edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): I'm delighted to stand here in support of this bill this evening. For someone who has not been on the Environment Committee I think this is an absolutely fantastic bill. I've looked at this in great detail over the course of the day. I've had a look at the departmental report and I am actually struggling a little bit to understand why you would oppose such a fantastic bill.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Just for the sake of it.JAN TINETTI: Yeah I think you're right there. My colleague's just said it's for the sake of opposing really because the Department of Conservation needed this enforcement. They're the only enforcement agency that has no infringement system and we've heard many speakers here this evening who have talked about the fact that we need that middle ground.The one point that has become a little bit controversial seems to be that our Opposition don't want to see consistency in this infringement system and I struggle to understand why you wouldn't want to see consistency. I think it's fantastic. This means it's going to clear up our courts system. It makes the whole process a lot easier. It makes it a lot more understandable for people as well. It helps our conservation estate.Throughout this day all I could see is that this bill is a fantastic bill. I commend and congratulate the select committee for the fantastic work that they have done. My colleague here Deborah Russell in leading that committee has I think done an absolutely amazing job and it's been said here before but there is nothing further to say. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'm rising to speak at the third reading of the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill at its final reading. Because it's that time of year I just want to briefly join with previous speakers in spreading some Christmas cheer. I do so now because unlike Chlöe Swarbrick—the amazing Chlöe Swarbrick who's been selected she told us to participate in the adjournment debate tomorrow and good on her; she's had a fantastic year—we have 55 incredible MPs and the competition is fierce. So while I remain hopeful I am also realistic. So happy Christmas everyone. Actually it's probably more to do with the fact that I was in the adjournment debate last year and made many jokes about Simon Bridges' hair which has ruled me out of this year's debate.I have had a great year on the Environment Committee and I'd just like to say—well we've been a little bit light on work—thank you very much to Deborah Russell who did a great job at shepherding this bill which I'm getting to through the House. This is a bill as we've heard—I won't take very long because I think we've heard all the arguments—that had its genesis with the National Party and with the very honourable Maggie Barry who rightly agreed with Department of Conservation (DOC) officials that an infringement system was required. She did a lot of the background work the heavy lifting to get this bill to where it is today and she should be commended for that.We all agree—in fact we all said so at the first reading on this side of the House—that it is important that DOC should have the power to issue an infringement notice for good reason. As people have already said it's a good midway point between a warning and prosecution. It stops those harsh prosecutions when perhaps an infringement notice would do. It frees up the courts' time it saves money and in fact it's really good for the care and protection of our environment because it is more of a deterrent for people to know that they could likely face a fine rather than just a warning.But as we mentioned this bill has somewhat been derailed. There have been additions to this bill where somewhat some would say unprecedented powers are given to non - State sector employees to issue fines. That is where we differ on this side of the House and for that reason while we agree that Fish & Game do great work we cannot support this bill. We don't believe that non - State sector employees should have these powers when they're not subject to the same codes of conduct and minimum standards as DOC rangers. So bearing that in mind for reasons of fairness and maintaining integrity in the system we will be opposing this bill.
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and a happy Christmas to you. Well I thought that that party over there was the party of law and order and with reference to the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill and this last reading they seem to be running quite a curious argument. I didn't sit on the Environment Committee. I now sit on that select committee but I didn't sit on the select committee for this piece of legislation. But even I can go and read a departmental report that actually tells me that Fish & Game already have powers of enforcement. Not only do they already have powers of enforcement but they use those powers and have done for some time to enforce game bird hunting regulations and rules and sports fishing regulations and rules. We know this because we consider Fish & Game to be an important part of the conservation ecosystem where one goes and gets a licence in order to undertake these activities and if one doesn't then one does suffer some consequences. So when we are looking at the extension of powers that ensure that the intention of the bill which is to introduce an infringement system into eight core Department of Conservation statutes—which the Opposition seems to support in principle because they talked about the previous Minister of Conservation Maggie Barry supporting that. They don't seem to want to enforce or to actually support the system that underpins it which is that by extending some powers of enforcement to Fish & Game—and they've gone very quiet now because maybe they are all reading the departmental report. At page 20 point No. 90 just in case they wanted to go and have a wee look—and I'll just note a few of them Madam Assistant Speaker. The infringement notices in the infringement system—the system is yet to be established in regulation—relate to things like taking harassing and injuring marine mammals failing to comply with any requirement or notice issued unauthorised activities in parks littering altering boundary markings and a whole lot of hunting without landowner permission. They are those sorts of things which are all of the level that I think the intent—which I think the Opposition agrees with—should not be considered as prosecution but rather infringement and so therefore it requires an enforcement system to underpin it. So they support the intent but they don't actually want the system. They don't actually care. So being the party of law and order they don't actually care whether or not there is an enforcement system that's actually going to work to protect our conservation values. So I do agree with the Hon David Parker when he referred to them as statist. Cognitive dissonance" was the phrase I used last week in a speech and I think that it's completely relevant tonight. We support this bill and I hope it gets through its whole passage tonight."
