edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It's my absolute pleasure to speak on this first reading of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill and I want to commend Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter and also acknowledge Minister Nash. So I had a look on the transport.govt.nz road safety progress in New Zealand which actually outlines our history of road safety. In 1905 was the first known motor vehicle death in New Zealand. In 1929 we started counting the road toll and we had 69 deaths. In 1937 we had our first national road safety campaign and 1969 was the introduction of the breathalyser. When we introduced that that year they tested 2928 people and 93 percent of them failed—and that was at the 100 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. In 1978 we lowered that amount to 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and in 1993—as the Hon Nick Smith talked about earlier—24 years after we bought in breathalysers we allowed police to test people anywhere at any time. In 2009 under a new transport law we allowed the police to conduct a roadside impairment test for drugged drivers. If they had good cause to suspect that they had consumed drugs then they could have an evidential blood test. The limit for that test was at 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres to align with how we treated alcohol. Now 11 years later in 2020 we are establishing a regime that will allow police to test anywhere anytime. I do want to acknowledge Alastair Scott who in November 2018 put a bill in the ballot and we did have a vote on it. But what I want to say about that member's contribution to the debate was he said Given advances in technology to have roadside testing needed to be more practical." So we've come to a point where it's more practical. And tonight—who did what—actually does it matter? Absolutely it matters because if I look at the statistics in 2014 18 people were killed in crashes where the driver had consumed drugs. That was 6 percent of the deaths that year. In 2019 that had increased to 107 of 353 New Zealanders 30 percent of those who died on our roads. So this is an absolute issue and it's time that we all grow up. It doesn't matter whose idea it was; it doesn't matter why. We just need some consensus and we need and we thank the National Government for supporting Labour New Zealand First and the Greens. This is an important issue and I know that in the next Parliament they will address this issue conscientiously. Like everyone else I look forward to the public having their say on an issue that is incredibly important. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee."
Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I have tabled a motion that would allow the select committee considering the bill the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to be able to report the bill back earlier. Now that motion can only be put by the leave of the House and so I am seeking leave for my motion to allow an earlier report back on this bill to be considered and that motion would be considered in the normal timetable required under the Standing Orders after the decision about the select committee is put. The reason I'm seeking leave at this point is to give members notice to then consider about how they would vote. So I am seeking leave for the motion in my name for an earlier than normal report back on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are some difficulties with the motion the member is seeking leave to put. The first is that Standing Orders really only allow for a Minister to. That Standing Order is 289 I think. Secondly of course the date is in another Parliament. However the House is the master of itself so I will put the leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): I'd like to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party because this is an issue that first came to my attention from my colleague the former—retired now—Green MP Catherine Delahunty who was one of the first champions in Parliament to stand up for the family carers to listen to their stories and to really understand the difficulty that they went through to get proper financial support to do an incredible service—one that of course they do because of love for their family member and it's selfless and compassionate. But it also benefits everyone in our society to have people with serious disabilities able to be looked after. Of course family members should receive fair financial support for the care that they give.My colleague Catherine Delahunty I think was an absolute champion of this issue and I'm so pleased that we can stand tonight in the House and vote to repeal the discriminatory part of the health and disability Act that was put in place under urgency on Budget night in 2013 that prevented family members of disabled people from accessing the courts to access justice simply for a very mean-spirited approach of assuming that we need to protect the fiscal risk of the Crown when in fact it's the responsibility of the Crown and this place and our Government to support and look after people especially the most vulnerable people in society. So as Associate Minister of Health with responsibility for disability in the first year and a half of this term of Government I had the privilege of working on this issue and championing it. My colleague James Shaw who was Acting Minister in my stead when I took maternity leave also fought very hard for this issue and I'm really pleased to see the consensus that has broken out in this place in the House. I know that all three parties of Government had campaigned on making this change but it wasn't straightforward to make it and I'm so so happy that we can be making this small step in the direction of justice tonight.Bill read a third time.
