edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
12. Disability Support Services—ReformDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Disability IssuesDisability Support Services—Reform12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made regarding a nationwide transformation of the disability support system?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): I announced that the Government will undertake a 3 month co-designed process with the disability sector to begin a nationwide transformation of the disability support system based on the Enabling Good Lives principle. This change is about ensuring that disabled people and their families have more choice and more control over their supports. Cabinet is expected to consider the system design in mid-2017.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What will be the focus of the design process?Hon NICKY WAGNER: The transformation will focus initially on those receiving support from the Disability Support Services in the mid-central region. The Enabling Good Lives demonstration in the Waikato will continue as will the arrangements for Christchurch. Input from the disability sector will be vital throughout the transformation process particularly around the design phase. The new system will incorporate a social investment approach to improve outcomes for individuals and deliver cost-effective services over the long term.Question No. 8 to Minister—Amended AnswerHon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I seek the leave of the House to correct an answer given in question time today.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: During question time I think I was asked a question with regard to superannuation. Although it was outside of the portfolio area as raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee I said that the Māori Party policy was to keep superannuation at the current level. In fact the policy is to drop it to 60 years of age.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that this definitely creates an issue when Ministers who are answering as Ministers answer not as Ministers on behalf of the Government but on behalf of political parties because actually strictly speaking that is not an appropriate use of the correction system. That is correcting a party's policy for which the Minister is not responsible to the House.Mr SPEAKER: We cannot move past it at the moment. I will need to go back now and see the tone and the exact wording of the question but my recollection was that the question did not really ask about a Government position but took the opportunity to ask about the member's position or the member's party's position but I will have another look at it.
9. Better Public Services—Early Childhood Education and NCEA ResultsMAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of EducationBetter Public Services—Early Childhood Education and NCEA ResultsMAUREEN PUGH (National): My question—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The front bench must also cease interjecting so we can hear the question from Maureen Pugh.9. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made about the Government's education-related Better Public Services targets?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I was very pleased to announce that the latest results for the Better Public Services targets show that 96.7 percent of children are now participating in early childhood education. This is an increase of 2 percent since March 2011. I was also delighted to announce that the provisional results also show that 85.2 percent of 18-year-olds achieved NCEA level 2 or equivalent last year. This has been a huge increase of 10.9 percent since 2011. I would like to congratulate students teachers and parents for this fabulous result which is a reflection of their hard work.Maureen Pugh: Can she provide further information to the House on Māori and Pasifika NCEA level 2 achievement?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am pleased to advise the House that there has been a huge improvement in Māori and Pasifika achievement since 2011. Can I acknowledge the Māori Party for its contribution to education policy. An estimated 74.7 percent of Māori students achieved NCEA level 2 or equivalent in 2016 up from 57.1 percent in 2011. More than 80 percent of Pasifika 18-year-olds achieved NCEA level 2 in 2016 up from 65.5 percent in 2011. This Government is proud of the Māori and Pasifika achievement under this Government.
6. Anti - money-laundering Measures—Legislative ReformANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of JusticeAnti - money-laundering Measures—Legislative Reform6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding phase two of the anti - money-laundering and counter-financing of terrorism regime?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Yesterday I introduced legislation into Parliament to bring lawyers conveyancers accountants real estate agents and sports and racing betting into the anti - money-laundering regime after the Government fast tracked implementation last year. Additionally businesses that deal in certain high-value goods including motor vehicles jewellery and art will also be covered under the legislation when they accept large cash transactions. Following the release of the exposure draft late last year in consultation with affected sectors the bill aims to strike the right balance between combating crime minimising the cost of compliance and protecting our international reputation.Andrew Bayly: How will the proposed phase two regime impact New Zealanders?Hon AMY ADAMS: Once in place the new regime will affect both the sectors covered and the New Zealanders who interact with them. For example when people are buying or selling property; setting up trusts; buying cars boats art or jewellery with large amounts of cash; or having an accountant manage funds for them they will need to provide proof of identification and address. In some cases they may also need to provide information about the source of the funds and beneficial ownership. The affected sectors will also need full risk assessment and compliance programmes and will be obliged to report suspicious activities. Although this will mean extra cost the new regime is seen as an essential tool in the fight against money-laundering and terrorist financing.
