edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It is with real pleasure that I see this Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill proceed through to its second reading. I must say that this is a real opportunity and it's an opportunity not to do as the previous speaker Stuart Smith would suggest and duplicate other tribunals but to create something new because the challenge in modern dispute resolution is to rebalance the huge inequalities between disputants whether that be insurance companies and homeowners banks and customers or whatever it might be. Mr Smith the MP for Kaikōura talked about natural justice and I just want to say that natural justice is not simply all about procedure. It's about enabling a correct a fair and a just outcome and having a procedure which can effect that. In some cases—and we know this from the criminal courts already—cross-examination doesn't get us there. In fact it's wasteful and it's an inaccurate way to try and get to the truth. So what we have here is a new kind of tribunal. It's not a rehash it's not one out of the same mould; it's one where experts can be used carefully but also kept in control so that the expense doesn't drive away litigants who need assistance. I see also that the tribunal will have the power itself to inspect damaged properties and the like and that's a great innovation because there's nothing quite like the tribunal receiving the evidence itself. So what we really are aiming towards is a tribunal that is tailored—tailored towards these specific circumstances. It's with some sadness that I note that there are still many hundreds or indeed thousands of unresolved claims in Christchurch still with various insurers and the Earthquake Commission but this is a significant step forward and I note that homeowners will be able to transfer cases out of the High Court or other courts into this tribunal. I hope they will seriously consider doing that because the tools available to this tribunal are quite different. They take into account the needs of the parties and the managed mediation service which is fully funded taking away another barrier to homeowners who might not have the means to pay for mediation services—that's another example of a situation where it can bring the parties together and work towards a resolution. That's not to say that there's not still hard questions of law and hard technical questions which will face this tribunal. Any decision-making process imposed on the parties will leave some people disappointed. So this isn't going to be some kind of panacea for everyone but it does give us a new a better an alternative process—one that uses new tools—and I'm very hopeful that when this is in place it can be seen as a new template particularly for consumer disputes where there are massive imbalances of power of wealth and of knowledge in these disputes. Can I commend the Governance and Administration Committee for its work. I think the bill's in great shape. It looks like it's a very workable piece of legislation and I doubt that there's much more work to be done on it at all. I commend this bill to the House.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise as the final speaker on this side of the House in this particular debate. I have to declare that I have not been part of the select committee process and I may not be as well versed on this particular bill as my colleagues but I have to say that as earlier speakers right throughout this House have actually said most of us like the idea of incentivising businesses to invest in research and development whether it's to promote their business or a product to advance the growth of New Zealand's economy. Having said that I was rather disturbed to hear during the interrupted debate last night about how the select committee process did not take place. Having actually been in this House for the last three terms—this is my fourth term—and having actually chaired different select committees I have never ever been in a position where as chair I have prevented an Opposition minority view being included in a select committee report to the House. I have to declare that I'm appalled by this Government's behaviour on that.Because the minority view was not attached to the main report the National Party's view on this bill was not attached to the select committee report back to the house. That means the public are actually not well versed on why we are opposing this bill. So I shall read some of the comments—from the minority view—that were made by my colleagues who were part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: The National Party supported the bill in the first reading as we see merit in exploring the potential for taxation to incentivise greater investment into R & D and to have the opportunity to explore [whether] the framework proposed by the Government would be the best way to do that [going forward]." It is actually clear members have said that this will not work for many companies and businesses because this bill gives no real visibility of what additional R & D spending will occur as a result of significant items of expenditure. One of the items in that National Party report that I am particularly appalled about is the fact that it says it is essential that businesses have certainty over the details. The minority view said: "The Government is determined to roll this policy out in 2019 and those that are pre-profit for now will be covered by temporary arrangements subject to review down the track because as [the] … officials [actually advised] the issues were too complex to resolve now." So it is far too complex for them to actually sort of say whether it's actually right or not. It seems really really strange and as I think Tamati Coffey said yesterday the select committee refused the report of our spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar because of one word—because they didn't like a particular word. I think it's time that this Parliament actually looked at the way select committees actually report back and I think it's essential that minority views are attached to the report-backs to this Parliament. I think it is appalling that the Government has behaved in this manner. I oppose this bill."