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Oh well thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Look there's been some grumpiness in the House but that's expected. The Hon Christopher Finlayson MP QC is departing so there's a little bit of upset but that's OK; let's get on to this bill which is an important bill.Conservation—I don't usually speak on such an important topic but once again I've been brought down from the palace of Bowen House and the harbourside views that we get in order to speak. And if you look at the harbourside views you'll see that beautiful electorate of Rongotai and Watts Peninsula—managed soon I hope by the Department of Conservation (DOC). What a great Public Service department that agency is. We've got a marine reserve there in Island Bay and also an array of secret islands etc. in the Chathams. So we won't talk about those today because we're talking about enforcement.Now no one really likes enforcement. I mean we think about parking wardens when we think about enforcement but no such move from our wonderful Yogi bears the DOC rangers. Look people have got a little bit upset about giving the same powers to the Fish & Game guys and I'm reassured by our wonderful Minister of Conservation the Hon Eugenie Sage who's assured me that look folks our DOC people do the indigenous stuff and our Fish & Game do the introduced stuff except in Taupō where Tūwharetoa do it and that's because they wanted DOC to do it. That's common sense. That makes sense and I'm sure we all agree. You know if there's naughty people running around doing foolish stuff being ignorant to conservation—and we all claim to be green these days. So I don't think there's a big issue here.I'm sorry. I heard the member next to me. Yeah she's green too. Look I think we've been a bit silly this evening. There are quite a few people upset with one of their colleagues leaving but really—Hon Ruth Dyson: Name him!PAUL EAGLE: Name him? I've named him.Hon Ruth Dyson: Simon and Paula?PAUL EAGLE: Oh that's going a little bit too far there eh but we'll name him later in the next speech I give when I return from my harbourside views in the palace of Bowen. Look this is decent stuff. It's practical. We're getting a bit silly. I commend this bill to the House.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I won't use my contribution to wish everybody a merry Christmas because I get to do that tomorrow during the adjournment debate. But I will however echo the merry sentiments that have been put forward by a number of people including most recently Todd Muller who is of course a member of the wonderful Environment Committee. It is a hard-working select committee chaired quite ably I might add by Dr Deborah Russell.The contents of this legislation have been well traversed by speakers previous to me. But long story short at the core of it is the kaupapa that we want to stop trashing our conservation estate. I think that that is something which has been progressed and worked upon in a huge way by the incredible Minister the Hon Eugenie Sage. I will say in the spirit where things are kind of getting a little bit somewhat less formal than they typically are that I was speaking earlier today with our advisors in our parliamentary office. I noted when it came about that I would have the opportunity to speak on this bill that I would use it as an opportunity to extol the incredible value that the Minister Eugenie Sage brings to our Parliament and in her position. Absolutely I think that that is manifest in a number of things not least the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and the Greens to see an increase in funding for conservation work.But this bill gives the Department of Conservation (DOC) more tools essentially. It allows for a greater opportunity among the spectrum of things that DOC can do because currently they can only prosecute or give warnings. So prosecute on the one hand and on the other end give warnings. What this legislation proposes is kind of a halfway house whereby DOC can issue fines—a kind of spectrum of responses if you will; in the same way that for example the Fisheries Act allows the Ministry for Primary Industries to fine people. This will enable operational flexibility which I think ultimately is about convenience and about appropriateness of response and ensuring that that response is weighted appropriately to the offence. In summary I'm incredibly proud as a Green MP to be supporting this bill before the House today.