edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I would just like to simply raise the same point that I raised before and hope that the Minister will actually answer my question that I know will be on the minds of many New Zealanders when it comes to the Housing Acceleration Fund and how that works against the recent announcement of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. In one case you have the Government saying that it's really important to work with councils and that when we're building new homes it's really important that we have the infrastructure there and it's funded so that we can actually have a city that works. Now under the recent announcement of the enabling housing supply legislation they've ripped up the rules they haven't consulted councils and they don't know how they're going to fund the infrastructure. So how do these two positions add up?
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to put some recent announcements of the Government to the Minister to ask how they square up. So if I look at a recent Beehive press statement made by the Hon Dr Megan Woods about the Housing Acceleration Fund she's stated that Between the Government and Auckland Council we have identified that these are the places where we want more growth." It then goes on to say "As part of the Auckland partnership the Government and Auckland Council have agreed these areas as joint spatial priorities for growth."Now these are for five suburbs that the Government and the council together have decided should be spatial plans where there's need for housing and a need for infrastructure to go with it. I'd like to know how that squares up with the recent announcement of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill which essentially makes it a free-for-all ripping up the rules that are in place within Auckland Council the plans that are in place the priority areas that have been drawn up over years of work for suburbs that the council has deemed to be important places for growth that need infrastructure funding and I'd like to know how it is possible that these two different things could be happening at the same time. There is a need for infrastructure so why on earth is she ripping up the rules when she thinks that infrastructure is important and when she also thinks working and engaging with the local councils is also important?"
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. While this is an incredibly important topic and the Greens do have concerns I will try and keep my volume to a bearable level. So noting that there's been a net increase of 2490 public houses in the September 2020 to September 2021 year Kāinga Ora has been delivering at about this rate steadily for three years but has not scaled up. So the Green Party would like to know: could Kāinga Ora local councils and community providers including iwi and Māori providers be delivering more public housing if additional funding was provided? If not what other constraints are limiting capacity and how will the Government be addressing these factors? More specifically are there any steps being taken to build capacity of iwi and Māori providers to deliver housing on their land?
Rurawhe Adrian; Warren-Clark AngieCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand the Minister of Housing is now available. HousingANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm delighted to lead off the Estimates 2021-22 debate on Vote Housing and Urban Development. Vote Housing and Urban Development in Budget 2021-22 consists of $4.694 billion in appropriations which represents a 65 percent increase in actual spending from the 2020-21 year. The Hon Dr Megan Woods is the Minister of Housing and her ministry is the vote administrator. In keeping with our sector approach we heard from Minister Woods. Accompanying the Minister were the three :Associate Ministers: the Hon Poto Williams who is responsible for public housing the Hon Peeni Henare who is responsible for Māori housing and the Hon Marama Davidson who is responsible for homelessness. Ministers were accompanied by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and also by Kāinga Ora. We appreciate the logistics of the four Ministers appearing together alongside their ministries and we thank them and the select committee clerks for their approach recognising that it was not a simple feat. The Social Services and Community Committee covered wide-reaching topics. Our first was in relation to house price increases purchases of land for housing by Kāinga Ora including the proportion of buy-ins by Kāinga Ora. We heard that Kāinga Ora has bought 308 pre-existing properties—0.37 percent of the total real estate in New Zealand. We interrogated the substantial funding for Māori housing. Minister Henare discussed the Government progressing work alongside Māori providers and iwi and hapū to support Māori housing aspirations and capacity-building was also progressing on the alternative pathways to greater development of papa kāinga housing and whenua Māori. KiwiBuild was discussed including that 934 KiwiBuild homes had been built with 897 under construction. There had been an underspend. We inquired where this would be allocated. We heard that the money eventually returns to the Crown and can be recycled for use in other programmes. We also discussed emergency and transitional housing. It was a very significant topic. We also asked how people with disabilities or with mental health and addiction issues would be supported within this system. We discussed the Aotearoa Homelessness Action Plan released in 2020. We also followed a line of questioning on public housing and the register. We note that the waiting list is increasing. We heard that a target of 18000 new housing places across the country by 2024 has been set. We heard that this will be achieved by standard public housing greater use of higher-density housing mixed-tenure models and distribution of housing outside the main centres. As the chair I sincerely thank the Minister the officials and clerks and the select committee members for a thorough and robust set of hearings. Thank you Mr Chair.
