader of the House; Hon Gerry Brownlee nominated by the Leader of the Opposition; Hon James Shaw; Hon Amy Adams; Melissa Lee; and Clayton Mitchell.Motion agreed to.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move That this debate be now adjourned.
Rurawhe AdrianASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call Mr Simon O'Connor can I encourage members to use the personal pronoun you" in the correct context without bringing the Speaker into the debate. The last two speeches did that and I'm sure Mr O'Connor's going to show us how we can deliver a speech without doing that."
Urgent Debates Declined — COVID-19—New Zealand's Second Confirmed Case
Speaker's Statements — Abortion Legislation Bill—Tabling of Amendments
Ministerial Statements — COVID-19—New Zealand's Second Confirmed Case
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDCOVID-19 Outbreak—New Zealand's Second Confirmed CaseSPEAKER: Once again. I have received a letter from the Hon Michael Woodhouse seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government's announcement of a second confirmed case of COVID-19 today. No authenticating material was provided with the application. Speakers Hunt Wilson and Smith ruled that an application not accompanied by authenticating material will be declined on that ground—Speakers' rulings 189/3 and 189/4. Speakers Hunt and Smith ruled in Speakers' ruling 190/3: It is for members to make out a case for an urgent debate not for the Speaker to discover one". The application is therefore declined. I will note that the member has had an opportunity to comment on a ministerial statement today."