edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Fair enough. Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. So we are supporting the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. I think there are members' bills that are discrete and ambitious—they can be both—and this is this at least meets one of those criteria; it's a discrete bill. As a former duty manager on an on-licensed premises I think it's worth acknowledging the role that people at the front line who actually work at premises where alcohol is sold play to minimise the harm that alcohol causes. And I think this bill is actually a good example of acknowledging that a drug can cause harm but that prohibition isn't the answer. Rather sensible regulation is the way forward. In some ways I wish the arguments that have been used to describe how we regulate alcohol applied to other drugs as well.But in relation to this bill I think we do want to acknowledge the sensible changes that have been brought forward to make sure that this is a workable bill and that actually the health of our communities is taken into account. I think particularly the way to work around having the provision of snacks and water goes a long way towards that because it's not just about how this bill can benefit businesses but how we can protect staff against intoxicated members of the public who ultimately would be engaging at wineries. The provision of snacks and water actually create a protective factor as well for the front-line staff who will be working at these wineries. So these are sensible additions to the bill that we do support.I think there are some worthwhile concerns that were raised around who could be caught up in this bill. I acknowledge that the Justice Committee obviously has made it really clear that some of the retailers that could be captured are not intended to be captured. I think this is one of those things that we'll just have to keep an eye on and see how it works. If we need to continue doing regulation then we may just have to do that.At the end of the day I think it's important to acknowledge yes wineries play a big role in our economy. It's been a growing sector for a while and we do have a huge number of staff who I think deserve to protected. So I just want to commend the work of the select committee to find ways to create amendments to protect those staff members. So we commend this bill to the House.
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Every time I stand to contribute to a piece of legislation that has to do with focusing on behaviour that harms or behaviour that disrespects or disregards the rights of others I always think that it's a sad time. Here we are having to legislate to stop people from causing harm to other people.The child sex offender situation is on a constant escalation path. It is prevalent in many countries. It goes in many different forms. I echo the member Greg O'Connor's view that for the most part the scary part is that offenders are often known to their victims. They are known they exercise some authority or control or nearness—they are able to perpetuate their behaviour with people sometimes their own family members sometimes people that have been entrusted to their care. But that range of offending goes all the way across into a more you know syndicated planned organised manner where people travel to many countries for the purpose of child sexual abuse.The worst of it is that this kind of heinous activity and crime is targeted at children who have no opportunity to defend themselves and who are absolutely vulnerable to the advances of people who either have authority over them or gain authority over them in terms of you know financial reward—sometimes not even to the little children but to the families that they come from—because of poverty. So here we are trying to make a dent in that space.The Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill seeks to amend section 21 of the principal Act which is the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act of 2016. It has to do with requiring registered or registrable child sex offenders—people who have already been convicted of the offence—to provide additional information should they wish to travel. It is of note that the bill also specifies that if travel from say their registered address in New Zealand then they are asked to inform where they're going when they're going when they're leaving where they will be going.So the added information including information about their details allows New Zealand to track where they are and enables overseas authorities to also do the same. Because of this we can accomplish the objective of somehow making a dent on that on this world of hideous filth. I commend this bill to the House.
10. Question No. 10—JusticeCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 10—Justice10. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What target has the Government set for a reduction in violent crime?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Prime Minister announced on Monday that the Government has set a target to see a reduction in the number of people who are the victims of an assault robbery or sexual assault by 20000. By setting a focused and ambitious target to reduce the number of victims of crime we can focus attention resources and accountability towards achieving better results.Cameron Brewer: Why does this Government want to see a reduction in violent crime?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It's important that all New Zealanders feel safe in their homes and in their communities. It's estimated that around 185000 Kiwis or 4.4 percent of the population are victims of an assault robbery or sexual assault and we don't regard that as normal or acceptable. The previous Government targeted reducing the prison population while violent crime increased. We have changed the target to reduce the number of victims of crime.Cameron Brewer: What steps have already been taken to help reach the target to see a reduction in violent crime?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well the Government's already taken a number of steps including the introduction of a significant legislative package aimed at tackling gangs; we're boosting the powers of police to search gang members and other high-risk offenders in addition to providing more access to rehabilitation for people on demand; and we've stopped funding for cultural reports.Cameron Brewer: What steps are next to help reach the target to see a reduction in victims of violent crime?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We're restoring the three-strikes legislation that the previous Government repealed showing that we will not tolerate repeat violent offending in our communities. We'll give judges additional tools to deal with serious repeat youth offenders including military-style academies. We'll also limit excessive sentencing discounts so penalties actually fit the crime. There are of course many factors that have contributed to an increase in violent crime in our communities but one of the immediate tools available to us is to restore real consequences for crime.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How will his gang patch legislation assist in achieving those targets when advice provided to him by the Ministry of Justice on 27 November states clearly that there's no strong evidence to show that such actions work to reduce long-term offending and in fact risks making it more difficult to change offending behaviours and may drive an increase in gang numbers?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think it was the mixed attitude towards gangs over the past six years that led—a contributor no doubt—to a 50 percent increase in gang membership in our community. And so I think everybody acknowledges the negative impact that gang membership and intimidation in our communities have on our towns and our communities. And so that bill is designed to give the police extra powers to deal with gang intimidation and that will help.