3. Health Services—Methamphetamine Addiction TreatmentMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Methamphetamine Addiction Treatment3. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with counsellor Andrew Hopgood regarding P addicts that … a lack of detox and live-in rehabilitation centres limits options for addicts seeking help"; if so what is he doing to address this shortage?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Methamphetamine is an ongoing problem and unfortunately New Zealand has one of the highest rates of P usage in the world. With regard to Mr Hopgood's comments there is ongoing pressure on facilities but that is why the Government is driving the Tackling Methamphetamine Action Plan which so far has invested $31 million in anti-drug programmes funded from the proceeds of crime Act. The most recent funding allocation last October included $8.7 million on a range of health initiatives including treatment facilities as well as funding more innovative ways for police to work with health services in order to reduce demand. Marama Fox: What is he doing to address the reports of a chronic shortage of live-in rehabilitation centres in the regions specifically regions like Ikaroa-Rāwhiti? Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not sure that there is a chronic shortage in those regions but it is important to note that there are different treatment options that may be available—not just live-in rehabilitation. Most people will receive help through intensive outpatient services provided by the district health board provider arms and NGOs. Marama Fox: Given the Government's investment approach is he concerned that the Hauora addictions programme which has had a successful programme evaluation in 2016 has not been allocated any further funding from the Ministry of Health; if so what is he going to do about it? Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am aware of this and I am advised that officials are considering future options for the programme and the delivery of those outcomes."
Mitchell Clayton; Tisch LindsayCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Chair I appreciate that. I will just take a call on Part 2 moving forward from clauses 45 through to 58 including Kris Faafoi's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) adding clause 48A. I want to start with clause 58. When I read through this it does not make any sort of positive sense. It says here in deleted clause 58(1): Firebreaks on forestry land—(1) FENZ may if it considers it necessary for the purpose of fire control require the landholder of forestry land—(a) to make and clear any firebreak on—(i) the forestry land: (ii) any other land (with the consent of the occupier of the land or of the owner if the land is unoccupied):". It goes on to say in deleted clause 58(1)(b) Fire and Emergency New Zealand may require the landholder "to remove from any firebreak or from any other part of the land on which no trees are standing any vegetation or other material of any kind." We have some serious problems with that for the simple fact that it has been completely removed. It is no longer in the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.What that means and in fact we are seeing it right now with the likes of the Department of Conservation which has had a 93 percent reduction in fire management and with no ability for the fire department—for Fire and Emergency New Zealand under this bill—to actually involve themselves and actually intervene on this matter to ensure the safety of our scrublands and our rural fire service. It goes on with an amendment—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.Debate interrupted.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17 Closely Held Companies and Remedial Matters) Bill with amendment progress on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill and no progress on Māori Purposes Bill.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)"
Macindoe TimTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I too want to speak about the powers of authorised persons. I think it is important that within this Part 2 there are very clear rules around what the service is able to do and what it is not allowed to do. I remember one of the concerns of submitters around the powers of authorised persons was to do with shutting down the power to whole blocks within a city block or shutting down the water supply and the effects that that might have on people say who might be at home on dialysis.So that was raised as a potential issue. I think the Government Administration Committee was satisfied that before the authorised person would take such action—they would not take that action directly; that is the information that was given to the select committee—they would do that through the companies responsible for the power supply and through the local council. But it does raise for consideration the very serious issues of the very real powers of an authorised person and just how extensive they actually are.I go back to my comments on the first part around service. These people these men and women who perform these services take pride in the responsibility that they have and I am certain that the very real and strong powers that exist within Part 2 will be exercised in a way that is appropriate. I think that goes to the trust that New Zealanders have in the fire and emergency services. I just wanted to highlight that as one of the issues that was raised at select committee.I also stand in support of my colleague Kris Faafoi's Supplementary Order Paper 263. I live in a very small community with a volunteer fire brigade and they seem to have practices and do other community services when called upon. I am told directly by that service that it is cumbersome having to do a traffic management plan. When you consider we have a community of around only 400 people access to roads for non-emergency activities is something that I think Mr Faafoi's Supplementary Order Paper will be great for not only for the city folk but also in small rural towns although this particular instance that I am talking about is deemed to be an urban service because of the geographical location and the coverage that this service actually has.I think it is really important that we recognise the great work that these volunteer services have and that we do everything that makes their job easier. We were told on a number of instances during the select committee process that this was an enabling bill. I think that if this truly is an—