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — Third Reading
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to make this contribution to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. It's been heard in the House tonight a number of times that this is the right thing to do and I echo those sentiments. We are effectively repealing Part 4A of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act. It was absolutely clear that it was a discriminatory part of the Act in terms of who is valued in terms of the care that they give to their family members.I would just like to also acknowledge the members of the Health Committee and the chair Louisa Wall for your work on this bill. I'd also like to acknowledge that there were 44 written submissions on the bill and I didn't come into those hearings but undoubtedly for every family that came to share their story—and of course they would have been heart-breaking stories in terms of what they go through to care for their loved ones—there would be many other families that would also be behind each one of those stories. I'd also like to acknowledge a family friend—it's actually a friend of my mother's—and she was also caring for her disabled son. He's a young adult now—he's an adult man. I know very well the toll that that does take on the family and actually also on the marriage—on the mother and the father in terms of the care. It takes a toll on their work life and on their business life.So it is right that those carers are supported. The National Party does see that that is such a crucial role in terms of providing that support to families who are caring for their disabled loved ones. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. A privilege and a pleasure in fact to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. I'd like to acknowledge all those from the Health Committee for the collegial way in which we worked together on this bill. It was always—well generally it's a pretty collegial committee and we have progressed a large amount of legislation over the course of this Parliament. So acknowledging my fellow members.Interesting to note the speaker who's just resumed his seat the good doctor from the North Shane Reti—Dr Reti has now seen this piece of legislation after the 2013 bill that went through; he sees it now with new eyes. That's really good to hear. Perhaps it's because of his view from the front row of the bench. So well done to you Mr Reti for your promotion to the front row. I would like to acknowledge the submitters that came to the committee. We heard oral evidence from 13 submitters via video conference; 44 submissions in total to this bill. When I first jumped into the political ring I met a woman called Margaret who was a woman who also came to the select committee with her submission. So I met her three years ago and then just recently heard her story again which I have heard a number of times over the course of the parliamentary term. I know that Margaret will be really excited to hear when this piece of legislation has passed into law because she has been affected by it as she is a woman in her 70s with a 50-year-old disabled son. So she will absolutely be pleased that we are passing this law to ensure that she is able to continue caring for her child and be paid accordingly. Part 4A of the Act allows the exclusion of certain resident family members from being paid for providing support and prevents complaints to the Human Rights Commission about family care policies. We are repealing that here tonight. It is the right thing to do. It's a small bill but it will make a really big difference to the lives of those who have disabled people in their families and their whānau. So I'm very pleased to note that as a result of this bill disabled people and their family carers will be treated fairly; their human rights will be upheld; and alongside our full package of funded family care reforms family and whānau wellbeing will be much improved. I commend this bill to the House.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to this bill which as previous members have said we'll also be supporting through. I want to acknowledge also the Health Committee led by Louisa Wall. It has been a very productive committee through this Parliament and a pleasure to work with actually. I also want to thank all the committee members some who have come and gone. This has been a good experience and I think we've been very productive. This was a bill that in 2013 was progressive in its time and the circumstances as they were were how we came to the conclusions we did. Here we are seven years later and we're saying it's a different set of circumstances. We're looking at this with new eyes and we're making different decisions and are pleased to be doing that. Fundamentally what this does as has been said is it gives two options to people to have their home-care support. The first is individualised funding where they can choose from a menu of providers what best suits them—so that very personalised delivery of care. The second is through a home and community support provider who will do it all for them. You can choose either/or—whichever of those two options best suits you. Fundamentally what it does is it allows family members where previously they have not been allowed to be in your employ to be your funded family carer—that was the previous name for it but to be your provider and be funded by the State to be your provider.Here today in 2020 are a different set of circumstances to 2013 and that's why the National Party is supporting this bill through to its conclusion. Thank you.