7. Question No. 7—HealthDANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about shorter wait times for elective treatment?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Speaker. Earlier this week the Prime Minister launched ambitious health targets as part of the Government's target suite. This will help improve the lives of all New Zealanders. One of these targets was shorter wait times for elective treatment. This target aims to see 95 percent of people wait less than four months for their elective treatments. This won't be easy but the Government is committed to improving the lives of all New Zealanders through better more efficient public services. We look to deliver the public services that New Zealanders deserve.Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is an elective target important?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This target was chosen because the treatment times that we used to expect and achieve just six years ago have reduced. Wait times for elective treatments have turned into a highly stressful experience with patients having no certainty as to when they will receive access to the care that they need. As of September 2023 only 62 percent of patients waited less than four months for their elective treatments down significantly from around 97 percent in late 2017. This is not good enough and we want to deliver better care.Dana Kirkpatrick: Is this target too ambitious given the current state of the health system?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This target is not meant to be easy to achieve. We're not here to do what is easy; we're here to do what is needed. Despite the very hard work of our front-line health workforce over the past six years our wait times have continued to grow. That's why we are taking a different approach by putting targets back at the forefront of our decision making. These targets will direct attention and resources and set a clear agenda for where our health system should be heading.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does his ambition include a reduction in the ESPI 5 or planned care treatment wait list in the coming financial year?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Our ambitions are to improve all of the wait times that we announced in our targets and as we have said the baseline will be set as of 1 July 2024.Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the Government track progress against this target?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We last achieved 95 percent between early 2015 and the end of 2017 so we know it's possible. The health agencies will report results each quarter with the first quarterly result expected to be for the July to September 2024 period. This reporting will be robust to ensure we can target resources appropriately.
3. Question No. 3—Prime MinisterCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 3—Prime Minister3. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes and especially our announcement of nine priority targets including reducing New Zealand's net greenhouse gas emissions to align with our 2050 net zero climate goal. Of course we're going to achieve that by fast-track consenting so we can get more renewable energy like windfarms built we're going to remove the GE ban to empower our world-class agriscientists to actually manage methane emissions down and of course we're going to restore integrity to the emissions trading scheme.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his answer to me at question time yesterday that the Climate Change Commission's draft advice on biogenic methane is speculation"?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't think I expressed it in those terms.Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order Mr Speaker. I can quote directly from the Hansard—SPEAKER: Hang on wait until I call you.Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Point of order Chlöe Swarbrick.Chlöe Swarbrick: I would quote directly from the Hansard in which the Prime Minister responded to a direct quote from the Climate Change Commission's report.SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.Chlöe Swarbrick: All right Mr Speaker may I have another supplementary then to probe this point?SPEAKER: Certainly not an extra one. Carry on.Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he understand the role of the Climate Change Commission to be?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well it provides important advice to the Government about the state of climate change in New Zealand.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he then agree with the Climate Change Commission who said on Monday and I quote "there has not be an important or notable change in the understanding of the physical science on methane and how it warms the atmosphere"; or is he to extend his logic also to reopen the science on say gravity?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't know how to answer the last part of that question but what I would just say is that we are determined to make sure that we update the science base on methane. It has changed over the last five years. It's changed over the last 10 years. It will change in the next five years and in the next 10 years. It's important that we get a common base of understanding of science knowledge so we can set the right targets.Hon Marama Davidson: Science denier.SPEAKER: Just wait—OK.Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is wrong with the Climate Change Commission's science such that the Government feels compelled to open a secondary review on the science of methane?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry—I missed the question.SPEAKER: Could the member ask the question again?Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the Prime Minister consider is wrong with the Climate Change Commission's science on methane?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Nothing particularly. We have two reviews going on answering slightly different questions to make sure that we get a common understanding of the science base."