Special Debate — Transport
Bennett David; Wood MichaelHon DAVID BENNETT (National): The Minister for Climate Change James Shaw has made commitments about New Zealand and 50 percent by 2030 recently in Glasgow. Will that affect and increase his desire to have more transport spend associated with public transport and walking and cycling and will it increase his appetite to go even harder on the clean vehicles requirements to meet those new challenges and targets?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Of course the original target of net zero by 2050 was actually signed up to by the Hon Paula Bennett when she travelled to Paris some years ago. If we actually want to achieve that we're actually going to have to start reducing emissions along the way. So if the member opposite is suggesting that we can't have a target to reduce our emissions by around about half of that by 2035 he's going to have to explain how we get to net zero by 2050 because I don't see how that will happen.The answer to the second part of the question is: of course. It's the Labour Party's policy and one that we're very proud of to continue increasing investment in good-quality public transport for our growing cities and safe walking and cycling options. It is a contrast to the previous Government but it's one that we're not shy about.
Simmonds Penny; Wood MichaelPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. I would just remind the Minister of Transport who's just sat down that I also won my seat. The Minister announced a Clean Car Discount and tax system earlier in the year commonly known as the ute tax. At the time a number of figures were put out for how much various cars would be taxed under the system but since then he has changed the design of the mechanism including shifting the method of even measuring the emissions of cars. Will the Minister be releasing new information on how much various models will be taxed under his revised clean car tax? Or ute tax as we like to call it out on the farm.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'm not quite sure which changes the member is referring to. Changes that were made in the consultation period for example actually resulted in a lower charge being applied to the Clean Car Standard. We made changes to the Clean Car Discount in the policy design to allow a wider range of vehicles including hybrids and some cleaner internal combustion engine vehicles to also be eligible for that scheme. And of course the full schedule of both discounts and fees will be made available to the public before the scheme comes fully into effect.
Woodhouse Michael; Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I can't resist again. Now we could argue about the numbers but even if the Minister is right—[Interruption] No no let's just assume for a moment that the Minister is correct—I don't believe he is but let's say that my numbers were out by a factor of four it still means—Hon Kris Faafoi: Don't talk about numbers!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh are we going to talk about numbers now. It's a pity the Minister of Finance isn't in the House because with one—[Multiple members interject] Oh here we go—here we go. Let's talk about numbers. Let's talk about 12: the number of Labour MPs that on the Colmar Brunton poll who won't be here in two years' time. And let me tell the Minister of Justice because he'll be one of them anyway—he's probably going to go voluntarily—that that number will be a damn sight larger. So I'm very happy to talk about numbers. The Minister of Transport is wrong but let's assume just for a moment that he's not and that my estimates of average patronage were out by a factor of four that makes the service 65 percent lower nearly two-thirds lower than the business case that he says made it viable said it needed. It isn't viable. There's no amount of dancing on the head of that pin Mr Wood that is going to make Te Huia work. It's not Te Huia; it's a white elephant. What we would have—and the good people of Hamilton know that a service that leaves at the right time that gets to Auckland in the right time and isn't slower than the cars they're trying to get out of—would be supported. It's not. It's a bad idea it needs a better Minister of Transport and I think the next member for Hamilton East would make a very good candidate for that role.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): It's the same arguments that that side of the House makes about every investment in rail. It's the same arguments they made when they ran down the investment in the Napier to Wairoa line which is now running every single day taking log trucks off that road. It's the same arguments that they made against the Capital Connection which started off from a low base and is now an essential connection for the people of the lower North Island. And the final thing I can say to that member is that there's one guaranteed way for any of us in this House no matter what side to avoid not being here after the next election and that's to actually win a seat. As I look over to that side there's only one man sitting there who was capable of doing that.