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I move That the question be now put.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Just a quick word to clarify—I do not think it applies to dog shows because I do not think that anyone is expecting to get anything other than a ribbon actually. But I must say I really enjoyed the member Sue Moroney's contribution and I am looking forward to—Hon Ruth Dyson: You need to get out more. They do have prize money.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well look as the owner of an almost-14-year-old Jack Russell terrier I think we are past our prime when it comes to dog shows but thank you for that opportunity.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you for the opportunity to assist Mr Faafoi with his issue where he has asked whether or not the provisions of clause 334AB might set some sort of a precedent for other information that the IRD or other agencies might have. Well it does not because the provisions specifically deal with student loans and the declarations made and it is for the purpose of verifying any declaration made by an applicant for a student loan. So it is very specific. It is not a general go-to provision should anyone want to find out any information about anyone else. It is very specific. The other thing is it relates to information from one authorised person to another authorised person so it is very very specific. There is no precedent value at all so that is not a precedent. I think most New Zealanders would think that when people are applying for student loans—actually a lot of it is done on trust. We trust that people are providing the right information. But where there is an opportunity to clarify something I think it is something that agencies like the IRD are expected to do. This is taxpayer money that it is providing to students or to people wishing to get student loans and I think it is absolutely beholden on those people to verify if there are any concerns the veracity of an application or a declaration.
Borrows ChesterPart 3 Amendments to other enactmentsThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Stuart Nash.Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh very good choice.
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you for the opportunity to address that question. First off let me apologise to Mr Rurawhe because I clearly did not make myself properly—I did not make my meaning as well I should have. Actually although there is a grandparenting clause in relation to the look-through companies that will apply to the Māori authorities there is also an opportunity for the Māori authorities just to use the limited partnership structures which have actually pretty much the same effect as a look-through company. The new ones coming through will not be necessarily taxed at different rates because of the fact that there will be the limited partnership provisions that they can still make use of. So I hope that that clarifies it for the member and that he can now be satisfied that Māori authorities are not going to be suddenly faced with another issue that they were not aware of.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Whare oti noa tēnā tātou katoa. I would like to speak to clause 262(48). First of all I want to give some comments—my overview of clause 262. I take from the submissions from Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand the New Zealand Law Society and the Whyte Group that they said that this clause overall was unnecessarily complex and restrictive and that it would increase compliance costs. That grabbed my attention.Later on in this sitting day—tomorrow morning in extended time—there will be two bills. They are Treaty bills. I mention that because subclause (48) is around Māori authorities. My understanding is that the iwi concerned tomorrow will have less opportunity under these changes than iwi that have settled previously. I mention that because a key part of the settlement process is actually relativity to previous claims.I mention that because this grandparented clause although I agree with it in the context that has been explained—that is that this bill protects those interests of those Māori authorities—in the instance of those iwi that have already settled how do you address the issue of relativity for Treaty settlements that will pass tomorrow and into the future? That is a question that I would like to ask the Minister in the chair Judith Collins around the impact of this on all future claims—on all future settlements.I think when I read through the submissions from Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and KPMG on this subclause—they write that the current … grandparenting provision provides wider concessions than was intended." As I understand it the Māori authorities go back as far as 1939. There was a commission of inquiry in 1952 and then there were substantial changes made to this in 2004. There is a very good reason why you would have Māori authorities. When you think about the context of the Treaty claim settlement and the value of redress—and we are talking about redress not compensation. If we were talking about compensation there would probably be no need for Māori authorities having a different tax rate. My point is that we are not talking about compensation for these claims. The reason why as I understand it Māori authorities have concessions around the tax rates and around the conditions such as this in subclause (48) of clause 262 is in recognition of the fact that No. 1 they are providing a service to all of the beneficiaries of the trusts and entities that they operate under and also No. 2 it is a kind of recognition of the fact that they will receive redress not compensation. My question is exactly that: why then are we changing this? Why not just leave it and then we would not have to have the grandparented clause. It would just remain as it is."