Wednesday 27 March 2024 - Volume 774
Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill — In Committee
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move That debate on this question now close.Motion agreed to.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Yes. Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister of Transport two further questions that relate to the Amendment Papers and look just to thank the Minister for his engagement in this committee stage in a back and forth that was also the mood of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee room. It was a robust discussion about some of these issues particularly plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVS) and I'm glad that we could continue that on in the committee tonight.The two remaining questions that the committee needs to know before voting on these Amendment Papers—and you know this is in the context of Labour members having tentative support for the Minister's proposal now and intending to vote for the bill so it is important for us to appreciate you know whether anything will be amended about it. The two questions are: what will the change in the rate of PHEVS save owners of PHEVS per annum on average? I appreciate that the Minister might not have an exact figure for different types of PHEVS and there is some variance in that but I'm seeking to understand what an ordinary PHEV user can expect to save because of that. And then conversely what does the change of rate from the $53 per 1000 kilometres proposed in the original bill to the $38 per 1000 kilometres in this current bill cost the land transport budget? Once we understand those answers I'm sure that we can agree to some level of support for this bill. We've made some changes here which will be long-lasting for people until—you know we don't have an answer on when Cabinet will consider the universal road-user charge for all vehicles but we look forward to debating that with the Minister then in the same spirit that he has engaged in this committee stage.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to take a call. And I want to thank members for the questions. There's been a number of questions. Arena Williams asked about the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) rate and where it was initially set. The intention was to aim for parity with the road-user charges (RUC) rate based on average fuel efficiency plus some consideration for the actual real-life experience of these engines and their efficiency which is often not the same as what the manufacturers state.However as has been outlined in my earlier replies and also my second reading speech on this bill and my first reading speech we sent it to select committee to test the logic and the evidence on that particular issue. And whilst the 30 percent reduction rate of course was based on the average fuel efficiency of these vehicles there is a range of fuel efficiency particularly with some of the older plug-in hybrids and a fairer approach would be to further reduce that to a 50 percent reduction which is what Cabinet agreed to. So we're a Government which listens. As I said we sent it to select committee to test that. That was one of the key issues that we wanted to test. In terms of the questions in relation to Camilla Belich around the process. Ultimately Cabinet made the decision—I think it was last Monday—in relation to that particular issue. In terms of the pace at which we're moving that is because the exemption ran out on 1 April so this legislation needs to be put in place prior to 1 April. As I've mentioned earlier if we weren't making this change and as the last Government left things those plug-in vehicles would be having to pay a full RUC rate on 1 April.Tom Rutherford: They only consulted on 20 percent as well.Hon SIMEON BROWN: As member Tom Rutherford mentions they only consulted when they were in Government on a 20 percent RUC reduction and they didn't do anything following that. So we're fixing lots of problems with this legislation. Thank you very much.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chairman. One of the questions I'd like to ask the Minister is does he think that the added bureaucracy of road-user charge (RUC) versus excise is added bureaucracy and added costs for average kiwis? I would suggest it is and I think the Government has to front up to that. Can I ask a couple of questions because very light electric vehicles' RUC—and they will be exempt—that's under a tonne or 1000 kilograms. We don't see so many of them here but innovative inventions offshore mainly around Asia where speeds on the roads are lower and we see a lot of creative vehicles. My question would be are we through this bill incentivising the importation or the utilisation of those vehicles? And does that add some safety challenges or dilemmas for us on open roads? Or are we going to restrict where they may or may not be? We've just seen moves on scooters—you know on or off the footpath? Are they safe or not? Helmets or not? And so we're very creative and people will work on ways of utilising laws to incentivise commercial opportunities—I'm sure the Government will do that. Does that mean that they will allow the importation of vehicles under a tonne electric vehicles that will be able to be used across the wider roading network creating I would suggest because they probably run at lower speeds—we've seen you know even with internal combustion engines we've seen a lot more people in smaller cars out in the open road. Look I try to be considerate but they are usually travelling at about 80 kilometres an hour or slower speeds; they do create some congestion and some danger. If we end up with e-vehicles in a similar manner we may add to that safety concern. So it's a genuine question for the Minister whether it's been considered what is the likelihood of those under-1000 kilogram electric vehicles coming into New Zealand and being used and how will we manage that? And then differentiating between you know are they 980 kilograms or are they 1200 kilograms? Such things will be relevant to the police officers who will be out on the roads trying to police this new RUC system.