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It's my pleasure as the chair of the Health Committee to speak on this the third reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill.To begin I'd actually like to recognise those families who were involved in Ministry of Health v Atkinson which was a Court of Appeal case in 2012. Those whānau involved were Atkinson Bransgrove Burnett Carter Humphreys Robinson and Stoneham and there were two adult disabled children who joined that particular suit against the Crown. They were Stuart Burnett and Imogen Atkinson. The basic premise of what they had gone to the Court of Appeal about was the ability of family members as the Hon Alfred Ngaro has said being recognised by the State as caregivers and being remunerated for being caregivers. What it did expose was I guess a philosophy across the public sector that it was families' responsibility to look after their disabled children—in fact because it was families' responsibility they should do it without any Government support. Strangers however who stepped in and became caregivers of disabled children were supported by the State. I'll quote what the judgment said—because basically the policy was prima facie discriminatory—we consider differential treatment will be discriminatory if when viewed in context it gives rise to a material disadvantage." It held that "the denial of paid work to the parent respondents performing the specified services and the denial of choice to the adult disabled children amounted to material disadvantage."So I want to highlight that this bill will reverse the piece of legislation that was rushed through in response to this Court of Appeal decision and the other aspect that I want to highlight in terms of response from anybody in our society who feels that they're being discriminated against is that they can use the institutions that are available to us—the Human Rights Commission the courts—because that was something else that was taken away from those parents; they weren't allowed to seek redress given the Government's response. I want to highlight that.And just finally as the chair I'd like to thank my deputy Dr Shane Reti and also the Hon Alfred Ngaro because in the end this bill was a collaboration across the House. We were affected by COVID but we were able after hearing from our 44 submitters—hearing from 13 of those orally—to progress this bill as quickly as we could. So I would like to thank them particularly for allowing this House to consider this bill tonight. Finally I just want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa for making sure that the Government followed through on its commitment. Kia ora."
SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National caucus and party to be able to give our support to this bill. We believe that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill does address some concerns. I just want to raise I suppose for the House and also for the public that we are in support of this bill. Part of its history is that actually in 2013 it was the Hon Tony Ryall who had introduced the original parts of the bill which allowed for funded family care. In fact it was the first time internationally that this was enacted in a way that gave legislation that began the pathway of exploring what that would look like.Now today as this amendment bill is repealing Part 4A of the bill which talks about the ability to be able to give the opportunity for kin carers for family carers to take on the roles to be able to be the carers of their loved ones and their family members. We think that's the right thing to do. We are in support of that because that will allow having given a period of about seven years—we were at that point where we matured in our understanding about the funding and the roles of opportunity that can be afforded to those family members as well. We see that as being critically important.So the bill as introduced amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 by repealing Part 4A of the Act as introduced under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill in 2013. We believe that this is critically important. We heard from a number of submitters that this is a small technical bill but a bill that allows us to continue on to provide that support that's critically important. One of the things that's important in the disability sector is that they often reflect that they are the poor cousin—in fact even worse they don't get the support that they are needing over a period of time to provide for those services. In particular what this will allow for them to do is to be able to have—what was introduced in 2013 the disability flexibility fund. This allows for them to provide a bespoke service. Often these disabilities are complex. They are difficult and they are challenging both for family members and for other clinical carers as well. So we support this bill. It's the right thing to do. It's small and technical but at the same time it does provide what we believe is the necessary pathway for kin carers for family carers as well. So the National Party supports this bill in its third reading to the House.