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker and in the tone and spirit of other speakers in this debate may I offer my sincere best wishes to you and other presiding members for the festive season and my fervent hope that you and other members of Parliament will have an opportunity to spend time and more importantly money in the beautiful Coromandel electorate over the summer break.I think the Environment Committee chair has actually neatly summed up the philosophical difference and objection that we have on this side to this bill. Originally introduced by my friend and colleague the Hon Maggie Barry in the last Parliament this was a bill that made sense. The concept of an infringement regime for Department of Conservation rangers makes eminent sense. It's a good idea and I think that there's no objection to that at all but why we now find ourselves critical of the bill is because of the inclusion of those powers being extended to Fish & Game.Now this principled objection is not a criticism of the good officers of Fish & Game; this is a question of principle in terms of whether the role of the State is to intervene with the role of non-State sector employees or even volunteers. From our point of view extending that to Fish & Game personnel is a step too far. We know that for instance Fish & Game personnel are not subject to the State Services Act. They don't come under the same disciplinary or professional code of conduct practices that are required of other State employees or civil servants. That for us is a matter of concern.Now in the second reading debate there was a Labour list MP from somewhere—I'm not sure—who got up and read a list of organisations where there are no similarities. That MP went through a long list of organisations and in some way tried to suggest that by extending that list this would be a good thing. Actually I would take the contrary view that in principle not to extend it would be a good thing. Rather than the Minister now confessing that we're going to have to have a long list of complicated checks and balances that she's going to have to administer surely the better suggestion and the better option is just to have the bill as originally introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry and exclude the option of extending the infringement regime to Fish & Game. That surely is a much better outcome and one that could be completely supported across the House.So I think the issues have been well litigated in the debate through the House. The select committee certainly gave it a good going over. We've had an opportunity to quiz submitters and also to hear the various cases for and against. So it simply remains for me to reaffirm that the National Party Opposition regrettably is forced to oppose this legislation at third reading and sadly I cannot commend it to the House.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I rise in support of this bill the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill which at this season of good will we find actually has a lot of goodwill across the House for the basic principle of this bill: that there should be a mid-range point between a warning and a prosecution—that there should be an infringement system within the conservation estate and this is what this bill seeks to achieve.There is only one real point of contention across the House and that is the powers extended to Fish & Game councils. At this stage I would simply like to remind the Opposition of the series of checks and balances that are built in in order to ensure that where if and when Fish & Game councils are given the authority to issue infringement notices there is a series of checks and balances to ensure that those powers are not exercised unfairly or unreasonably and that they are exercised as we would expect them to be: carefully cautiously and only when needed. So those checks and balances do exist in the bill.That's really the only point of contention. As this is my last call on this bill I would like to thank the members of the Environment Committee who worked with me hard on this bill: Sarah Dowie who led the case from the Opposition side and also Todd Muller Scott Simpson and Erica Stanford from the Opposition side and from the Government side: Jenny Marcroft Chlöe Swarbrick Poto Williams at times and then Clare Curran and Angie Warren-Clark all of whom contributed and worked hard on this bill as did our committee staff.As a newish MP I've been told many times that select committees are the workroom of Parliament. The way this committee worked on this bill certainly exemplified that. So I thank the members of the committee for their hard work and I recommend this bill to the House.