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I won't talk too long on this legislation at this stage but just thought I'd give some reassurance that indeed the primary purpose here is to recognise the fact that I think most New Zealanders understand that people who drive on the roads should contribute to the cost of the maintenance and building of those roads. For a long period of time we've had electric vehicles not paying directly as a means to encourage people into buying those electric cars. But there obviously would come a point and there has come a point where a significant number of New Zealanders were in that category and if we continued to exempt electric cars then the flow of money to maintain the roads would dwindle over time. So I don't think anybody expected the exemption of electric vehicles to continue for ever and so that's what the Government is doing through this legislation to ensure that all the owners of vehicles on the road contribute to it.Now in terms of the plug-in electric vehicles there was a change made. Of course I think as everybody recognises there are a wide variety of experiences on the plug-in hybrids as to how much they are operating under electric conditions as opposed to the petrol side of the car. And if you're in a very modern plug-in hybrid and just doing short trips you might end up spending virtually all your time on electric propulsion; if you're in an old one in a rural environment you might spend almost all of your time on petrol. And so it is a judgment to be made as to what would be the appropriate discount and the Government has on reflection decided to make changes. And of course we don't regard these as matters of minor political winning or losing; it's a matter of what's best for the country. So I acknowledge the work across the House on that issue.I would also reassure members who have asked the question about whether it's still the Government's intention to carry on with a wider review of the road-user charges—extending that to all vehicles. As the Minister has indicated he's expecting advice on that by the middle of the year and has made it clear to officials that he expects to be moving at pace on that issue as quickly as possible. Of course there are lots of challenges in the design of such a system. At the moment when people pay their petrol taxes they do it at the pump when they actually pay the petrol and it's very hard to avoid that. With road-user charges it's more complicated and so you've got to have a system that is robust. And so we're working at pace to look at that broader issue so that we can achieve as best we can equity across the fleet in terms of ensuring that cars that do damage to the road—and there's a variation of course between light vehicles and heavy vehicles and they pay a different rate and that is a good system that is a good way to operate. So I hope that answers some of the questions that have been raised.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Just a couple of other questions I have. And I know that the Government—and we share their celebration—has announced of course the implementation and ratification of the New Zealand-EU free-trade agreement. There are some obligations in that actually that we both—that is the EU 450 million people and New Zealand 5 to 6 million or whatever it'll be—commit to the Paris commitments to reduce our emissions. And so the question I have—and the Minister didn't answer it before—is about whether the Government still has a clear commitment to decarbonise our transport fleet. Because it's the biggest area arguably. Agriculture is a block of emissions; it's a biological challenge. This is an area where people have options and we hope that the Government is committed to targets towards 2030 because if we don't meet those targets and indeed if the EU think that we are backing away from them by reducing incentives to move to electric vehicles (EVs) then we can be challenged. I'm not sure that a massive shutdown of trade opportunities is likely but it is an ongoing discussion. So those obligations we have are important and I want to know from the Minister whether there's a clear commitment to decarbonise and if so what's the track towards 2030?And the other one is a question I have to raise because it's again in the same vein. I have a huge amount of respect for the Hon Simon Bridges who's just been appointed to be chairman of Waka Kotahi. But he's also been an advocate for the trucking industry. And I know how essential trucking is around our country but the costs of course—we're all trying to reduce them. And the question I had for the Minister before was around the disproportionate impact on the roads. And I know that road-user charges (RUC) are made up of a balance of these things but I'm wanting to make sure that the new chair is going to ensure a fair approach to this in terms of the small vehicles which I would argue have been paying a greater portion of the RUC so that the balance is right as we go forward. We hear from the Minister and his colleagues that we're a kind of market-led economy and we're open and balanced and we've got to have everything fair. Well fair impact fair cost fair imposition of expenses on the roading network should be paid for by those sections of the transport industry that do the damage. So it's a question I have.Can the Minister perhaps pop up and answer those to reassure us firstly about the targets and secondly that there's no potential impacts of reducing incentives for EVs which the Motor Trade Association has clearly stated is the outcome of this. Will that impact on our trade obligations and secondly is the Minister committed to assessing and rebalancing where necessary the user-pays approach to road damage?