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — In Committee
Reti Shane; Salesa JennyDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. It's our intention to support this bill through to its conclusion. I really have one small question of the Minister—a question that was raised in some of the official documents—is there any sense of the quantum of the retrospective liability associated with this bill? There were several options. One of them did include putting a legislative bar—that wasn't what was taken. So I'd be interested to know: has that been looked at? What is the size of that number?Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): In the Wellbeing Budget of 2019 there has already been funding that was allocated for the next four years including last year of $32 million. We understand that that amount is adequate for funded family care. There are other provisions as well. There was actually an amount that was ring-fenced for some who had gone through the court system.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Madam Chair thank you. That may well be for forward funding but my question really is retrospective liability which I believe through some of the consultation in the Health Committee was anticipated at maybe being in the hundreds of millions. Just looking if there'd been any further work done on what that figure could be.Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): This legislation is actually not for retrospective funding. This legislation is to ensure that future families can actually take their complaints for these policies to the Human Rights Commission and through to the courts.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 568 in the name of the Hon Jenny Salesa be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clauses 1 to 5 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
Salesa JennyClauses 1 to 5Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Kia orana Madam Chair. This is a short bill that will have significant effect on so many of our people with disabilities: our families whānau and carers. The repeal of Part 4A removes the discriminatory elements of the current legislation. Repealing Part 4A will enable future complaints about policies especially funded family care to be made to the Human Rights Commission. Repealing Part 4A will also allow the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the courts to hear complaints from families carers and whānau. This change will ensure consistency with the human rights law as well as our commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.There's also a technical Supplementary Order Paper that amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill to reflect the name of the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017 changing it to the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Act 2020 and it also repeals section 9A(3) of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017. Thank you.
van de Molen TimNEW ZEALAND PUBLIC HEALTH AND DISABILITY AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): Thank you Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Fuel Industry Bill — Third Reading
SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I don't intend to take too much of the House's time to go through this speech in the third reading but New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. The Minister actually outlined in good detail about the intent and the history of this bill and the importance of this bill but it's important to note that I guess the whole aim of this is to bring as members have already said transparency to the market but also it surrounds the consumer at the end of the pump. It's designed to bring competition to the market that ensures better prices and better prices obviously benefit the consumer. It will particularly help actually the smaller retailers as well with the competitively priced fuel and in turn push larger retailers to lower their own prices helping end consumers as well. So I think it's important although this has been a long process and there are some issues that the National Party have and questions that they have raised—I think that in the end if we concentrate on the fact that this is all better for the competition for transparency and for the consumers at the end of the pump I think that it's right that all parties in this House are supporting this bill. We commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Speaker. Yes we're coming to a screaming halt after a process that started back in 2017 and here we are—virtually the penultimate day of the 52nd Parliament—here we are rushing this bill through urgency at 10 to 9 and with certain comments from officials ringing in my ears who said to us quite clearly that we are ending up rushing this legislation through the House because the work hasn't been done. I think that's unfortunate. I think the issue around the substantial—well the need for substantial regulations is going to be an issue for the industry. Everyone wants to see reasonable fuel prices but we're at risk of creating a market that has a high degree of uncertainty around it because we simply haven't provided the clarity in this bill. And I think that's only going to be bad for people—everyone who uses fuel goes to the bowser and fills up their cars—because that may be the thing that we see which is an increase in fuel prices because of that uncertainty. And I think that would be very disappointing. But anyway as everyone knows we will be supporting this bill. I urge the Minister of Energy and Resources—and she made a comment before that she was looking at making a regulation around how fuel prices are to be signalled. I urge her to do that quickly. But there are substantial parts of the bill that need other regulations. That needs to be done quickly and as efficiently as possible having regard both to the interest of the fuel users but also the fuel companies because they need to achieve a return on capital investment they make. So it is one of a balancing act but let's bring it to a conclusion that everyone can live with and benefit from.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of this Fuel Industry Bill. Before I commence my brief remarks I just really want to acknowledge the member who just spoke prior Jonathan Young. This is a particular issue that has a particular impact in his region and having had the opportunity to work with him and garner the learnings that he's brought to the table he's engaged with our side of the House very generously. Just acknowledging too that we across both sides of this House have a collective desire to see those fuel costs come down for all. I note your hesitancies and acknowledge those and am grateful that your side of the House will be supporting this bill. We listen and we can hear the caution that you've reserved; so thank you for your remarks.We've sat through a couple of readings of this bill in this House this afternoon; so the complexities of this particular area of regulation have been set out. From having had the opportunity to sit through the deliberations on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I too just really want to extend my gratitude to the officials who did an absolutely stonkingly good job to ensure that we as committee members who might not have been so fluent in the language of the fuel marketing pricing regime could get to a place where we hopefully were able to contribute in some way shape or form.The benefit of the bill that we're introducing this evening is for the purpose of enabling transparency around pricing for those consumers at the terminal and there have been a lot of people from industry officials and again like I said contributions from all sides of this House that I think have worked collectively very well to get to the point that we have landed on tonight. So without further ado I commend this bill to the House.