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I call the next member I do want to compliment the member Ruth Dyson on being relevant but I make a request which is that in future people look fairly carefully at the clauses and the subclauses. Rather than just say that it is in clause 262—when something has 117 subclauses some of which themselves have subparagraphs it would helpful for both the Minister in the chair and me in making our judgments if members could refer to the subclauses that they are referring to.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): I will just take a short call to answer a couple of the questions that have been raised by members. Mr Shaw asked about the debt remission rules. The amendments in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 261 actually clarify the provisions of the bill. They are only very technical and there are no new policy changes.Mr Mark's SOP 260—well Mr Mark you will be thrilled to know that I raised these very same questions when I first became the Minister of Revenue. I raised them with the Inland Revenue Department and it reminded me of course that in 2010 the policy settings around depreciation of buildings was changed so that generally the value of buildings is not considered to be something that is rightly depreciated these days. I think a lot of people probably supported that. It had been leading to some very unusual outcomes in terms of investment decisions. So I have also asked around the repairs and maintenance as opposed to a capital item. When the department explained it to me I actually felt quite convinced by it. It said that essentially what you are doing in earthquake strengthening is you are creating not just the same building not just repairing it—what you are really doing is actually creating a building to a different standard a different code and it is actually about creating almost a new building. So I know that you are not going to agree with that but that is essentially the answer.I think it is also decided that one of the best ways for Government—some people might feel that the Government has an obligation to help in some way people who own buildings commercial properties where there is earthquake strengthening to be done. There are also options around grants and that is why there are some provisions actually particularly for heritage buildings. In fact I can just give you the programme. It is the Heritage Earthquake Upgrade Incentive Programme fund which will put $12 million over the next 4 years towards the cost of strengthening privately-owned commercial buildings. So I know it is not the answer that the member seeks but it is something that I have raised. I understand the concept as to why it would not be available particularly when we have a non-deductibility generally or non-depreciation of other commercial properties.
Shaw JamesJAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I just want to raise a couple of questions in relation to the Minister of Revenue's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 261. In fact I would just like to start by saying congratulations to the Minister on her appointment because I do not believe I have had the opportunity to congratulate her on her new portfolios. Just in relation to parts 1 and 2 in the explanatory note of that SOP the Green Party really supports those especially the pieces around the Kaikōura relief provisions—that is perfectly consistent with the previous legislation that we passed to help with the Kaikōura relief there—and also a number of the technical amendments that have come through in parts 1 and 2 of that. What we were confused about with part 3 of the SOP is that that does appear to be new policy that has been introduced at a late stage in the bill's reading—in particular the areas around new debt remission exceptions—and we could not see that that was terribly consistent with what had been introduced to the House earlier on in the process. If the assessment that we have is correct then we would say that that is quite poor process because obviously that has not been through any select committee process. There has been no regular regulatory impact statement that is attached to it and as I said before it is new policy. So it does seem to take the bill in a new direction. So I would like to get some input from the Minister as to why that has appeared at this point in the process in this bill at this stage because it does seem to be substantively different. If it is significant then it would seem to make more sense to introduce that as a separate bill that could be debated properly because in our view it does not necessarily match up fully with the other parts of the primary bill that we are debating. So I would like to hear from the Minister a bit more about those provisions especially around the new debt remission exceptions—why that has been introduced as an SOP rather than when the bill was first introduced in the House or why it could not be introduced as a separate piece of legislation if it is so significant. We would be quite keen to hear from the Minister on that. Thank you.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Just a short call really just to address some of the issues raised by the members who have resumed their seats. The question was raised—and then really answered—by Mr Tabuteau that the bill proposes that a look-through company (LTC) owned by a trust will lose its LTC status if the trust makes a distribution to a corporate beneficiary. I am advised that Charities and Māori authorities will be precluded from being LTC owners directly or indirectly under the proposed amendments. However"—and I will just be very technical here—"a trust that is a shareholder in a LTC will be able to make a distribution to a charity when the distribution is akin to a donation or is received by the charity as a residual beneficiary. [Charities and] Māori authorities that have ownership interests in LTCs immediately before the introduction of this Bill will be excluded from the prohibition." So there is a grandparenting. The bill also deals with annual amounts of foreign income earned by foreign-controlled LTCs. It says that they are limited to the greater of $10000 or 20 percent of the LTC's gross income in the relevant income year. Mr Tabuteau is quite correct that it is changing the rules but that is what Parliament does. There are many people who wonder why some businesses receive favourable—as they see it—tax treatment to other businesses and some of the businesses that we are talking about are in direct competition with Kiwi-owned businesses that are actually not having that benefit. But basically I have answered the question that Mr Tabuteau posed and I acknowledge that he has gone to the trouble of looking up the answer himself."