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I will repeat my question because the Minister still has not addressed it: did the Minister read the submission from the industry group—the joint submission to the select committee from the Automobile Association the Motor Industry Association the Vehicle Importers Association the Motor Trade Association Drive Electric and others? Did he look at the calculations that they did that said the proposed road-user charge (RUC) rate would create a significant disparity between small vehicles paying fuel excise duty towards the roads and electric vehicles paying RUC?There's a huge anomaly that will be created by this where someone using an electric vehicle which is usually relatively small to drive between Auckland and Wellington will pay twice as much as a comparable fossil fuel vehicle that is paying fuel excise duty. Therefore the industry group has recommended a reduced rate for RUC for electric vehicles of $60 per 1000 kilometres. Did the Minister consider that? Does the Minister think it's important to try and have a comparable rate between fossil vehicles paying fuel excise duty and electric vehicles paying for the use of the roads? Does he think it's fair that electric vehicles that are helping to reduce New Zealand's transport emissions are going to pay twice as much to use the roads as a comparable fossil fuel vehicle?Mark Cameron: They do more damage.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: They do not do more damage. We're talking about vehicles that are the same weight and so therefore is it fair that they should pay twice as much when they're the same weight as a fossil fuel vehicle paying fuel excise duty—that they pay twice as much to use the roads?Hon Judith Collins: Aren't they heavier?Mark Cameron: Yes.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: This is what the vehicle industry themselves brought in the evidence to the select committee. Perhaps the Government members do not respect or acknowledge the expertise in the vehicle industry in New Zealand and that's why they're saying things that are at odds with what the vehicle industry is saying.I reiterate one more time so that maybe the Minister will answer. Did the Minister read the joint submission and consider the aspect of fairness between small vehicles paying fuel excise duty and electric vehicles paying RUC and would he consider reducing the RUC rate for electric vehicles to $60 per 1000 kilometres? And if so will he support my Amendment Paper No. 25 which is doing exactly what was recommended by the industry with significant calculations to support that proposed rate?
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to ask the question that I think most of my constituents would want to know the answer to: does it still make sense economically for people to buy an electric vehicle if they are in that setting given the law that we're going to pass?I'd like to acknowledge that there was really good work done by the select committee over the issue of plug-in hybrids and I'm not sure that a lot of people who are just ordinary people in the constituency would quite understand why that was important work. So I would ask the Minister to explain in his answers why there was as I understand it a double-whammy if we had not had that change and how the balance has been struck in the work of the committee. My understanding is that the submitters were really concerned about that but also misunderstood that. So they hadn't understood that there'd be a refund given to them if they had a plug-in hybrid for the proportion that was allocated to one form of use of fuel which would have been petrol where they were already paying tax. So it would be really nice if the Minister could explain that but also answer the plain question: is it still economically sensible to buy an electric vehicle? Is it still economically sensible to buy a hybrid vehicle?It does really dovetail into the questions that I've heard from other people about what are the wider frameworks that this sits within in terms of making sure that that is still the best choice for people if they have a capacity to buy those vehicles. I know that's an issue in my area and there are people making those decisions every day. And there's been an issue with those cars really. We've protected them from those charges because it has been a good incentive to do so. I understand that that policy one day had to change because everybody uses the roads. And I think probably most constituents would understand that that day would come but I think that we still need to understand and really that is a basic way of grounding the question: what is the implication for people and how does this work within the rest of the framework? Thank you.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to take a call on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill.As the committee will know the purpose of this bill is about ensuring that vehicles which use our roads are contributing towards maintaining them. That includes electric vehicles which up until 1 April have received an exemption. This bill deals with the issues that have arisen due to the fact that that exemption ends on 1 April including ensuring there is a transition for those vehicles to move into the road-user charge system so those have two months to buy their road-user charge (RUC) licence. It also creates a new definition and rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles rather than requiring them to purchase RUC at the full rate. It exempts light electric vehicles weighing one tonne or less from paying road-user charges. So this is a relatively narrow bill.A couple of questions have come through so far from members. The bill is in a better position and the Government has agreed that there should be a lower plug-in hybrid rate. That is why we sent it to select committee to test that issue and Cabinet agreed that the rate should be $38. That issue arises by the fact that plug-in hybrids use both petrol and electricity and the need to ensure that it is a fair approach towards how much those vehicles should pay. Ultimately lots of other questions have been raised around fuel economy: charging infrastructure other issues—fuel economy standards. Those aren't relevant to the bill.