Goldsmith PaulTAXATION (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDITS) BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 10 April.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Mr Assistant Speaker thank you very much for this opportunity. Look the National Party is not supportive of this bill that's come to the House the Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill. Obviously most parties across the Parliament are supportive of some measure of support for research and development in the New Zealand economy. We have a massive contribution in terms of public science through universities and Crown Research institutes and many other areas. Previously the National Government made a very significant contribution to business research and development through the Callaghan Innovation grants system. There's a long and searing debate that can be had on the merits of tax credits versus a grants system. The primary advantage of a grants system is that a country can know how much it's going to spend and budget for it and then in an open and transparent way figure out how that is going to be spent. With an R & D tax credit it's much harder to figure out how much it's going to cost over time. It's great for accountants but it's not good for start-up companies. In particular if you're not making profits for 10 years and you're needing cash now in order to grow your business then you're going to much prefer a grant system more than you are a tax rebate system if you're nowhere near profit. So that has been the very strong feedback from most of the businesses in the start-up sphere; they're concerned about this proposal. Now there's loose talk about some kind of way of dealing with that problem for start-up companies but we haven't seen anything substantial yet from Government. What we have seen is talk of introducing a capital gains tax that would be even more difficult for that important group of innovators in this economy. So on that basis we are not convinced this is a sensible piece of legislation and I think that sort of summarises our thoughts quite clearly. Thank you very much.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media) on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: I move That the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill be reported to the House by 26 August 2019. Motion agreed to.
New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill — First Reading
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Look it's an absolute privilege to make a contribution after that fantastic performance from Mr Eagle. Now look just on this establishment of an infrastructure commission broadly I think this is a great concept. We've seen a lot of change over the last couple of years in terms of the direction of some of the infrastructure projects with the change of Government. What we need more broadly is greater consistency and greater certainty to allow and facilitate that investment in our infrastructure projects. Ones of particular importance and priority for me are around roads around broadband and around schools.In the Waikato we've been very fortunate recipients of investment in infrastructure over a period of time now through the last Government—in particular roads of national significance and the Waikato Expressway a very important project linking Auckland down into the greater Waikato region. That in part came about because of the foresight of local MPs along with local territorial authorities some years ago getting in behind and having a bit of a strategy a talk-through of development and some vision around what progress in infrastructure might look like in that region.Now that's the sort of longer-term view we need to be taking with a number of these particular projects because the risk is obviously with a change in Government you can see fantastic projects such as roads of national significance turfed out for some other projects. Whilst those priorities can be debated of course the reality is that it creates uncertainty and what we really need to be delivering in infrastructure is longer-term certainty in those areas. Again in the Waikato we have significant growth happening at the northern end near the Bombays and that's an area where we really need to see some concerted effort around crystallising a longer-term plan for investment in infrastructure.Broadband is another key one that we've benefited from in the Waikato but also we've seen some massive progress around the country in that space for a number of years now. It has really benefited our potential our capacity and our economic growth as well when businesses can be located in a fantastic region like the Waikato and not necessarily in Auckland but still have the ability to connect into their customer networks through good roading access but also good internet connectivity. These are really important aspects that need to be considered at a longer-term view.With that in mind those are just a few of the aspects of pertinence in my area. We've already heard a number of other considerations canvassed around attracting overseas investment or the potential to do that through this commission. So I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): This bill the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill the National Party does support in terms of setting up an independent infrastructure committee. One of the key issues around the provision of infrastructure everybody in New Zealand recognises is that as a growing country and economy we need to continue to invest in all sorts of basic infrastructure in order to maintain a growing economy. One of the issues that we have is that it costs a lot in New Zealand per kilometre to build tunnels or roads or any element of the infrastructure. It's very expensive in New Zealand.So one of the useful things that any Government can do is to try and develop a pipeline of work going out 20 30 years so that international deliverers of this kind of infrastructure work—contractors—can come to New Zealand and compete so that we can have a wide range of world-class producers of good quality infrastructure here in New Zealand competing over an extended period. Otherwise if we sort of go one and then turn off for five years and do another and turn off for five years we struggle to attract that real international competition and things are much more expensive. So that was the thinking behind the Auckland Transport Alignment Project which the previous Government put together for the first time getting agreement between the Auckland Council and the Government about what the priority projects were in transport so that you had a pipeline and so that international contractors could come in. The problem was of course that no sooner had we got that all together than there was a change of Government. Phil Twyford comes along and changes all the priorities—throws out the East-West Link turns off a whole bunch of things and turns on a light rail. So that makes us a little bit nervous about this because they haven't demonstrated goodwill in terms of maintaining that integrity of a pipeline of work over an extended period