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe otirā ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I'm pleased to take a call on the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill in the third and final reading. Can I first acknowledge the hard-working office of the coroners who do an amazing job right throughout the country. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee in bringing this bill to the House.Obviously as member of Parliament for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti one of the challenges is actually the availability of coronial services in places like the Tai Rāwhiti in some of our remote areas and that's definitely an area that I believe the coalition Government is working very hard on. But the bill itself amends like previous speakers have said section 26 of the Coroners Act to take into consideration cultural protocols. Yes tikanga Māori but in my earlier contribution I hopefully elicit enough explanation that when we talk about tikanga Māori we're actually saying that that is the premise: whereby we respect other cultures. It's a way of respecting those that have passed and those that are grieving. As we head into the festive season one hopes that nobody is put at danger—no family or no individual particularly in this House—that requires the coroner's services.It is a straightforward amendment but it also acknowledges how far we've come in this House when we talk about lore": l-o-r-e and "law": l-a-w. I just want to share with the House that yesterday afternoon we had the launch of Te Arawhiti which was the Māori-Crown relations portfolio under the Hon Kelvin Davis. One of the key speakers at their launch talked about the bridge—Te Arawhiti means bridge—and the importance that Māori and the Crown as we move forward put on the relationship on which this opportunity sits.I don't want to go on further but I absolutely support this bill with this hope that the issue of availability of pathologists and coroners in some of our rural communities is also addressed to ensure tikanga Māori under this amendment and under this bill doesn't just extend coroners' consideration of immediate families but also to the other cultural considerations of the release of the body in a timely manner so they can be tributed and paid their proper farewell in the process of grieving. So without further ado I do want to commend this bill to the House and want to also wish on behalf of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti a very merry Christmas to you and to all my parliamentary colleagues. Kia ora tātou.Bill read a third time."
Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill — Third Reading (continued)
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker and on behalf of the good people of Dunedin South can I wish you and the House a very happy Christmas and a restful break.My contribution on the third reading of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill is short and sweet. Can I first of all just say that little is huge—little can be huge. I know that that's a slogan and it's a slogan that's used by Spark for advertising campaigns—which are actually quite good can I say—but what sits behind that is a sentiment which is that small things can have big ramifications and be of big import. This particular bill fits into that category and there's three short points to make with regards to this establishment of the coronial framework in New Zealand and the regulation—it's a regulatory bill really that regulates whānau access.Can I say though that these points were made—or one of these points was made—by the Minister in his third reading speech; that it's largely an reaffirmation of existing process which I think is quite important because what it tells us is that the system is actually working. But the fact is—and this goes to the second point—that reaffirming it in law is essentially taking a cultural practice and giving it significance in law.So it's not just acknowledging that this is practice and it's largely practised by coroners. We're actually putting it into law which leads to the third point which is that this may resonate further than this particular piece of legislation because it's an affirmation in law of cultural practice. It's cultural practice and recognising tikanga Māori but also it's of cultural practice more widely and I think that's really important.I want to acknowledge just quickly the point that the member Harete Hipango made in her contribution last week which is that while it factors in tikanga Māori it also factors in other cultural requirements needs beliefs values and systems. And she referred to a Muslim social worker who died unexpectedly and the customs and practices of his people and the confusion and the grief that went with that.This bill I think has huge ramifications—little can be huge—and I commend it to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): The good people of Wairarapa do not like people that drone on so this is a marvellous bill and I commend it to the House.
Coffey Tamati; Tolley AnneTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on this the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill. We've thrashed this out in select committee for quite some time the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We've all put our five cents into this. All of the officials have inputted it into it. The submissions have come in. We've been ably chaired by Michael Wood MP who's been guiding us through this piece of legislation.We as the Government have always the ability to modify legislation for the benefit of New Zealanders and that's exactly what we're doing in this particular policy. I'm particularly impressed with the dual mandate which the Opposition have always had a problem with. They think that monetary policy should always be around a strictly monetary policy. We've actually incorporated this dual mandate in here to ensure that we're looking at price stability over the medium term but also supporting maximum sustainable employment.This here is a fine piece of legislation. It's been through the checks and balances of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is normally a split call if the ACT person goes for it.David Seymour: Madam Deputy Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: So I am going to award a five-minute call to ACT.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It's an absolute delight to rise and speak to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill this afternoon. I know it was well publicised that I would be giving my remarks on this bill at about this time so I'm really pleased to see that there's been a lot of interest in the delivery that I'm about to give! So thank you all.What the Minister of Finance has tried to do here is relatively simple and the amendments that we're making by way of this legislation are three-part and these have been traversed in some detail by speakers previous to me. Basically we're amending the objectives of the Act and that is to give greater clarity to what the role of the Reserve Bank is when it comes to developing monetary policy. We've heard extensive debate this afternoon about the dual mandate in terms of monetary policy objectives by way of both price stability and ensuring maximum sustainable employment and third the establishment of the monetary policy committee.Before I turn to the nuances I guess of each of those amendments I think it's timely to reflect upon what the role of monetary policy is in New Zealand. The reality is that monetary policy affects every single New Zealander—every single consumer every single worker every single employer in our country. Monetary policy in its evolution and development affects investment decisions right through to the cost of bread and butter. But as this bill has traversed our Finance and Expenditure Committee I've been struck by the words of the founder of Ford Motors Co. It was Henry Ford who said It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and our monetary system for if they did I believe"—he said—"there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." As we have covered off aspects of what is required to be considered by the bank in developing our monetary policy I think I've come to share Henry Ford's view.Debate interrupted."