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I would just like to carry on from the contribution from Mr Henare there because I too went to a few of my local Māori authorities and the trust and the iwi there that operate using the Māori authority framework within the look-through company (LTC) mechanism. Just to be clear what has been happening in the past is that because there have been so many multiple-ownership issues and then the requirements around reporting and the obligations under the LTC around that Māori have been able to use the look-through company mechanism as a way of meeting their obligations in terms of their tax requirements. So I went and talked to the community in Rotorua there and I would like to repeat essentially what Mr Henare said here. There was mixed feedback. First of all several of the bigger operators said that it would not make much difference to them and they will probably carry on—I think I should acknowledge the Minister of Revenue here; I think with the grandparenting clause for our Māori authorities we move into a position where there can be some certainty but we will come back to the Supplementary Order Paper later—but then other Māori authorities were concerned about their tax liabilities literally changing under this new regulation. Essentially they thought that they would be obliged to pay more taxes because of this change. So I do sincerely look to the Minister for guidance on that. That was their interpretation of this legislation and the conversation was had around that but then I would also add that many Māori authorities did not know what I was talking about and they did not understand the implications on their tax requirements as they went away from that conversation. So what is the obligation on the Government to engage and have meaningful conversations with New Zealand stakeholders—taxpayers—around the obligations and changes thereof? What I want to probably just finish on is that what the LTC issues focus on—and the Minister could answer the question here—is the way the beneficiaries were counted determining whether the requirements that there be five or fewer counted owners and whether the application of the Māori authorities and multiple ownership still applies in the new legislation. With the grandparenting clause I also wonder about the Māori operations starting up businesses now. Everyone talks about the Māori economy and how gangbusters it is going. Well you have changed the law on them then you grandparented it so that some operations will continue to operate under an old system and now we have got new ones coming on board and they will be obliged to operate differently. There is that collective knowledge that will not necessarily be able to effectively be passed on to new operations. We have got a lot of issues there to be covered and a lot of concerns to be settled Minister. So I put it to you that it is a great opportunity to address those in the Committee today.
Mallard TrevorPart 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This is debate on clauses 4 to 272 on the Minister's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 on Ron Mark's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 inserting new clause 37B and obviously on the rest of the part. I call Peeni Henare.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on clause 3 in Part 1 Annual rates of income tax for 2016-17 tax year". I just want to say that it is very much indicative of the Government's focus on tax and revenue at the moment in that it does not seem to have any focus at all whatsoever. Essentially we are looking today at retrospective legislation to bring those annual rates into line. It speaks to me of a lack of discipline and perhaps too much revenue legislation in other areas that have been—I am going to say "slammed". The tax industry was a bit more polite in saying that perhaps there was a bit too much and it was getting a bit too confused and they themselves were not able to keep up.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to remind members as I have heard the previous Chair remind members that this is a very narrow part. We have accepted the principle of the part already as part of the second reading and all debate on this has to be very narrowly focused. So general discussions about tax policy speediness and focus are not relevant.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Thanks Mr Chair. If that is the case then I will come to the question around fiscal drag. We are dealing with clause 3 which speaks to annual tax rates. The question I put to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Revenue and to the Government is that you have not changed these rates since 2011 I think it was and so in all that time essentially New Zealanders' tax rates have been going up.The question Minister is that considering that is 41 percent of the Government's overall revenue base—coming from tax that is—what is the Government's position now? Is the Government prepared to make a stand and say that actually it is timely for us to talk about annual rates? Here is our opportunity now to say to low-income earners that "Actually we've been taxing you too much using these annual rates and we need to adjust that. It is just not fair that you have been paying more tax because the Government has done nothing to address the rates as outlined in clause 3 in this legislation."Fiscal drag has become quite a popular conversation with New Zealanders and other members of the House. It is timely. It is pertinent. I personally think that low-income earners are missing out because of the lack of changes or lack of reflection on these annual rates. I put it to you that here is an opportunity to make a position statement for the Government on how it thinks it should be treating New Zealanders. I do not think the Government is treating them well at all. Thank you."