Bennett David; Wood MichaelHon DAVID BENNETT (National): The Minister in the chair Michael Wood said before that Auckland rail was a manifesto commitment. Does he think that that is how he should be running transport or should he be making investments that are in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealand commuters going forward?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I acknowledge it is a significant contrast for this Government to be committed to implementing its manifesto commitments but that is something we feel quite strongly about on this side of the House. Auckland light rail was a project the Government very specifically campaigned upon received a mandate for and I've no doubt that were we not to proceed with it there'd be criticism from the member.I do also need to respond briefly to Mr Woodhouse who referenced figures around Te Huia patronage that were wrong by a quantum of 400 percent in terms of patronage per day on average. [Multiple members interject] It could be that the homeless man's travelling on there as well and that'll add one on.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Mr Chair I wasn't going to but I could not resist.If Mr David Bennett wants to regain the Hamilton East electorate—as I'm sure he will in two years' time—he's going to need a damn sight more votes than the number of people who are travelling on the Te Huia train because there's only 30 a day on average. Thirty a day. And if this is the example of the sort of value-for-money proposition that Minister of Transport is trying to convince the committee he go through then I worry that the state of the Government's finances is even worse than I—as the finance spokesperson—thought.Let's look at those numbers. At 30 people a day the service is losing $24000 to $25000 per day. Now the Minister talks about that being an environmentally friendly option because it takes cars off the road. Well we could actually put dozens of four-wheel drive diesel utes on the road have each passenger drive one from Hamilton to Auckland and back and still have fewer emissions than the Te Huia train a diesel train is emitting every single day it runs. So this party the National Party wants environmental impacts to be positive on the environment and if trains make sense that's fine. But Minister of Transport has got to come up with a much better value-for-money proposition if he is going to solve climate change through his policies.
Tuiono Teanau; Wood MichaelTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. With the Government planning to invest billions of dollars in large motorway projects and the Minister did touch on that and with the New Zealand Upgrade Programme refresh in June it did remove some of the worst proposed new motorways but still includes projects like the Ōtaki to Levin—why does why the New Zealand Upgrade Programme that has funding allocated to it in Budget 2021 include significant new motorway projects like a new four-lane highway from Ōtaki to Levin and how is that consistent with no longer funding projects that induce more vehicle travel and increase our emissions?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): It is a real focus of our Government particularly in light of the independent climate commission's recommendations that we reduce our emissions and decarbonise the transport system. The rebalancing that we engaged in around the New Zealand Upgrade Programme earlier this year was significant in this regard and the overall impact of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme now is actually to reduce emissions on the whole. So I'm really pleased with the progress that we've made there. But we know that we need to continue carefully considering the projects that we invest in.In the case of Ōtaki to north of Levin very strong representations were made which I do accept that there is a real and pressing need to make significant improvements to that road in terms of the safety and resilience. It is a road that has a very high rate of deaths and serious injuries and I think on that basis that is an investment that's justified.TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Why is the Government building a four-lane highway from Ōtaki to Levin when there is a rail line right beside this route that could be upgraded and provide for low emissions travel? And will the Government support rapid regional rail across New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): As per indications given the rail network improvement plan we are also considering improvements to passenger commuter rail along that route.
Simmonds Penny; Wood MichaelPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. Could the Minister advise if he has had an indication from the Southland District Council of how many of the 80 old at-risk bridges will have to be cancelled over the next three years given the projected funding and what sort of increases to daily kilometres by rural people in services that might bring about?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I don't have any specific information about bridges that'll have to be closed which I think is what the member is getting to but if there's a specific concern there I'm happy to take that up from the member and look into it.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Thanks Mr Chair. Just picking up on a couple of points made by the previous speakers. First around the Auckland light rail project I'll start at the end of Mr Court's comments and just note that the report of the establishment unit has confirmed that value capture is something that we'll be exploring. I note his enthusiasm for that. I do think it's important that where there is significant public investment in these sorts of projects there is a consideration given to those who economically benefit from them also making a contribution.I agree with the point the member makes as well about appropriate governance over significant projects like the ones that we've canvassed tonight. And I do note that no one is immune from the challenge of cost increases that we face. So in respect of the New Zealand upgrade projects that the member referenced they were in fact projects that were being delivered and overseen by Waka Kotahi and KiwiRail. So they face the very same challenges in terms of increases to labour material costs and geotechnical costs as anyone else does. They're not projects which are run out of the Minister's office. There were decisions made to invest in them. But ultimately the delivery is with those agencies and the professionals within them.In answer to Penny Simmonds' question I mean this comes down to the question about adequate road maintenance. I would note that for the regional councils in the area that she references there have been increases provided both to State highway and local road maintenance under the National Land Transport Fund. The challenges of significant aged infrastructure haven't just turned up on our doorstep overnight; they've built up over a number of years and the increased funding that we're providing will provide a pathway. But there are real challenges. There are many needs that we need to meet and choices do need to be made. But we'll continue to give good support to the regions.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm very pleased that the Minister made mention of 100-year-old bridges and his concern for them. I wonder if he could tell us how many of the 80 old at-risk bridges in the Southland District Council area which can't be maintained because of the constrained funding for that district council have had to be closed in this financial year—closures which have increased the kilometres driven on a daily basis by rural people who don't have other modes of transport available to them?