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): As befits this bill this contribution will be based on the dictum that less is more. I follow the presentation by the list member of Epsom Paul Goldsmith who has overlooked the fact that we won the election. We—as a part of enjoying the spoils of electoral victory—are changing in this important fashion the mandate of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. We campaigned on it. We articulated our perspectives before the electorate and they blessed this side of the House—such prescience across the maraes the courtyards the villages; indeed the four winds of Aotearoa.The changes are not to be feared. They bring us into international best practice area. This is not a journey into the unknown; this is to link-up a progressive far-sighted Government passing legislation that shows a great similarity to other reserve banks and their mandates which have moved away from this bare sparse barren approach reflective of Don Brash's stewardship of said bank. That is why we have introduced—and we will be most certainly voting for it—a dual mandate and that's to ensure that when decisions are made the impact on the employment labour market is equally as important as the interests of the moneylenders in the fiscal temples that pass for corporate New Zealand.We campaigned to change it and we are now at the final hurdle—otherwise known as the third reading speeches—before such changes come to pass. I'll make a prediction: the other side of the House despite all their lamenting will not change it back partly because they won't have the opportunity in the foreseeable future. But look I don't want to get petty about this. There is an opportunity. It would spoil the occasion as we prepare for one of our members to move into life outside of politics which is an improvement for qualities of the House that I currently enjoy.So we will be voting for this. There will be the ability for Treasury to have a non-voting member on the committee. Despite the fearmongering and pretty tedious speeches from the other side of the House our party has not a sliver of doubt this is the way forward. Thank you very much.
Points of Order — Petitions—Number of Signatories
Seymour David; Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 18 DECEMBER 2018Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.POINTS OF ORDERPetitions—Number of SignatoriesDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hate to interrupt at this point in the proceedings but traditionally the Clerk reads out the number of signatories to a petition. A lot of people work very hard to gather a number of signatures and I just raise for the House's consideration that they might like to hear those numbers.SPEAKER: It's a long-lost tradition. Now if the member had been listening over quite recent years he would've seen that that tradition has not been continued. I think the only occasion it's occurred is where the House has been asked to note that a certain number of people have signed some other petition.
Thursday 13 December 2018 - Volume 735
12. Question No. 12—Building and ConstructionKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) on behalf of KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 12—Building and Construction12. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) on behalf of KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent actions has the Government taken to support the construction industry?Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): The Minister for Economic Development the Hon David Parker and I have jointly written to all Ministers asking them to instruct the chief executives of the Government's 137 agencies and departments to begin taking skills and training into account now when contracting for large construction projects rather than waiting for this to become mandatory. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is currently working to make skills training and development a formal requirement for construction projects valued at over $10 million. This will take effect next year but we believe the Government should act now and take a leadership role in building and construction. This will give certainty to the construction industry. Kieran McAnulty: How can Government agencies support skills development and training in the construction industry? Hon JENNY SALESA: The Government has the opportunity to leverage its construction projects through procurement to encourage businesses to train and develop people in order to address and help our current skills shortage in Aotearoa New Zealand. MBIE's construction procurement guidelines which are voluntary were developed together with the industry in 2015. However procurement practices across the Government agencies have been inconsistent including the practice of taking the lowest-cost approach to procurement and the inappropriate transfer of risk. This has contributed to the current challenges that are facing the construction sector today. This sector agrees with the Government agencies' approach and they are happy to apply the procurement guidelines. This will have a positive effect on the construction sector.