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in wholehearted support of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill in its second reading. I must say what a very subdued Phil Twyford. In fact can I reflect—Scott Simpson: No passion.MATT DOOCEY: No exactly—no passion; no belief I think. You can just imagine Mr Twyford and the other Opposition members of Parliament being given their comms notes for this bill this morning and thinking: Really? Is that what I'm going to have to say to a bill that will remove livestock from waterways that will simplify planning rules and bring in national planning templates as well as improve capacity planning for much-needed residential housing?".When I reflect on what has happened in the Waimakariri since the earthquakes—under the Land Use Recovery Plan the Government was able to step in and free up land. What we know is that when we free up land it increases supply which equals demand. When you look at needing some space for 18000 houses—we have gone on to rebuild 23000 houses with annual house price inflation of only 1 or 2 percent. It shows quite rightly that when the authorities start to plan ahead and think about some of the constraints through land which are restricting housing for many New Zealanders—that is the answer and that is exactly what this bill will do.This is the second reading. We went through the select committee stage—and I must acknowledge the very hard-working Scott Simpson who is the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—for a very big bill. We dealt with 764 submissions. Let us not forget our former deputy chair Sarah Dowie and our new deputy chair Andrew Bayly for shepherding this bill through the legislative process. There were 86 submissions from businesses 544 from individuals 57 from local government and 44 from environmental and community groups.I just want to finish with a quote from one of the submissions from Dame Margaret Bazley from Environment Canterbury. She talks about supporting this bill "including the addition of significant risks from natural hazards as a matter of national importance" as well as "the new function for regional councils to ensure sufficient development capacity to meet long-term demand for urban development." The submission also goes on to say that Environment Canterbury supports the two proposed new planning process options and the provisions for involving iwi in policy and plan development. That is why in this second reading I support this bill in the House."
Hayes JoJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to refute everything that that member across the House the Hon Ruth Dyson has just said because I believe that the changes that are coming through this bill are going to be very beneficial for all councils and all the people of this country.We have taken a two-phase approach to reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA). The first round was the implementation of the Environmental Protection Authority. Through that the authority was able to deal with nationally significant infrastructure consents. It was able to speed up that process. Through this first round there has been the opportunity for it to tighten up around enforcement and to look at fines for non-compliance. There are so many great things that the Environmental Protection Authority has done in the first round of the RMA process.Our second round included some interesting points because contrary to what the Greens said about better planning this particular bill has given an opportunity for excellent planning—not just better planning but some excellent planning—within both regional and local councils. We have also looked at the consenting process—making that process much simpler for organisations and for individuals to actually get their consents through the council. We are recognising affordable housing areas. We all know that there is a housing shortage in this country and through this bill our Minister the Hon Nick Smith has done an amazing job in addressing the consenting processes for affordable housing. We need housing in our big cities and in other cities in this country and this bill is actually going to speed up that process.There have been other areas within this bill that my colleagues have covered especially the member Andrew Bayly around te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. I just want to remind the House that it is in law—as in l-a-w not as in l-o-r-e. So when I start to look at this bill I see its alignment to the other Acts and therefore there is a smooth transition for the passing of this bill and for it to be fully enacted. I have no hesitation but to commend it to the House. Thank you.