of time which people can have comfort about.Our hope is that this independent commission can bring a little bit more sensibleness to the discussion so that we can look far out into the future and have general agreement about a number of things that need to be done over an extended period so that we have that pipeline and so that we can get more efficiency into the provision of infrastructure in New Zealand. We can only spend each dollar once and if we can get much more out of every dollar that we spend by having a good competitive environment that would make a difference.So we're very much up for the discussion. We support the proposal. We're looking forward to having a robust debate through the course of the select committee so that we can come up with a system that works well but ultimately its success depends on the discipline of future Governments. If decisions around infrastructure are made on a highly ideological basis then it becomes difficult to have that unity across the House. So that's where my plea would be to this Government: to be focused on robust economic analysis of the outcomes of the investment that we're seeing in infrastructure. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. There's much in this New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill that National does support. I think that the framework that the commission is proposing is something whose time has come. Previous members around the House have been pointing the finger at who did what and who didn't and what damage they might have done. Well that's all fine but I think that this infrastructure commission is really a reflection of the thinking of successive Governments around the provision of infrastructure for New Zealand. I think what I can support and what we can support in this proposed shape of the infrastructure commission—and it's not spoken of in the bill or the commentary but I'm sure that the select committee will explore this—is the ability that this provides potentially to get ahead of the issues. The previous speaker Gareth Hughes did mention climate change mitigation and that is very important and increasingly emerging as an issue that the Government and the Parliament need to consider in infrastructure going ahead 30 50 100 years and beyond. Now is the time where this Government and Parliament appreciates and understands that we need to evaluate all of those challenges whether it's climate change whether it is methods of investment. We favoured in our proposal public-private partnerships. That is not a philosophy that is necessarily shared by this particular Government but I believe our input into the select committee process on that will be interesting in exploring what that might look like in terms of getting ahead of that challenge—getting ahead of the wave—so that we are not always building and contemplating infrastructure in a reactive sense because when it is reactive which it is now with that comes priorities and funding challenges.We have got an opportunity—and we the biggest Opposition party and the biggest party in this Parliament will proactively work with the Government on this bill. We won't agree on everything and those issues will be teased out in select committee. But in this reading we do support this bill.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 11 APRIL 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today the House adjourns until Tuesday 30 April. Legislation that will be considered in that week will include the remaining stages of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill and the Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill the first reading of the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill and the committee stage of the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. Wednesday 1 May will be a members' day.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker and to the Leader of the House for giving us that indication of forward business but I am wondering if perhaps the Leader of the House might have given more consideration after more than 80 public statements to moving the member's order of the day No. 6—Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill (No 2)—further up the Order Paper in order that New Zealanders might be assured that absent of the 5G network they can watch the World Cup rugby this year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Can I congratulate the member on getting the number of the order of the day right this week which he didn't get last week. But I can assure him that the Government is not intending to adopt that as a Government item of business but of course if members across the House wanted to see it progress up the members' orders of the day then there are options for them to explore that.
Wednesday 10 April 2019 - Volume 737
Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Arms (Prohibited Firearms Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Arms (Prohibited Firearms Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
Arms (Prohibited Firearms Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203 in the name of Chris Bishop to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 1 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross. Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Amendments to the amendments not agreed to. The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in his name to clause 64 be agreed to: in the amendment to section 73(1) replace prohibited part ammunition or explosive" with "prohibited part ammunition or an explosive". Amendment to the amendment agreed to. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 as amended in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 1 be agreed to. Amendments as amended agreed to. Part 1 as amended agreed to. Part 2 agreed to. Schedule 1The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Schedule 1 be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. Schedule 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Schedule 2 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. Schedule 3The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in his name to Schedule 3 be agreed to: in the item relating to cross-heading above regulation 20A after "firearms" insert "prohibited";after the item relating to regulation 28 insert:Cross-heading above regulation 28DRevoke the cross-heading above regulation 28D.;replace the heading to the item relating to regulation 28D and the cross-heading above regulation 28E with the heading "Regulation 28D";in the item relating to regulation 28D and the cross-heading above regulation 28E replace "Replace regulation 28D and the cross-heading above regulation 28E with:" with "Replace regulation 28D with:"; andin the item relating to regulation 28F(2) replace "paragraph (a)" with "subclause (1)(a)". Amendments to the amendments agreed to. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 as amended in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Schedule 3 be agreed to. Amendments as amended agreed to. Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported with amendment. Report adopted."