Fuel Industry Bill — In Committee
SpeechALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I know I know I know—I've had my valedictory and I shouldn't be standing up but I'm here again. I do have a couple of quick—because the spot market the question that Andrew Bayly raises is important. If there's not the ability for people to compete in a market because of the illiquidity or the lack of liquidity in a particular area that is a problem and I think it's a very good point that Andrew Bayly raised. I was interested as well in the same question and how that pricing mechanism would operate and the Minister's view on the issue of the spot price in a particular area being unavailable or different from a place such as Auckland where there's lots of storage and competition. That's my question. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just say before I call Jonathan I know it's customary that we think of it like that but there's no restriction at all on members who have given their valedictory seeking further calls in the House.Alastair Scott: Thank you to the—Tim van de Molen: Please don't encourage him.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you—you may have encouraged me Mr Scott.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I raise a point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Point of order Andrew Bayly.ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you Madam Chair. Just to clarify we are in the committee of the whole House. I just want to clarify we're following the procedure that's been adopted recently where we ask quick questions rather than do long speeches. Is that the protocol tonight?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson):Yes.Andrew Bayly: Oh good.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's not a point of order.Andrew Bayly: Well it's clarifi—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Great conversation.Andrew Bayly: Clarification at least Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): And you know that—all members will know that the Minister isn't required to answer the question immediately if at all. But the expectation is there that the Minister will answer questions particularly when they're proper questions—for want of a better term—as have been delivered. Any further questions to the Minister?
SpeechJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): The officials did raise the question around the terminal gate price regime which could impose additional costs and the advice that was given to the Minister was simply that if the wholesale competition does not increase then there is a possibility to adjust the industry code on a timely basis if required. My question to the Minister is: what is the time frame for that observation and how long would it take for the Minister to adjust the industry code on a timely basis? Essentially what I'm asking is: how responsive will be those adjustments to the code in terms of then being able to see a better competitive wholesale price be reflected into the market?
Bayly AndrewParts 1 to 3 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Madam Chair thank you. I'm glad to see the Minister in the chair the Hon Jenny Salesa and I hope she's been following the debate very closely. She may have heard just before that I was talking about the issue of spot prices and the difference between New Zealand and Australian spot prices—the mechanism—and I ask whether in fact she feels there's sufficient depth in the New Zealand spot price for petroleum products. So that's my first question because I think that's a fundamental sort of issue around the effectiveness of this. The other aspect is around the terminal gate price and how that is going to operate and her observations around that because again that's a central sort of linchpin for the operation of this bill. Any observations around that I would really much appreciate.
Allan KiritapuIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this debate to be had in one part.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): As one debate?Kiritapu Allan: As one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I'm very happy to take a very short call on this to say the Green Party is supporting this bill. It makes sense to have greater transparency. We want the prices to be fair and of course I know it's very difficult for the Opposition to understand this because they're very keen on making up a long list of infrastructure projects they're going to pay for and yet somehow they don't want to raise revenue to pay for it. So they're constantly attacking a very very fair and sensible petrol tax which enables us to pay for maintaining our roads for our road policing for building new roads and for running public transport which helps our entire transport network work better. So while the Opposition will demonise petrol taxes we on this side of the House actually have a plan for paying for the things that we promise very much unlike the National Party and we're actually taking action on the unfair pricing of petrol that that National Party refused to do anything about during the nine years they were in Government. So I'm very happy to be part of a Government that's actually doing something constructive and has a plan.Bill read a second time.