Bayly Andrew; Tisch LindsayANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Before I start I too just want to acknowledge what has been going on particularly in my electorate of Hunua and also in west Auckland and Coromandel with the extreme floods that we have had up there. I just want to acknowledge the fantastic work of all the fire services the police the contractors clearing the roads etc. and the way the community all came together to help one another.I just want to pick up a little bit around what the previous speaker Denis O'Rourke has just been raising. He made the claim that New Zealand First came to the select committee hearings willing to consider this bill constructively. I do just want to point out that I understand that the Rt Hon Winston Peters waltzed around Northland telling everyone that he would support National in passing a Resource Management Act bill. Why is it that when I read the report from New Zealand First it is opposed to virtually everything in this bill? Not just one thing but virtually everything. I have got to say if we are talking about how we say and keep our word this is something that National is continuing to do with this bill.I just want to spend a little bit of time talking about the Mana Whakahono a Rohe" otherwise known as the "Iwi Participation Arrangements". Courts have previously determined that iwi have a right to be involved in consents. That is a long-established legal precedent that has been tested and it is a legal issue. It is case law. One of the other things that courts have defined is that iwi have a right to be involved in consents—not enforcement and not in monitoring but they have a legal right to be involved in consents.So what this bill seeks to achieve is to actually clarify those rights. What it does is it sets out the arrangement by which either party being either the council or the iwi or the hapū may enter into an agreement. I use the word "may" and the word "may" is actually in the bill. It is not a compulsory thing. Furthermore there is no legal obligation on the council to actually sign an agreement with an iwi or hapū. Unfortunately some members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and this House do not spend the time looking at the bill.One other thing I just want to draw your attention to is that there is a specific clause in the bill that precludes any possibility—which some members have asserted—that councils will be held to ransom if they do not sign an agreement. There is a specific clause in the bill that says that iwi cannot continue to withhold consent from consents while negotiation processes are under way. Those are very powerful conditions and clauses set out in this bill but unfortunately a lot of the debate that we hear from members in this House is ill-informed and in fact—worse than that; worse than being ill-informed—just downright mischievous.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Julie Anne Genter—5 minutes."
Thursday 10 November 2016 - Volume 718
Resource Legislation Amendment Bill — Recommittal (continued)
VoteMr SPEAKER: A party vote has been called—[Interruption] Order! I ask the Clerk to conduct a party vote which will be conducted in silence.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — Discharge
VoteMr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Clerk. I gave a warning before that votes are conducted in silence and I will take a very dim view of members not adhering to that. I will be asking people to leave. I am sorry to interrupt the vote but it is a serious matter.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 59New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.Vote corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 63.
12. Pest Control—Wilding ConifersSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of ConservationPest Control—Wilding Conifers12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Conservation: What announcements has she made on tackling the problem of wilding conifers?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Budget 2016 allocated an additional $16 million over 4 years to the Ministry for Primary Industries the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Land Information New Zealand to aid efforts to control the spread of wilding conifers which are the most challenging and destructive weed problem this country faces. Last week I announced a $730000 boost for wilding control across half a million hectares in Marlborough and North Canterbury at Molesworth and Āmuri. This will enable a significant expansion of work funded by the Crown and local and regional councils to tackle this awful problem of containing the spread of new trees removing those already established and replanting where necessary.Stuart Smith: What further funding will be announced?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: My colleagues the Hon Nathan Guy the Hon Louise Upston and the Hon Nicky Wagner are all making separate announcements over the coming weeks. In total more than $5 million of new funding will be put into wilding control this year in Canterbury Marlborough Central Otago northern Southland and Kaimanawa. Wildings are enemy No. 1 in the annual Dirty Dozen of DOC's ongoing War on Weeds programme. That is to focus attention on the suffocation of our native forests or eco-invaders and garden escapees that do not belong here and are doing irreparable damage.Stuart Smith: Why are wildings so damaging to New Zealand's environment and primary industries?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Wildings grow rapidly and destroy habitat for native plants and animals. They take over entire landscapes and if left unchecked would cover 25 percent of our country by 2040. They also destroy farmland and take away large amounts of water from the catchments. Once established they are extremely difficult and expensive to eradicate with the cost rising dramatically. Removing young seedlings before they start producing seeds costs less than $10 per hectare but removing mature trees can cost $10000 per hectare—money spent at any good price to get rid of some of the Opposition wildings which are also out of place in this landscape.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We were enjoying that so much. Could you give the member another question please?Mr SPEAKER: No I cannot.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I assume that question time has expired.Mr SPEAKER: I am about to announce that but if the member has got a point of order then I will hear it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: No it will have to follow your announcement.