11. Question No. 11—EducationDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 11—Education11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions regarding the tertiary sector and reform of vocational education?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to vulnerable rural communities when St John says that under the reforms St John would not be able to deliver emergency ambulance services in rural communities."?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I say with all due respect to St John they're wrong and that those communities have nothing to worry about.Dr Shane Reti: Does he absolutely refute that there will be 1000 job losses due to the reforms after telling Newshub Nation on the weekend that the sector could have "significant job losses"?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'll repeat what I said to the member last time he asked me that question: we have never put a number on job losses. At this point when the proposals have not yet been finalised it would irresponsible to do so.Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his answer to written questions confirming that neither Kelvin Davis Willie Jackson Jenny Salesa nor anyone in the Labour Māori caucus has expressed concerns around the implications of the reforms for Māori or Pasifika?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes I stand by the full answer I gave which made it clear that the Ministers have engaged in discussion as part of the regular Cabinet process.Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table written parliamentary questions—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member can't table parliamentary question answers. Is the member saying that they haven't been published?Dr Shane Reti: Correct.SPEAKER: Right. I was premature. I thought the member was being—carry on.Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table written parliamentary question 12868 sequential questions 12876 to 12880 and sequential questions 12883 to 12887. They're not available on the parliamentary website.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to the early publication of those documents? There appears to be none.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jan Tinetti: What feedback has the Minister seen in regards to the Government's actions on vocational education reform?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There's been a lot of feedback on the Government's reforms. Yesterday for example I saw the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce's statement who have taken the time to survey their local businesses and show that their businesses are struggling to get the skilled work-ready employees that they need. WelTec alongside the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce said "This is a once in a generation opportunity to reboot our vocational education system [to] ensure it is flexible relevant and future focused.""
10. Question No. 10—Pacific PeoplesANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific PeoplesQuestion No. 10—Pacific Peoples10. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What is the Government doing if anything to support Pacific peoples in the regions?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): The coalition Government announced—as part of the $82.4 million Te Ara Mahi employment skills initiative—that the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) will invest $8.85 million to expand the Ministry for Pacific Peoples' employment programme to regional New Zealand. The programme aims to reduce the number of Pacific NEETs who are most at risk of long-term unemployment by supporting them into employment or training. With the support of the Prime Minister and the Hon Shane Jones First Citizen of the Regions" the PGF funding will see this programme expand into the surge regions of the Greater Waikato Manawatū Whangarei Otago Bay of Plenty Hawke's Bay and Murihiku - Southland.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is there a focus on the regions for this expansion?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: The Pacific population is growing throughout regional New Zealand. Despite their positive contribution to New Zealand's economy there are high numbers of young people struggling with inequities and barriers in the areas of employment education and training. The regions themselves have challenges with unemployment and family socio-economic well-being. That is why we included Pacific people aged up to 39 years old so that we can get more people into employment education and training. The PGF funding will enable the programme to support more Pacific people towards success growing opportunities to lift skills and incomes.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What outcomes have been delivered by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples' employment programme in urban areas?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Since inception the programme has seen success in urban areas with over 2200 participants and has achieved over a thousand people placed in employment. In addition more than 700 have gained training placements and over 200 people have been in continuous employment for over 12 months. Others have pursued further tertiary education. With the new investment the expansion will aim to grow opportunities to lift skills and income for Pacific peoples in regional New Zealand."
9. Question No. 9—Prime MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 9—Prime Minister9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in relation to gun law changes that It is in the national interest and it is about safety"?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe that a gun buy-back in relation to these changes will be more successful than those in Australia which are estimated to have bought back only 40 to 80 percent of the semi-automatic weapons in circulation?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It would be very hard to assess the percentage of military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles that we will be able to bring in as a result of the buy-back because of course our gun laws as they are mean it is very hard for us to quantify just how many of those weapons precisely are in circulation.David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister then conceding that one of the impacts of her gun law changes may be a larger black market of dangerous semi-automatic weapons outside any regulatory cordon whatsoever and she just doesn't know how many there are?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No what I'm pointing out is that our gun laws historically have been far too relaxed. Am I to take it from the member's question that he's implying that he would rather have us do nothing than do what we are doing today?Hon Stuart Nash: Is it true Prime Minister that if someone is caught in possession of an illegal weapon they face a jail term of five years?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely. Not only are we removing military-style semi-automatics from circulation in terms of the legal trade of them—which up until now has occurred—and assault rifles we are also increasing the penalties for those who are in possession of these guns after the amnesty and buy-back has been in place."