11. Question No. 11—BiosecurityHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for BiosecurityQuestion No. 11—Biosecurity11. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Do detector dog teams provide complete coverage when the International Mail Centre is operating; if not on how many days since 26 October 2017 have there been times when no detector dog teams have been working whilst the centre is operating?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): The first thing to note is that the mail centre does not work 24 hours a day although dogs are scheduled to work on the international mail lines every day that it does operate.Hon Nathan Guy: Why doesn't the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) have enough dog detector teams operating on the mail pathway that allowed 26 brown marmorated stink bugs that were alive to come through the border in a shoebox?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We currently have about 50 dog teams and by the end of next year we will have 60. The dogs are trained either to detect seeds and other unwanted organisms or bugs not both. I can't explain how that particular box came through other than to say that we are upping the systems all the time and improving the investment. The hours that the dogs are operating are about the same level as operated in 2016 and 2017 when that member was the Minister.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as 26 October 2017 was the first day of the new Government how many months would he have had to take to get the dog detector teams prepared that weren't there when he became the Minister?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It takes many months to train a good dog. This Government is currently undertaking the training of 10 additional dog teams. The fact that we didn't have sufficient when we took over is an indictment of that previous Government's lack of commitment to biosecurity.Hon Nathan Guy: As he's confirmed that historically dog detector teams have covered the international mail pathway why now in the height of the brown marmorated stink bug season are there not enough MPI resources to get the dogs out of their kennels to protect the primary sector?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There are plenty of resources. What we don't have is enough well-trained dogs and that's because the previous Government didn't train them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the greater dog detector team—a solution that that Minister is putting in place—a response to the fact that he inherited a situation where twice as many dog detectors were there as there were dogs? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Correct. I have to say that you know we do rely on dogs although it's not the only part of a robust biosecurity system and the fact that we've had to match up the resources and train enough dogs so that there are an adequate number of dog handlers to manage them at the same time says that the previous Government had a lack of strategic planning for the biosecurity system.
10. Question No. 10—ACCHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for ACCQuestion No. 10—ACC10. Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for ACC: What evidence if any did he seek and consider in reaching his reported view that the ACC Vehicle Risk Rating programme had not contributed to a safer vehicle fleet?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): I received advice from officials met with the motor vehicle industry expert group and considered feedback from public consultation.Hon Tim Macindoe: What does he say to those New Zealanders who are driving the safest cars on our roads according to their vehicle risk rating category who will now face an increase exceeding 150 percent in the cost of registering their vehicles?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I would say to them that they are contributing to the motor vehicle account so that ACC is in good health and there where Kiwis need it.Marja Lubeck: What does the Government intend to do with the data collected by the vehicle risk rating programme?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The information contained in the vehicle risk ratings is useful to consumers. To that end Cabinet has directed officials to consider ways the vehicle risk rating information can be made available to consumers at the point of sale.Hon Tim Macindoe: If the Minister believes that the vehicle risk rating programme has not contributed to a safer vehicle fleet then has he asked the transport Minister why the New Zealand Transport Agency is currently focusing on expensive advertising campaigns with slogans such as The safer the car the safer they are."?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I absolutely agree that the safer the car the safer they are but what I also agree with is all the advice I receive that variable levies based on vehicle risk rating is not making any difference to people's purchasing choices. What will potentially make a difference is providing that information up front when people purchase their vehicle and that's what the Government intends to do."