Bennett David; Wood MichaelHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you for the introduction. We'd prefer if the Minister would actually answer the questions directly because we want to keep them tight.So my first question is the Minister said that across the modes of transport there's been an increase. However in written questions the spend on State highway improvements and regional improvements activity class in 2016-17 was $1.3 billion and in 2020-21 is $240 million lower at $1.1 billion. Would the Minister explain that if there has been an increase across all modes?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): As I said I'll answer a couple of questions at a time and I've got questions from Mr Greg O'Connor and then from Mr David Bennett here.So Mr O'Connor asked a couple of questions firstly around that work that we'll do in order to support our reduction in emissions in the heavy freight sector. This is a really important area of work as well; it's something that's been highlighted in the emissions reduction plan. The technology that we've got available to support emissions reduction in the heavy freight sector is not quite there in the same way that it is with the light vehicle sector but there's a lot of work that's going on with the sector at the moment to explore in particular the potential not only around our battery electric technologies but also hydrogen technologies. A range of investments that have been made not out of this appropriation but out of Minister Megan Woods' appropriations in the low energy vehicle fund which was increased at this Budget that is providing a lot of support for emergent technologies there.The member also asked about the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. I've provided a bit of commentary there in my opening remarks and happy to follow up with any specific questions there.In terms of Mr Bennett's question I'd ask Mr Bennett just to examine the way the appropriations as they occur across each three-year cycle of the National Land Transport Plan—that is how we fund land transport in New Zealand. I think what he will see if he examines that is that we've seen a significant increase across those categories particularly in the maintenance category in the 2021-2024 National Land Transport Plan that we have confirmed in recent months.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry just before I call the Hon David Bennett can I just say we're operating under the new rules. So in fairness to Mr Bennett under the new Standing Orders we should have—and he's had a short call before this one. If we can deal with that exchange first and then I'll go to another member.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Ā kāti rā tēnā rā tātou katoa. The committee has resumed. Members before the dinner break the committee was considering current issues and priorities in a special debate. That debate is now resumed. There are approximately three hours 15 minutes remaining in the debate. The following Ministers will be available to speak to their portfolios: from 7 p.m. the Minister of Transport from 8 p.m. the Minister of Housing from 9 p.m. the Minister for Children. Minister Wood is in the chair now for the transport portfolio. The question is that current issues and priorities be noted.
Special Debate — Social Development and Employment Disability Issues and ACC
Logie Jan; Sepuloni Carmel; Salesa JennyJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. Specifically is the Minister willing to consider a law change to lose the requirement for an assessment for sensitive claims to establish mental injury to put over $20 million and over tens of thousands of precious psychologists' and psychiatrists' time back into healing rather than causing harm?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): We will be having a law change very soon—or at least having legislation come to the House. It doesn't cover what has been asked for by the member Jan Logie but I am excited about the fact that we are able to introduce legislation that will cover birth injuries and will reverse some of the harmful changes that were made under the previous National Government in this piece of legislation that will come to the House before the end of the year.There's more work to do. I'm always looking for ways as Minister to work with Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment on policy developments that see us covering off some of the equity issues or gaps that currently exist with ACC. I do want to say that ACC is a world-class scheme. I feel that as a country we are very fortunate that those who came up with this idea 50 years ago did. It was 50 years ago though and so we do need to be mindful of the fact that 50 years later the world has changed. How do we ensure that the scheme is fit for purpose for 2021 and moving forward? That's certainly where my mind is at but I can't pre-empt to that member what any future legislative changes might be. All I can say is we certainly are already looking at that space.