8. Question No. 8—Regional Economic DevelopmentHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 8—Regional Economic Development8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Āe.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that his conversation with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) CEO was about the decisions and the methods of the prosecutor in the Semenoff logging case?Hon SHANE JONES: No.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he explain to the House how talking to the CEO about an element of how a case was put together is not inserting himself as a member of the executive into the case?Hon SHANE JONES: As I understand the decision made by NZTA to announce that they were going to revoke a decision was on 15 March. A court case I think might have been 22 March. I had a brief discussion 10 days after that independent authority made its decision and I most certainly reject the assertion that talking about where Meredith Connell derived their authority from to offer to overseas Filipino migrant workers the opportunity to spy—no I don't think the two are connected at all.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So can I confirm—just checking my maths—that the Minister is saying that his conversation with the CEO of NZTA was 10 days after 22 March?Hon SHANE JONES: No I identified that on 15 March—in my answer I've just given—an announcement was made about a licence. I had a brief discussion when I returned from Hong Kong and Singapore with Mr Ratcliffe related to where he thought the authority was coming from—under what legislation—to do this to migrant workers who are employed all over New Zealand.
7. Question No. 7—Commerce and Consumer AffairsJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 7—Commerce and Consumer Affairs7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What progress has been made with the Government's competition law reform programme?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Last week we made significant progress with changes to the Commerce Act which criminalised cartel behaviour passing its third reading. This bill is an important element of the Government's reform package to strengthen New Zealand's competition law in line with some of our major trading partners. Cartel conduct involves agreements being made between competitors to fix prices restrict output and allocate markets and such conduct can cause significant harm to consumers and businesses who are operating honestly. The criminalising of cartel behaviour is the second legislative step that the Government has taken since coming to office with the first being the introduction of the market studies power and the third will be the result of the review into section 36 of the Commerce Act.Jo Luxton: Will criminalising cartel behaviour have a chilling effect on business?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No nothing in this bill extends what is currently unlawful. It evens out the playing field to encourage competition while at the same time allowing for reasonable collaborative business activities. Honest business should not be concerned. I'm confident that the introduction of criminalising cartels has sufficient provisions to ensure legitimate business practices won't be penalised while at the same time sending a strong disincentive for cartel conduct.Jo Luxton: Why are these reforms necessary?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: This Government supports honest business and we're committed to growing an economy that works for all New Zealanders. The criminalisation of cartels delivers on that by introducing a new criminal offence for serious cartel conduct that harms New Zealand business consumers and the productivity of the economy. It was necessary for the future integrity of the economy to bring back the criminal offence for cartel behaviour that was dropped by the previous Government.
6. Question No. 6—EducationHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he have confidence in the entire process of the review of Tomorrow's Schools and how many submissions have the taskforce received on their report?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. I am advised that as of 11 o'clock this morning the task force secretariat has received 3330 online surveys—including eight surveys completed by hand and provided by the honourable member—2025 written submissions 32 oral submissions via the 0800 number and a petition with 618 signatures. They've also attended a number of meetings that they organised around the country and a number of meetings organised by the member. Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he admit that his deadline for the Tomorrow's Schools task force to report back to him within 3½ weeks of consultation closing was unreasonable? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The task force asked for additional time to consider the volume of submissions that they received. I indicated fairly early on in the piece that I thought that was very reasonable and I'm happy to tell the member that the Cabinet committee—the Cabinet appointments and honours committee who are responsible for appointing the task force or who are approving the appointment of the task force—signed off that extension this morning. Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the date of the report back given that they have extended it as of today? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: They've been given until the end of June. Hon Nikki Kaye: Has he received any advice on the cost of the reforms or is he aware of any estimates provided by any officials in Treasury the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or across Government; if so what are those estimates? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We haven't yet made any decisions on the task force's final recommendations because they haven't yet presented those to us. So I have not received any advice on the potential costs of those because it's difficult to finalise costs on something if you don't know what it is. I'm not sure of what costing information the task force has accessed. My understanding is that the Ministry of Education has not provided them with detailed costing information. They may have got costing information from another source but my understanding is that the Ministry of Education has not provided that to them. Hon Nikki Kaye: Just to be absolutely clear: he is not aware of any Minister of any Government agency getting potential estimates on the cost of Tomorrow's Schools given that many principals and teachers have turned up and said they want to weigh up the benefits of potentially front-line education services rather than investing in officials? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No I haven't. In answer to the first part of the question I can confirm that I haven't received any of those costs and I'm not aware of any Government department providing them because at this point it's unclear what the final proposals actually are and you can't provide costings on something if you don't know what it is.