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. While the Minister considers the very concise question by my colleague Arena Williams I wanted to ask a question generally about the policy purpose of this bill. It seems that policy purpose is very limited. We have on the explanatory note that The Road User Charges … Amendment Bill … provides for light electric RUC vehicles (light EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric RUC vehicles (PHEVs) to pay road user charges (RUCs) from 1 April 2024." So my question to the Minister is: has he considered—or does he think that the bill should in fact include—other policy objectives? For instance we all know that road-user charges are here to fund the roads and that we've had the electric vehicles (EVs) not paying them for a while and that was to incentivise the uptake of those electric vehicles.However at the same time we had other policy initiatives such as the Clean Car Discount to encourage the uptake of those EVs. Of course we know why we want the uptake of the EVs and that is to decrease climate emissions. That would seem to be another good policy purpose. And also another policy to decrease emissions would be to encourage more use of public transport. Another policy initiative to decrease emissions would be to encourage and incentivise active transport—that is people walking or scootering or cycling. I noticed that in question time today there was some discussion around this ability for the Government with its current policy settings to decrease emissions.And the Prime Minister in answer to questions said the Government is going to meet its emissions budgets and it's going to do that in part by doubling renewable energy. And he also at the end of the question mentioned the fast-track bill and of course the fast-track bill has no environmental protections. The economic riders can override everything to do with the environment. And if it is this Government's intention that that fast-track bill is used to decrease emissions then can I suggest a consideration that that bill—I know I'm talking about a different bill here but it relates to an increase that we could have on the policy for this bill—be restricted to projects that will decrease carbon emissions.So if the Government is saying that we need more renewable energy—I don't disagree with that—then any fast-tracking provisions things for renewable electricity could be fast tracked. Things for public transport—maybe they could be fast tracked too. And that piece of legislation could be tied to emissions reductions which of course it is not.So my question to the Minister is whether he has considered other policies particularly in light of the earlier times that he sat in that seat when he's been removing the Clean Car Discount."
Tuiono Teanau; Simpson Scott; Williams ArenaROAD USER CHARGES (LIGHT ELECTRIC RUC VEHICLES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members the House is in committee on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill and the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. We come to the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill and we begin with the debate on Part 1.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Point of order Mr Chair. I seek leave for all parts to be debated as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? No objections. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I'm seeking to ask the Minister of Transport five questions. The first is: does the change to the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle rate as presented by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee make this better law?
Brownlee GerryHOUSE IN COMMITTEESPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill and the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill.
Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It's a pleasure to rise in support of the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. Like other Opposition MPs I'd like to welcome the National Party speakers to the right side of supporting this piece of legislation. I was looking at the Hansard record of the proceeding and there were some really interesting comments. But before I touch on some of those comments I did want to acknowledge the comments from my colleague Lawrence who spoke earlier around the importance of the independence of Māori and Pasifika funding sources and that those are determined by Māori and Pasifika for their own communities and also recognising the importance of the Ngarimu scholarships and how they actually resource and inspire Māori students and celebrate Māori achievement.Which then takes me to the other points of the speakers from the first reading because I think this bill is actually about lifting achievement. It is about celebrating and supporting Māori and Pasifika students. And yet in the first reading there were several comments from the Minister when she was in Opposition. She said Again some noble intentions but misses the main point of the fact that our kids can't do reading writing and math." And she also said "Nothing in this bill around achievement for Māori and Pasifika—again a missed opportunity." For example if we look at Penny Simmonds' comments in the first reading she said "Well here we are again debating things with little to do with education without hitting the real issues in the education sectors but however we'll have another go at it."I think to me this just talks about the need for members to engage with bills in a substantive way so that they actually look at the legislation in a way that is accurate. I don't know if it was submitters actually helping them to open their eyes or the advice that the Minister received now that she's in Government but I'm really pleased to see that now we've gotten to a place where we're all supporting this bill. And this will be one of the few times that I'll be commending the ACT Party because I was looking at the Hansard record and I'm glad to see that they had at least a consistent position in this piece of legislation which is great. We do support people being consistent with their values but when they're not at least it's good to see them come to the right side.But coming back to the bill. This is a bill that we are happy to support because ultimately what it does is it updates support that exists for Māori and Pacific students. It continues ensuring that we celebrate that achievement. And at the end of the day as Lawrence said there is more that we have to do to ensure that our education system is fully accessible for all but ultimately the things that we're updating here and maintaining the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory system still support that broader participation of people in the education system. For those reasons we commend this bill to the House."