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you Minister. Members the committee is suspended for the dinner break and we will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Watts Simon; Sepuloni CarmelSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I've got two areas of questioning for the Minister that we discussed through the select committee and I acknowledge the select committee chair there. The first area is around the transformation programme which includes the next-generation case management system. We were told in that select committee hearing that everything was fine. But I think subsequently to that we've found out that things are not fine actually—widespread issues around staff workload and falling client satisfaction rates. So my question to the Minister is quite clear around that. Does the Minister stand by her statement at the time in regard to the transformation programme that it's showing promising signs? And if so how can she and why can she still be confident that is the case when it has become very clear subsequent to those conversations that the ACC system in regard to the transformation programme is failing its staff and failing Kiwis who are reliant on the ACC support system?The second area of questioning that I would have for the Minister is in regard to trust in ACC another area of topic that we discussed. Subsequently to that there's been widespread reporting of a culture of employees sharing private images of bodily parts and images and injuries on Snapchat in a group called the ACC whores including of an athlete representing New Zealand on the world stage and these photos also included someone who attempted suicide. This has all been reported by media. This is completely abhorrent and completely unacceptable. I want to understand from the Minister who holds the accountability for the performance of her department: what is specifically being done about protecting Kiwis' privacy within the ACC corporation? And a second aspect is: is the Minister confident that the investment significant investment in privacy infrastructure and capability is sufficient given these very real problems? Thank you Minister.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): Madam Chair I'll try and speak really quickly because I know that the member Jan Logie would like to say a few words. With regard to the case management model and the business transformation model and that case management model the work was completed in 2020 September. However they have said that they need time to embed. Clearly there's some room for improvement. It doesn't mean that it's all bad. However there certainly is some room for improvement and that's certainly the discussion that I've had with the board chair and I know that the acting CEO has been working hard on that.The privacy issues—that's completely unacceptable. It was appalling. I think we were all absolutely shocked by that. I think the ACC has done the right thing by commissioning an external review. They worked with Treasury with regard to the terms of reference on that. We will wait to see what the findings of that review are and I am confident that ACC will take on board the findings and recommendations that come from that.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Minister for that overlay and to talk about ACC. As we discussed back during the vote Labour—Kieran McAnulty: Point of order and I apologise to the member but it is convention for the chair of the relevant select committee to commence the sections and the chair is behind me.
Simmonds Penny; Sepuloni CarmelPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. I wonder if I could just get some clarification around some of these funding figures that the Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni has spoken about. The Minister said there was a $3 million transition funding for the setting up of the new ministry but the Cabinet paper had $5 million in it. So is it $3 million or $5 million? Also the Minister said an operating budget of $73 million but then $85 million and I'm just wondering if you can clarify which that is. From the appropriation of the health funding presumably that will cover the respite care funding and has the Minister enabled sufficient funding to increase the respite care from the $75 per day that it currently is which works out at about $3 an hour—which is in fact I would've thought illegal—and whether the Minister is going to try and address that issue which is causing so much grief for families who are struggling to be able to get respite care because of course nobody is prepared to provide 24 hours' care for $75.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Sure. Just on the last issue that would need to be directed at the Minister of Health. I don't have any responsibility for the funding for respite care. It doesn't come out of the Ministry of Social Development.With the other issue with regards to clarifying the funding for the disabilities transformation programme in the 2021 Budget it's $73 million that has been identified as the amount that is in place for Disability System Transformation. So when you look at the suite of measures that we announced on 29 October really they are all connected.With the accelerating accessibility or the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill that we're planning that hasn't yet been costed because the bill won't be introduced to the House until July 2022. We'll need to go through a select committee and then once that is completed then there will be able to be costings for that but at this stage we don't have that.Madam Chair I'm very mindful of the fact that I'm supposed to be talking about ACC with that ministerial hat on and we haven't had an opportunity to do that yet. So I'm putting to the committee that perhaps we should switch to that portfolio and have 10 minutes on ACC.