5. Question No. 5—Social DevelopmentPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Social Development5. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has the Government made to improve driver licensing for young people?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Today the Prime Minister along with the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter and myself announced a $5 million investment to support young people on youth benefits or in care to meet the costs of getting a driver's licence. This investment will support approximately 2500 young people to get their licence. We know that having a licence is important for accessing a range of different opportunities including work and study. This Government is committed to supporting all that are able to be earning learning caring or volunteering. Under this initiative we'll make it easier for young people to access these opportunities.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will the scheme work? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Ministry of Social Development's Youth Service will deliver the scheme in partnership with community providers around the country for young people receiving the youth payment or young parent payment or who are in Oranga Tamariki care. We know many of these young people might not have a car to learn in they might not have suitable identification or they might not have a family member or friend to help them learn to drive. The scheme will help cover costs like obtaining a birth certificate for identification where required professional driving lessons and test fees. It's a small investment we are confident will take these young people a long way. Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is this important? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Over the last five years young drivers who have never held a driver's licence were involved in 165 fatal or serious injury crashes. Last year 3520 people were convicted for driving without a licence and 1509 of these people were aged under 25. Of these 59 percent were Māori and 16 percent were Pacific peoples. For many this was their first ever conviction. Helping this group of drivers through the restrictive driving-licensing process will make the roads safer for everyone and will enable these young people to take up opportunities to work and train.
4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is the Government focused on policies that will help grow the New Zealand economy and provide more opportunities for New Zealanders?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): On behalf of the Minister yes.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that jobs higher incomes and opportunities mainly flow from someone somewhere making an investment?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes they do and that's why I'm pleased to note that GDP figures show that business investment rose 4.3 percent in 2018 when annual average GDP growth was 2.8 percent so business investment is holding up.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Interesting. Does he accept that the uncertainty around fundamental tax policy and many areas of regulation may at least partially explain the results in the latest New Zealand Institute of Economic Research survey on investment intentions which showed investment intentions in plant and machinery fell negative for the first time since 2012?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In terms of tax policy the Government is carefully considering the independent Tax Working Group report and our response will be released this month.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it the Government's plan to blame the zero growth per person in the past six months on international events?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. The member does need though to look at the New Zealand economy in the global context. The IMF overnight released revised forecasts for global growth and the IMF forecasts for advanced economies to grow 1.8 percent in 2019 and 1.7 percent in 2020. In contrast the IMF forecasts New Zealand's economy to grow 2.5 percent in 2019 and 2.9 percent in 2020. The New Zealand economy is forecast to grow faster than Australia faster than the US faster than the euro area faster than Japan faster than Singapore faster than the UK—SPEAKER: Order! Thank you.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he think the capital gains tax will help grow investment in New Zealand?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government is carefully considering the independent Tax Working Group's report and our response will be released this month.