10. Saudi Agri-hub—Auditor-General's ReportHon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign AffairsSaudi Agri-hub—Auditor-General's ReportHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I seek leave to hold over my question to a day when the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in the House.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.10. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he agree with the Auditor-General's finding regarding the Saudi sheep deal that his Cabinet paper had significant shortcomings and Cabinet was provided a lack of robust analysis"; if so does he accept responsibility for failing to provide Cabinet with a robust analysis and quality information?Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I agree with all the findings of the Auditor-General's report particularly the finding that "The arrangements entered into were a lawful use of public resources and public money was spent with appropriate financial authorities in place."Hon David Parker: Did the Minister of Foreign Affairs seek advice from the Attorney-General on whether there was any realistic prospect of any legal claim by Al Ali Khalaf succeeding before paying him $4 million cash and paying $6 million for a farm in the desert?Hon TODD McCLAY: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's (MFAT's) legal division provided advice on the issue relating to the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership. I cannot say more about the content of that advice; to do so would waive legal privilege which is not the Government's practice. However what Ministers have said previously is that MFAT officials advised that Mr Al Ali Khalaf had received advice suggesting he could pursue a claim of between $20 million and $30 million. This advice was reflected in the February 2013 Cabinet paper. This is also acknowledged in the Auditor-General's report on page 8 where the Auditor-General found it was a matter of fact—Hon David Parker: Answer the question. It was a very specific question.Hon TODD McCLAY: —that the Al-Khalaf Group "indicated that it considered it should be paid compensation of $24 million."Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: We have got two courses of action. I can just explain that the question was whether the Minister sought advice from the Attorney-General. The answer was very interesting but it certainly has not in any way tackled the question.Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you. I do not have all of that information before me but what may assist the member is that the Government did not fully scope the risk associated with litigation or a compensation negotiation because we had from the outset ruled out this option. The Cabinet paper did not analyse the consequences of a process that had been expressly ruled out.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question?Hon David Parker: There is just no point asking more supplementary questions without the Minister here."
4. Health Services—First Specialist AssessmentsJOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—First Specialist Assessments4. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 10376 extra orthopaedic First Specialist Assessments were carried out in 2015/16 compared with the 43251 carried out in 2008/09 meaning a total 53627 orthopaedic assessments were carried out?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes I can. Increasing access to specialist care remains a priority for this Government. As New Zealanders live longer lives access to elective surgery becomes more important. There is always more to be done and the answer to increasing demand is to do more which this Government is doing.Joanne Hayes: How has doing more assessment resulted in an increase in surgical discharges or orthopaedic services?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This uplift has been accompanied by a continuing increase in the number of people receiving elective orthopaedic surgery. In 2015-16 there were 24737 orthopaedic operations 6500 more than were performed in 2007-08—an increase of 35000—and that is very significant.Hon Member: Here we go.Hon Annette King: Yes how about another one? Is doing more first specialist appointments the only result he is interested in considering that 10 district health boards have done fewer orthopaedic operations in 2015-16 compared with the year before?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well there is a wide range of results that we look at across the system including the 6000 extra doctors and nurses we have in the system. There is the uplift in elective surgery the uplift in first specialist assessments and there are more children getting access to primary care through the under-13s free policy—and of course that is taking pressure off our emergency departments resulting in better health for children under 13 all round. So yep I welcome the question because the member knows that actually we are delivering much better results than she was ever able to do and that is quite a legacy for her.
Motions — United States 2016 Presidential Election—Congratulations
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 14.Motion agreed to.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — Third Reading