Chhour Karen; Salesa JennyKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I've just got a quick question around annual departmental expenses. I've had a look and it looks like annual departmental expenses have increased by $1 billion since Labour came into power. It's almost doubled and I'm just wanting to know what's behind these increases. What specific areas are you focusing on? Are you getting the outcomes that you wanted to achieve? And have we got another billion dollars' worth of value to help our most vulnerable?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Just a reminder please before I take the Hon Louise Upston's question: to the member Nicola Willis you're most welcome to get up and actually ask a question instead of just shouting over the top like that. Thank you.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. If I could ask some questions around disability services. If I could first ask the Minister to provide some background on why centres that provide day activities and education and development for people with disabilities are closing when they consider that there is such a gap between the funding and the cost of delivery—they are estimating it to be around a 15 percent gap. Why the Minister has allowed this to happen—and if I can give her the example that in Southland now all those centres have closed and there is not one day centre for activities education and development for people with disabilities. If I could also ask her what amount of the Budget is being used for the development of the Ministry for Disabled People and accessibility law and what amount of the Budget is going to be used on consultants and whether the Minister has specifically allocated any of those consulting fees to be for disability services consultants—so getting information directly from those with disabilities.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. My first question is: does the Minister accept that a sole person on the job seeker benefit would get three times as much working full time on the minimum wage? Second question is related to the Flexi-wage and I want to know whether or not the Minister is on track to deliver the 40000 people into work over two years and if not why not—and to confirm the percentage of those that have been on the benefit for more than two years. My understanding is that it's 14 percent. And then I want to come back in a further question to look specifically around Māori employment because there are nearly 75000 Māori on the job seeker benefit and from my calculations about a thousand job placements employment programmes for Māori.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): My question is also around the numbers on job seeker. We're seeing that we have 70000 extra people on job seeker compared to when Labour came into power. Spending on job seeker has increased by $1.5 billion annually since 2017. I'm just trying to wrap my head around if we've got an extra 70000 people on the benefit and unemployment is falling by about 1.5 percent over that time—I'm just trying to work out how that's possible where we're spending an extra $1.5 billion a year annually and our unemployment's dropping.
Dean Jacqui; O'Connor GregINCORPORATED SOCIETIES BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 9 November. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The last time the House considered this bill this interrupted reading we came to the next call going to the Labour Party. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Madam Speaker. As MPs we're required to do quite a few things in our electorates and one of the ones that comes up a lot is we attend AGMs. Now I'm sure everyone here in the House will remember the last AGM they were at perhaps. The next one I'm attending is the Ngaio Crofton Downs Residents Association AGM tonight—and all these meetings we're at they're one of 24000 incorporated societies around New Zealand that until now have been operating under a 1908 piece of legislation. Well I think most of us here will agree that a piece of legislation that still talks about pounds and shillings in its sanctions regime probably does need a bit of updating and that's what this legislation is here to do. It incorporates organisations like political clubs social clubs and recreational and religious groups. It really does go across the spectrum and at 24000 there's probably not many of us New Zealanders whose life is not in some way affected. Now currently most of those societies are run pretty well and I must say that other than perhaps the odd strange bit of chairing they do get through. But really what many of those members don't realise is their vulnerabilities because as we become more litigious as a society as there are more hurdles to be leapt whether it be health and safety or whether it be various other pieces of legislation it is important that members of those societies understand just how vulnerable they can be. What this legislation does is it ensures that we outline some of the structures under which they need to be operating—even something as simple as ensuring that they have a dispute resolution provision—because again sitting through those AGMs of organisations that we're part of often that's where personalities break down and there's a breakdown in the relationships that can so often end up becoming the demise of that incorporated society whether it be through fund-raising or other aspects. So it becomes very important that they actually have dispute resolution and this legislation outlines something like that. So I won't go through the detail. Broadly what I'll do is recommend this to the House on the proviso that it is incredibly important that those who are part of these societies do now have a set of rules that they can refer to when they come to those disputes so that they can know not only that their personal liability is protected but also the whole purpose of that organisation's existence does continue. So I commend this to the House.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. Kia ora Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take what will only be a short call as we near the conclusion of this debate. It was interesting to listen through the passionate speeches in the House last night starting with that of the Minister of Justice who I would like to commend for bringing this bill to the House. It is something that the Labour Party promised to do at the election and it is a pleasure to be standing here today to take the first steps in making that promise become a reality. Why I want to stand this afternoon and add my short contribution is because what the evidence shows us is that unfortunately Māori who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system are overrepresented in the statistics for this legislation which you have heard wonderful speeches on this side of the House talking about how it is so unfair it is so unjust it is so unnecessary; in fact it is in contradiction to many of the principles of our justice system. The statistic that I wanted to highlight is that of the 23 offenders who have received a third strike 81 percent were Māori. To me that is completely unfair unjust unacceptable—not something I can stand in this House and support its continuation of.I do not want to prolong this any longer. I want to commend this bill to the House. I want us to get rid of this unfair and unjust law. Kia ora Madam Speaker.