Fuel Industry Bill — Second Reading
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I have to disagree with that very last comment from that member. It is a very complicated issue—very complicated issue actually. I think the big thing about this is it revolves around the issue of terminal gate price. Of course what we've done is basically nicked the idea from Australia and said Well hey it works in Sydney. It works in Melbourne. It's got to work in New Zealand." Well actually it doesn't quite work that easily. I think that's the big issue about this bill—that obviously everyone agrees that we need to have low fuel prices in New Zealand and the consumers shouldn't be paying more than they ought to to use Mr Young's good phraseology. But the question is we've still got to have a viable petroleum market. That means we've got to have successful companies. But the issue—and the mechanism that has been proposed in this bill—has still got some work to work through.The issue around the terminal gate price is—the way it works in Australia there's a very active spot price for fuel. I know Madam Speaker you'd be very cognisant of this issue. Why we are supportive of the terminal gate price—the issue is that in parts of New Zealand there is no spot market and there is a lack of capacity. So if you go to Nelson for instance as one area there is no competition. In fact there is no fuel operation or storage there at all—I think I'm correct on that Mr Young. So the issue around certain parts of New Zealand—because of the way we've set up with our arrangements the operation of this will be quite difficult to achieve.I know there have been a lot of comments on it. We heard it on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think the one thing I would highlight—and this is actually from the report the regulatory impact statement. The first one is—this is the comment that the officials have written: "The terminal gate price regime may impose additional costs (e.g. stock holding investment increased shipping frequency or shortages for own-supply) which could lead to higher retail prices"—actually the opposite of what we're trying to achieve—"if wholesale competition does not increase." Moderate impact is the assessment of it. Then they talk about the "increased transparency of fuel pricing may facilitate collusion." I thought Mr Young that was actually the opposite of what we're trying to achieve. So I think as members have already commented tonight and obviously this is the second reading the officials have basically said we rushed this through far too quickly. It's going to take a long time to work out the regulation. That creates uncertainty. That is a poor thing. But anyway I am looking forward to exploring that in the committee of the whole House."
SpeechJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm really pleased to stand and take a call on the Fuel Industry Bill and I do so on behalf of my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau who's on the Finance and Expenditure Committee that looked at this bill—which was ably chaired I might add by Dr Deborah Russell. In fact there is a cast of many on that committee so well done to all of those who managed to progress the bill and took care of all those submissions. I think there were 13 submissions on this bill and they heard oral evidence from 10 of those. I acknowledge too the good work by the officials. We have heard in the House this evening that the fuel market is complex so I acknowledge the work that was done to progress the bill through now to its second reading.The fuel market might be complex but for people like me who just want to get in my car and drive it seems to be a really simple thing that the aim of this bill is a fuel market that actually works for the consumer. So it is really the focus of that consumer that I speak from on this bill. A failing fuel market means higher prices for everyday New Zealanders at the pump so this Government is promoting measures designed to bring competition to the market and drive better prices. The suite of measures introduced by this bill and the Government's non-legislative response will mean competition can begin to flourish in fact in the wholesale and retail markets and those benefits then pass on to end-consumers at the pump.So just a short contribution on my part just acknowledging too the Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Megan Woods for bringing this bill to the House. I'll just finish with what she had to comment on in her reading: that the features of this bill are designed to increase competition in the wholesale market and over time lead to lower fuel prices for consumers. That doesn't sound too complex to me. I commend the bill to the House.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I'm delighted to speak in support of this bill as its last speaker on its third reading. This bill is over 30 years in the making. The existing Act is long overdue. We now have over 600000 households across Aotearoa who are renters far different from the situation that was the case back in the mid-1980s when three-quarters of the households of Aotearoa were actually owner-occupied dwellings. So the shape of the abodes where whānau are living is changing and the laws need to change with it.What we're doing with this bill is just ensuring that there is a better balance between the rights between the landlord and the tenant to provide greater stability and some security for tenants. But what we've heard in this debate so far is that it's as if we're stripping landlords of all their rights altogether and they'll be totally helpless. You know it's as if their property will be taken off them and they'll be forced to actually have people rent from them. It's quite the opposite. This is all about protecting landlords' rights as well and landlords have their interests which