9. Question No. 9—HealthANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What announcements has he made about a response to synthetic drugs?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Earlier today the police Minister and I announced a crackdown on the suppliers and manufacturers of synthetic drugs in response to an increase in drug-related deaths. We intend to classify as class A the two main synthetic drugs—5FABD and AMB Fubinaca—that have been linked to recent deaths. This will give police the search and seizure powers they need to crack down on suppliers and manufacturers who also face tougher penalties up to life imprisonment. We're also creating a temporary drug classification category C1 so new drugs can easily be brought under the Misuse of Drugs Act giving police the search and seizure powers needed to interrupt supply which is an important part of a health response. Synthetic-drug dealers are on notice and they will face the full force of the law.Angie Warren-Clark: How will these announcements affect people with addiction problems?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Good question. We don't want our jails full of people with addiction problems; we want these people getting treatment and help. So today we've also announced that we will be amending the Misuse of Drugs Act to specify in law that police should use their discretion and not prosecute for possession and personal use where a therapeutic approach would be more beneficial or there is no public interest in a prosecution. We know the police are already using their discretion in this regard but I want to be clear: misuse of drugs remains illegal. Police will continue to prosecute people for possession where appropriate. We are striking a balance between discouraging drug use and recognising that many people using drugs need support from the health system or education about harm reduction.Angie Warren-Clark: Why has the Government made these changes?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Under current laws synthetics and other dangerous drugs are killing people and fuelling crime while dealers and manufacturers get rich. The current approach is failing to keep Kiwis safe; it is time to do what will work. We need to go harder on the manufacturers of dangerous drugs like synthetics and treat the use of drugs as a health issue by removing barriers to people seeking help.
8. Question No. 8—EducationSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 8—Education8. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Education: Does he believe the New Zealand taxpayers are getting value for money out of the fees-free scheme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.Simeon Brown: Does the Minister think it is good use of taxpayers' money that more than $50 million of the fees-free budget was wasted by students that either failed or withdrew during their first year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It won't be $50 million. The member is making a number of very significant assumptions in order to get to that figure including assuming that someone who withdraws from a course is withdrawing from an entire programme.Simeon Brown: Well then has the Minister done the calculations and if so how much is it?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No it's not possible to do the calculations yet because the data is not available to do them accurately. We don't know how many students have withdrawn at this point in the year.
7. Question No. 7—Housing and Urban DevelopmentANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 7—Housing and Urban Development7. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What is the forecast cost of underwriting private developers through the Buying off the Plans scheme and has this changed in today's Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The forecast net cost of underwriting private developers through the Buying off the Plans initiative is expected to be zero over the first three years of the programme. The target for the Buying off the Plans programme over the 10 years is to achieve a net zero cash cost of the underwrite. This is consistent with the basis of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development's forecast which remains unchanged. At 30 November 2018 the net expected cost of underwrites that I've approved over the life of the programme is less than $1 million. The member may be interested to know that the business case modelled risk to the Crown in a number of scenarios as being between $0.3 billion and $0.7 billion over the 10 years. Note that that modelling has high and low volumes and different typology sizes; hence the range. The Crown will always have the flexibility to reshape the programme if there are material costs over the first few years. There was no change in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) to the forecast cost of underwriting private developers through the Buying off the Plans programme.Andrew Bayly: Is Budget 2018 incorrect when it states A net $134 million of capital expenditure has been shifted to operating expenditure as a result of the 'Buying off the Plans' programme"?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I believe the Budget documents are correct.Andrew Bayly: What does he say to the commentary on KiwiBuild in the HYEFU released today: "To achieve programme goals there may be a need to change policy parameters and provide support to developers and/or homebuyers"?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well every time Treasury does a HYEFU or any of the other economic statements that it's responsible for it considers upside and downside risk scenarios. The member's referred to just one scenario which includes the possibility of house prices dropping but I would note that neither Treasury nor the Reserve Bank nor the Government believe that house prices will drop. House prices have stabilised in line with our policies and on this side of the House we think that's a good thing.Andrew Bayly: What are the conditions that would trigger the underwriting of private developers for the amount of $210 million that would result in the Crown paying money to KiwiBuild developers who are unable to sell their houses at the agreed KiwiBuild price?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well the nature of the underwrite is that it's triggered by a particular house not being sold."
6. Question No. 6—TransportKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) on behalf of PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 6—Transport6. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) on behalf of PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the New Zealand Transport Agency made in investigating regulatory non-compliance in the land transport system?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) advises me that all of the urgent cases have been closed. They are making good progress: 441 cases have been closed out of a total of 850 with work continuing on the remainder. I want to commend the board of NZTA and Meredith Connell who they brought in to take over the regulatory work for their efforts to clean up this mess and restore public confidence. Kieran McAnulty: What actions have been taken by NZTA as a result of this work?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As of today there are 94 compliance actions under way. This includes 48 notices to revoke or suspend 14 warnings 26 immediate suspensions and six licences to certify have been revoked.Kieran McAnulty: What led to the New Zealand Transport Agency having to investigate this regulatory non-compliance?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: These lapses go back for the best part of a decade. Meredith Connell have advised that there is a lack of internal systems for dealing with compliance breaches and a lack of focus on compliance. Years of underfunding are clearly at the heart of it. Several industry bodies media and Government agencies have been raising concerns about compliance failure for a number of years and until the Government changed last year these concerns clearly fell on deaf ears.