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): The three strikes law should be gone. It doesn't work it's unfair and we already have the systems in place to show fairness to victims. This law that we are proposing rectifies an aberration a knee-jerk reaction from the National Party in 2010. It was an example of populist politics: pandering to the mainstream looking for news headlines locking people up and throwing away the key in a very simplistic way and dividing the world up into criminals and victims.It does not look at the causes of crime and the fairness and whether this actually prevents crime from happening. I'm sorry but I wouldn't take the Sensible Sentencing Trust survey as evidence that this prevents crimes from happening. What this Act does do—the current Act that hasn't yet been repealed—is it reinforces the biases that are already in the system. Who are most likely to get searched? Who are most likely to get arrested? It's Māori. Who are more likely to have issues around access to justice? Māori. Who are more likely to end up in prison? Māori. So what this does it reinforces the current biases in the system in a really simplistic way.We already have ample systems in place to be able to sentence correctly and that is for judges to do. There's preventative detention there's public protection and extended supervision orders minimum periods and maximum periods for imprisonment and imposing maximum penalties. We've seen that with the RSA case. We've seen that with other cases. In summary this law puts sentencing back to where it belongs: with judges because sentencing is not for legislators. Judges should sentence. They do their important work with the context of the crime the history of the offender and impact reports. That is why we need three strikes out of this place and sentencing to go back to judges where it belongs. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.
Wood MichaelSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): I move that the sitting of the House be extended into tomorrow morning for the consideration—SPEAKER: The sitting of the House today. We'll just get the wording right: the sitting of the House today.Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes. I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the consideration in committee of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Commerce Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Māori Purposes Bill; and the second readings of the Maritime Powers Bill and the Organic Products Bill.Motion agreed to.
Obituaries — Hon Murray John Finlay Luxton
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No papers or select committee reports have been presented. No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Retirement Village Residents Association of New Zealand requesting that the House urgently review retirement villages legislation.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.
Mallard TrevorOBITUARIESMurray John Finlay LuxtonSPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 16 November 2021 of the Hon Murray John Finlay (John) Luxton CNMZ QSO who represented the electorates of Matamata and Karapiro between 1987 and 1999 and continued to serve as a list member until 2002. During his membership of this House he held a number of ministerial positions including Minister of Commerce Minister of Māori Affairs Minister of Police and Minister of Industry. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.Members stood as a mark of respect.
Dean JacquiWEDNESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Wednesday 17 November 2021 (continued on Thursday 18 November 2021) - Volume 756
Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to our final debate which is on clauses 1 to 3.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods' amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 2 agreed to.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to. Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10 Te Paati Māori 2. Clause 1 agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 1 stand part. All those in favour say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.Hon Member: Noes have it. Party vote.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Party vote has been called for. Apologies for the delay. There's been a late entry so I will pick up—I'll just confirm where I pick because we've just got something added in. Oh we're having a morning aren't we! The question is that Chris Bishop's tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to COVID-19 Public Health Response (Infringement on Property Rights and Other Matters) Amendment Bill" be agreed to.Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Madam Chair. I think the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings—Speakers' rulings in particular—have made it very clear that a proposed alternative title has to be a serious and credible attempt to name the legislation; it's not an opportunity to make political points as the member's amendment suggests.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK. Thank you. Thank you for that. The reason I paused in the deliberations was to consider that very issue. My ruling is that I am going to proceed by putting the question.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to."
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Bishop's tabled amendment to clause 9 inserting new section 12(2)(d) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Bishop's tabled amendment to clause 12 deleting section 22(6)(b) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simeon Brown's tabled amendments to clauses 13 and 14 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Consequential amendments to Summary Proceedings Act 1957A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 2 agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1 stand part. Schedule 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1A stand part. Schedule 1A agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that David Seymour's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 88 be agreed to. Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order Madam Speaker.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Point of order—Hon Chris Hipkins: There's a vote in progress you can't do it while the vote's in progress.Hon Mark Mitchell: Well are you prepared to hear my point of order Madam Speaker? I want to go back to my original point of order which was never addressed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is it about the vote?Hon Mark Mitchell: No it's about my earlier point of order that was never addressed by you.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We're actually completing this whole voting process Hon Mark Mitchell. [Quiet discussion amongst members] Are you relitigating the previous ruling?Hon Mark Mitchell: No Madam Chair.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10. Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.