are secured in this legislation. They are able to terminate tenancies but there must be fair and justified reasons for that. We need to eliminate—and this bill seeks to do this—no-cause terminations and the absolute heartache and damage that that can cause people when they're actually just turfed out for no reason at all. I mean those practices have perpetuated and grown in the current environment.So that's all this bill seeks to do. It's not as if this bill has just come along in the last five minutes; it's been consulted upon publicly for over the past three years. There have been thousands of opportunities for public submissions. There was a public consultation document on this which has gone up and down the country. So this has long been in the making and it addresses some longstanding issues—for instance the issues around victims of domestic violence and having to get safety and be able to quickly deal with their tenancy situations. I mean these are practical measures which are very welcome and they will make a huge difference to the situations that tenants find themselves in up and down the country.So this is a welcome piece of legislation and I commend Minister Faafoi for his excellent work on this. The sky is not going to fall in for landlords. The sun will come up in the morning. Tenants will still be hopefully safely nestled in their warm rented accommodation or homes—their homes—and the rent will keep flowing through to the landlords. If something is to go wrong there are protections there are powers that naturally rest with the landlord and with the tenant. So I commend this bill and I commend all the work that's gone on. With that I really want to just hasten its passage and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. What we know is that over 30 years homeownership has decreased and we know that more and more people are renting. I kind of want to flip this a little bit on its head because I feel like there have been a lot of the more negative aspects of What if. This might cause that. This might cause whatever." I have myself been a landlord. I don't consider myself to be—Andrew Bayly: You must be rich then according to some of your colleagues.JO LUXTON: No I don't consider myself to be rich; I consider myself to be a mum and dad landlord. But what I do want to bring to this debate is the fact that I want my tenant to believe that that house is their home. I want the security of a long-term tenant. I want them to be able to hang a picture on the wall without having to come and seek permission. So I want them to have it as their home because in turn as a landlord it gives me security in the fact that I know I'll potentially have a really long-term tenant here and that they will in turn also look after the property.I also just want to briefly mention the fact that when I think about this piece of legislation—what it will mean for our elderly. A lot of our elderly people senior citizens are renters. I think it's really important that we give them the security of long-term tenancy whereby we can't have a landlord suddenly say "Look I've got family coming from X Y Z and I want to rent the home to them now." I hear the different arguments across the House across people's opinions but I do think we need to think about that positive side of things as well. So I commend this bill to the House."
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare nei tēnā koe. Otirā e ngā mema katoa tēnā tātou katoa. I'm really pleased to take a call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. I listened with great interest to the contributions from members in the House. Can I just share as members across the way have talked about mums and dads investors in the property market and can I also talk about the tenants that I deal with who're actually fair law-abiding tenants. There's been some debate here around rebalance and my experience is actually I've come up against tenants who have been in properties for 10 15 17 20-plus years suddenly getting notice that they've got to move out. I understand and accept that that's the prerogative of the homeowner but when you constantly hear these stores being fed back through our electoral offices you've got to beg the question—in a country unfortunately where we're tenants in our own land then we have a problem.So this bill is attempting—and I have taken time to read the committee's report; this is the select committee that investigated this bill. I particularly drew my attention to the National's minority view and they themselves in their own minority view in the select committee report talked about the biggest hurdle for them in this bill being actually the abatement of the 90 days' notice. But in the same section of the select committee report in which the National Party put their minority view they said except for very limited reasons". So we're not completely dismissing the 90-day notice. We're just ensuring that it's a fair process.I too have friends that have multiple rental properties in my home of Hastings and they never ever mention that they have bad tenants. I'm not saying they don't have bad tenants but their biggest issue is about ensuring that they actually dialogue and have a relationship with their tenants. So here may rest an idea that property owners particularly mums or dads or those that use property managers—we've all probably as MPs in this House come to Wellington and had to find our own accommodation. Some we deal directly with the landlords; some we deal with property managers and we've had varying degrees of relationships with them. But the key here is in response to the National Party's minority view about removing the 90-day notice that actually it's still there; ensuring that the bar is lifted so tenants are getting a fair deal. I commend the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill to the House."