3. Question No. 3—Prime MinisterHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 3—Prime Minister3. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements policies and actions?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon Paula Bennett: When will the cannabis referendum bill be introduced to the House?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've outlined before where legislation is certainly required is around the parameters for a referendum at the next election. We've already stated there will be a referendum on the legalisation of recreational cannabis. The question as to whether or not there would be a bill more broadly is something that will be announced once Cabinet has finalised its decisions.Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm then that any cannabis referendum legislation must be passed before the referendum and contain the enacting provisions for any regulations for the sale and supply of marijuana in order for it to be binding as we have been advised by the Office of the Clerk?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again as I have said in this House many times before once Cabinet has finalised its decisions we will be making announcements to the degree of detail that the member has asked. Happy birthday by the way.Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister clarify then—because there is in my mind some confusion between her first answer and her second. The first was quite clear that there does need to be legislation around what the referendum might look like and I am clearly stating that there also needs to be legislation that lays out the regulations and everything else for how legalising marijuana will be implemented into New Zealand if it's to be a binding referendum.Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again what I'm giving the member certainty over of course is that for the purposes of having a referendum there's a requirement to be clear in the law. That's where I'm giving the member certainty. On the wider questions as I've said before I'm not making any announcements until Cabinet finalises its decisions around the nature of the referendum itself the content of the question. Those details will be advised as soon as Cabinet has finalised its decisions.Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Prime Minister accept that it's not actually a decision for Cabinet as to whether or not there has to be legislation which there does if it is to be a binding referendum as they have told the public it will be?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again the member is putting to me definitional questions that she's had from the Clerk of the House. What I'm saying is that until the Government has finalised its decisions I am not going to pre-empt that with statements here in this House. Once the Cabinet has finalised its decisions we will be releasing all of the details in that regard.
Hughes Gareth; Williams PotoGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. There's a limit to how many cows we can crowd in our paddocks; we see it in our rivers. There's a limit to how many tourists we can cram in Fiordland; we see it in our infrastructure. There's no limit to the export of innovation and R & D. That's why the Green Party is supporting this. The Government is increasing spending in R & D. It's making practical changes such as tax credits to make it easier to support the innovative economy. It's fantastic to see the computer software changes—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I'm sorry I apologise to the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a short call on the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill in its third reading. Before I start I just want to make a comment about mahana and makariri. On this side of the House we are tino wera: we are hot and they should know that because that's what we are on this side of the House. Ha ha! Anyway I digress—I digress.I just need to make a couple of comments about this bill. I think it's a waste of the House's time. I think that it is an example of an inexperienced Minister who does not know the outcome of putting a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on the Table that hasn't had external scrutiny. I also think that from this bill there has been a lot of hurt. We've had a number of payments that have already been made illegally with this legislation and we've had some people that will receive the winter energy payment twice. There's lots and lots of hurt because there are going to be a lot of people out there that won't actually qualify to get this winter energy payment. We think the process of getting us to this place has just wasted a whole lot of House time whereas the Minister could have actually taken time out to review her SOP and to give it the proper scrutiny.I think that really my contribution essentially ends there. My colleagues have traversed the area very well. I just want to say to the Minister: please please do your work properly—do it properly. Look over the bills; listen to the officials. They may have something worthy of saying and listen to this side of the House because we scrutinise the Government bills very clearly. What we say when we actually put our contributions in the House during the committee of the whole House is we need the Government to actually listen to what this side of the House is saying because—I will end—this side of the House Jenny Marcroft is tino wera.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): My goodness what an act to follow! It's an absolute pleasure to speak on this bill because I know how important the winter energy payment is to so many New Zealanders. In my previous job it used to be my job to count how many children were coming into hospital with infectious and respiratory diseases and so many of these are associated with cold damp houses.Where I live down south it gets really cold in winter as you can imagine and our houses really aren't equipped in many cases for winter. So coming into Government what I was hearing from a lot of pensioners was they were having to go to bed when the sun went down with a hot water bottle and a beanie because it was just too difficult to turn the heater on. So the winter energy payment has transformed that for a lot of New Zealanders and it's one area where we get positive thankyou correspondence from a lot of people saying Thank you. I can now afford to turn the heater on."What this bill does though is just make a couple of minor amendments to realign the current practice with the legislation because when the legislation went through in 2017 there were just a couple of small groups that weren't covered in detail with that legislation. As we've heard tonight those were people receiving Government funding who were in long-term residential care or residential care services but they weren't eligible for a residential care subsidy or residential support subsidy or otherwise people going overseas for more than four weeks and the expectation was that they would receive the winter energy payment for those first for weeks.All this bill does is just minor technical fixes to ensure that what was intended in the policy intent of that legislation is actually carried out. It only relates to about 3.3 percent of those receiving the winter energy payment—so a small number of New Zealanders but it's critically important that they can continue to receive that payment legally from further on and also that retrospectively it's tidied up in terms of the payments that were made last year.So we're not introducing any new policy because the eligibility was already agreed in that policy sense when the legislation went through in 2017. But what we're aiming to do is make sure that the benefits of the winter energy payment can be received by all of those who were originally entitled to that and that's where the policy intent was. So I therefore commend this bill to the House."