Trask LauraLAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you. I stand in support of the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. This is essentially an omnibus bill and it's essential that we have our education regulatory systems fit for purpose. So we definitely stand in support of this.I acknowledge that they're just minor changes especially to the 28th Māori Battalion to preserve its mana into the future. Hardly any members of the battalion are still alive today so this update in the legislation will ensure that Māori soldiers or veterans are represented on the board for the future.In relation to the Pacific Education Foundation this bill will expand the list of Pacific people to encompass the true representation of who Pacific people are today here in New Zealand and who may now benefit. It updates the board's constitution and expenditure which hasn't actually been updated since 1972. So we feel that is very fair to do so.When it comes to the amendments to the Health and Safety at Work Act for the regulations to ensure that police vets and risk assessments are undertaken for workers at limited-attendance childcare centres before they begin work we feel that this is very fair. It will create consistency and will bring it in line with other children's workers' requirements. And that goes for the same thing around the safety checks. We think that it's very fair that the 18+ card is an acceptable form of identity with the Kiwi Access card as well to reflect the name change that has occurred.So a really short call but in essence we support this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Tinetti JanHon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to take a very short call on the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. As the Minister has pointed out this bill has a number of changes to several Acts and it really is one of those omnibus bills that tidies up some issues that have been seen and found within the legislation. It has made amendments to the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945 amendments to the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972 amendments to regulations of the Children's (Requirements for Safety Checks of Children's Workers) Regulations 2015 and the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016.Can I thank very much the work of the Education and Workforce Committee at the time in the last Parliament who took this work through. It's actually nearly a year to the day that the first reading of this bill occurred. It was 29 March when we had the first reading. So it's been a wee bit of time even though there were only nine written submissions and only three oral submissions for this particular bill.As the Minister has quite rightly pointed out most of the submissions were in favour of the bill. In fact some of those that were against the bill gave no reason why they were against it. It was just a flat: We don't agree with this bill." So most of the submissions that came in were very fulsome in favour of the bill itself. As the Minister has pointed out the select committee had very minor changes that came back that tidied it up somewhat that made it a bit more of a bill that people could see as usable and understanding of that bill.The one thing I will say is that when the first reading did occur almost a year ago the then Opposition members were quite scathing of this bill and didn't seem to think that it did much at all. I'm sure they understand now when they're on the other side that sometimes there are pieces of legislation that do make the legislation better. And it doesn't matter what they see as only minor changes to it it is important to the people for whom this legislation allows them to operate. And that's exactly why these changes have been made.So I did say that I was going to take a very short call on this. I think that the bill is a very good bill and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House."
Wednesday 31 January 2024 - Volume 773
New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Schedule 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Schedule 2 agreed to.
New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteNEW ZEALAND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION ACT REPEAL BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 30 January.Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill. When we were last considering the bill we were debating Part 1 Preliminary provisions" and Schedule 1. Once again the question is that Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Part 1 agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the following words be added to the Address: and expects over the next three years to see action on the cost of living pressure Kiwi families are facing with inflation falling faster than Treasury's pre-election projections interest rates falling real incomes continuing to grow near record-low unemployment being sustained the Government's books being returned to surplus at least as quickly as previously forecast the number of affordable homes built increased all those on State house waiting lists being accommodated significant reductions in crime climate emissions continuing to decline school attendance materially improving rates of literacy and numeracy amongst 15-year-olds improving and material improvements in the overall living standards of all New Zealanders." Anything less than those things will mean that this Government has failed to deliver on the promises that it made to New Zealanders."Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General in reply to Her Excellency's speech.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Address in Reply agreed to."
Address in Reply Debate (cont.)