5. Question No. 5—TransportHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 5—Transport5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements on regional fuel taxes?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes particularly the ones where I've ruled out any outside of Auckland.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he stand by his statement in the House in October that Well it was scaremongering and misinformation for the Leader of the Opposition to go around claiming that the Government was in secret talks with Wellington councils to implement a regional fuel tax. It was never going to happen." when documents released under the Official Information Act show senior New Zealand Transport Agency officials were circulating documents in June this year including a regional fuel tax for Wellington gathering $36 million as an option to be considered after an earlier version of that same document had been sent to Ministers?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I do stand by that statement. Officials provide advice on a range of issues and in this case they provided briefings on the progress made by the multi-stakeholder Let's Get Wellington Moving governance group which includes a number of local councils. I specifically ruled out a regional fuel tax to that governance group on 8 October to make it clear that they should focus on other funding arrangements for that programme.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he square his statement to Radio New Zealand in October "to be fair you know we've never had a plan to have additional regional fuel taxes" with a statement in a letter to the mayor of Hamilton: "If in the future Hamilton City or the Waikato region wish to have a regional fuel tax I would encourage you to engage with officials at the Ministry of Transport. Officials will be able to provide guidance [on] any future applications including the matters that will need to be considered and addressed to increase the likelihood of an application being approved."?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well it was a pro forma letter that reflected the wording of the legislation—legislation which does not allow any more regional fuel taxes until after 2021. Myself and the Prime Minister have both ruled out any future regional fuel taxes. Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can the Prime Minister have been correct on 31 October when she told the House that "this Government never considered spreading a regional fuel tax."?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because we did not."
1. Question No. 1—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What are the priorities for Budget 2019?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Budget 2019 will be New Zealand's first well-being Budget and is an important first step in embedding well-being at the heart of what we do as a Government. Today in the Budget Policy Statement I have announced five priorities for Budget 2019—Hon Amy Adams: They were announced yesterday.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —which will be delivered in May next year and I want to thank the National Party for getting that excellent information out into the public arena. I have already announced that one of the priorities will be supporting mental health and well-being for all New Zealanders and we are putting a special focus on those under the age of 24. The other four priorities are creating opportunities for productive businesses regions iwi and others to transition to a sustainable and low-emissions economy; supporting a thriving nation in the digital age through innovation social and economic opportunities; lifting Māori and Pacific incomes skills and opportunities; and reducing child poverty and improving child well-being with a specific focus on addressing family violence.Dr Duncan Webb: How were the priorities selected?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The five priorities were identified through an evidence-based approach—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Borrowed off the previous Government.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —that's something Gerry Brownlee needs to learn about—using Treasury's Living Standards Framework evidence from sector-based experts and the Government's science advisers and with collaboration among public sector agencies and Ministers we developed five priorities which signify the outcomes that will make significant improvements to the long-term intergenerational well-being of New Zealanders. This represents a new way of thinking about how we develop our priorities as a Government and how we measure our success as a country.Dr Duncan Webb: How will the priorities influence Budget bids?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Instead of setting high-level values-driven priorities halfway through the Budget process like previous Governments have done the five Budget 2019 priorities were sent to Ministers and agencies at the start of the process in Treasury's Budget guidance document in September. This means that all Ministers and agencies will be collectively responsible for delivering on the priorities and that for the first time they are being tasked with developing their own Budget bids through the lens of these priorities. Ministers are being asked to work together from the outset of the Budget process across portfolios on initiatives that will deliver the outcomes identified by the priorities. I am proud that the coalition Government is widening the focus of the Budget to look past traditional measures like GDP and to also look at what we can do to improve the well-being of our people the health of our environment and the strength of our communities.
Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill — Third Reading