Voting — Corrections
Kuriger BarbaraVOTINGCorrectionsBARBARA KURIGER (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave to correct some votes that were taken earlier today by proxy on behalf of the ACT Party. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. BARBARA KURIGER: The votes were on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill first and second readings; the motion to extend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020; and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill majority amendments recommended by select committee and second reading. I seek leave to correct the ACT Party votes. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you very much. They will be corrected.
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Mallard TrevorHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I just rise to put on the record New Zealand First's continued support of this legislation through its third reading and I want to thank Mr Faafoi for the amount of time that he's spent. Clearly there are challenges that present when parties that have differing philosophical views approach problems such as this. New Zealand First has noted in its speeches the concerns of landlords around the removal of the 90-day no-cause eviction notice. We are mindful though that it's only really been used on 3 percent of occasions and therefore wonder if the protestations are that much of an issue. That said we have put on the record that the people who will pick up those tenants who are not taken up by landlords are worried about the risk that they will be presented with. Those tenants will fall to the Government and we just want to acknowledge that that will put even more emphasis on Housing New Zealand in that respect. We support the bill.Debate interrupted.SPEAKER: Before I call the next member I'll indicate that this order of the day is set down for a resumption following the break. Members it's my intention to indicate that at the conclusion of the Rt Hon David Carter's valedictory speech the House will be suspended until 7 p.m. I'm giving notice of this now so I don't have to interrupt the celebrations which will be occurring at that time. I call on Dr Jian Yang to make his valedictory statement.
Voting — Correction—David Seymour
Mallard TrevorVOTINGCorrectionsSPEAKER: Before I call that as an order of the day I want to indicate to the House that it's come to my attention that votes have been cast in a way which has been inappropriate through the day on behalf of Mr Seymour. I have asked the Clerk's Office to find out which votes have been so cast and then I will be looking to a member to seek leave to have the votes corrected.
Faafoi KrisHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Just a supplementary on the point that was made—just in regards to it. Is there not an inconsistency? Already we're regarding two days in regards to family violence for a tenant if they experience harm or there is risk and now when it comes to an actual landlord itself we're only giving 14 days. Surely there's an inconsistency that officials have not given you the advice to protect the landlord because they too at the moment are prey to the predator of violence themselves. Surely there should have been another way to address it within a shorter period of time?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): The issue with the two days was that the tenant who's leaving lives at the property. It's almost probable that the perpetrator of the violence might also be living at that property. The issue with the difference between the two and the 14 is obviously the landlord does not live at the property so there wouldn't be as much of an immediate issue between the landlord and the tenant.Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): But that still is inconsistent with what the Minister had said. Regardless of where the perpetrator may be—whether they are tenant at the property or where they're absent at the property—it's still the risk factor of harm to the victim. So in this case the victim is the landlord. Surely the officials would see again this is an issue of violence. Irrespective of whether it's family violence or domestic violence it is an issue of violence. The Minister has taken great care and has worked through a process and we agree with the Minister that there should be some protections around the landlord. So irrespective of whether the landlord is present—some landlords are actually adjacent to a property: they've subdivided a property; there's a sublease—and so there is potential that the landlord could still be at risk. Surely the Minister would have taken some consideration. I suppose this goes to the point that we were making earlier—five minutes into the speech in the second reading. We've not had a time to have a robust process to deal with some of the minor issues that are before us and before this House.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): It's not that the consideration wasn't had. It certainly was around making sure that there was consistency across a number of other measures or time frames within the bill. It's just that it's more highly likely that a victim of family violence has had that thrust upon them by someone who lives in the property. The best way obviously to prevent any further violence between a landlord and a tenant is for them to not be in the same place and it's very unlikely that that would happen if they're not at the same property.