edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm really pleased to be seeing this bill—the Child Poverty Reduction Bill—travel through the House. A short contribution from me in this first up Part 1 and—going back to the purpose of this part and particularly picking up as did the previous member on clause 3(b) facilitate political accountability against published targets" but actually picking up clause 3(c) "require transparent reporting on levels of child poverty." They were of course measures that were long championed and supported by the Green Party so I'm particularly pleased.But in relation to Part 1 clause 3(b) and (c) in particular paragraph (c) can I go back to the select committee's report and it states there quite clearly—what came back was that children should be viewed in the context of their families whānau hapū and iwi or other culturally recognised family groups and communities. I simply wanted to affirm and reiterate the stance that the select committee itself identified and I think acknowledged that it has been the political viability of talking beyond child poverty and seeing child poverty beyond just the children.That is quite important and I welcome this holistic approach that we are taking. I welcome that we are being upfront and stating—perhaps not in legislation. This is why I think through all the stages of this committee stage—through all of the readings of these parts—we are taking the opportunity to stand up and explicitly acknowledge the wider context that children are in. And we purposefully do so because the political viability of understanding that children are part of a whole—and that it has often been seen as easier to politically fight for the dignity of children as opposed to their families and parents and so on. I think that's the first short contribution that I wanted to acknowledge in Part 1 of the reading of this bill. Thank you Madam Chair."
Ardern JacindaCHILD POVERTY REDUCTION BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsRt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Madam Chair it's my pleasure to kick off the committee stage of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill and can I say that from the outset the work that the Social Services and Community Committee has done on this bill has been outstanding and very much appreciated. I think they've done a good job of incorporating elements of the bill that do indeed strengthen it and I'm sure we'll see some of those submissions factored into the debate. Equally I'd like to acknowledge as I have done already the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that were produced by the National Party elements of which have equally been incorporated in this bill.I understand we'll be taking this debate part by part. My contribution on Part 1 is brief because Part 1 of the bill obviously sets out the preliminary provisions for the Act. It does note that the purpose of this bill is of course to encourage a focus by Government and society on child poverty reduction it facilitates political accountability against published targets and it requires transparent reporting. And you will see later on in the bill the Public Finance Act provisions that require that reporting to take place.Just for context when we discuss this part but also the bill more broadly the bill in and of itself does not contain the measures that reduce child poverty. They do however create the impetus the transparency and the accountability mechanisms to make sure that successive Governments put this issue at the heart of their policy making. So I think that's something that's become clear as this bill has been debated. It's a piece of infrastructure. Not unlike what we'll see with our climate change legislation it's a way of transparently putting to the public where we currently sit on a critical issue where we should be heading and what Government is doing along the way. The purpose part of this bill and the overview of this part are all contained in Part 1. I look forward to hearing members' contributions and am happy to make responses from the chair.
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Transport): I stand to support the Minister's ministerial statement and a small part of the member's contribution from the other side of the House. The Minister is actually addressing nine years of political neglect. The Minister has moved in. He has brought a sharper level of focus to an area where there has been a continuous set of cases of egregious neglect. The Minister is absolutely correct that the board who jealously defend their neutrality and their independence are absolutely held to account for this awful news. And I'm sure at an appropriate time the level of accountability that belongs not only with the board but the CEO is brought home where it belongs. But of course the Minister has to reassure garden-variety Kiwis that the regulatory framework whilst it might be intact—that the people are not influenced by too much political negative tone which has obviously been the case over the last nine years. The Minister has an extraordinarily big job to maintain not only confidence but to assure garden-variety Kiwis that those at the wheel are not asleep and that they are alert as to their full regulatory burdens unlike over the last nine years.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I rise in response to the Minister's statement. New Zealanders have a clear expectation that key regulatory authorities are enforcing the law. It's not acceptable for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to fail in its duty to properly check the operators that certify vehicles or operators as safe for the road. It's not acceptable as the Minister says when problems are identified for there often to be no follow-up.The National Party supports the Minister's decision to request the Ministry of Transport as the New Zealand Transport Agency's monitor to review NZTA's performance of their regulatory functions. We expect that the NZTA's board and its leadership be held to account for the decisions they made about priorities and their use of the substantial resources devoted to them.The Minister made the point on radio yesterday that the vast majority of deaths and serious injuries on our roads are the result of driver error fatigue and speed not because of regulatory issues but that is no excuse for regulatory neglect. The Government needs to ensure that the public can have confidence in NZTA and the companies issuing warrants.Finally we do believe that the Minister should ensure that where there is any continued doubt about the integrity of warrants of fitness the New Zealanders affected are contacted promptly before they and their families embark on long summer journeys over the festive season.
Twyford PhilMINISTERIAL STATEMENTSNew Zealand Transport Agency—Regulatory Compliance ReviewHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I wish to make a ministerial statement on the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). On 15 October the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency announced that external lawyers had been brought in to conduct a review of 850 open compliance files. The external review began in late September and based on preliminary findings the Transport Agency board decided to immediately strengthen its enforcement regime. It's clear that NZTA has failed in its duty to properly check the operators that certify vehicles or operators as safe for the road. When problems with these operators were identified there was often no follow-up. There was a reduced focus on the agency's regulatory role over the last decade. Staff were redeployed and there was an emphasis on education and encouragement rather than on enforcement and this was exacerbated in 2014 when the Transport Agency lost staff from its heavy vehicle compliance team. These concerns had been reported in the media and I must acknowledge the work of Phil Pennington and Radio New Zealand in ensuring that these issues have come to light. I'm concerned about the scope and seriousness of the failures that have occurred. It is clear that there has been a systemic failure in one of our most important Government agencies over a number of years. The rules set to ensure a safe transport system have not been enforced in some cases. There were 850 cases of providers with potential issues identified in the stocktake by Meredith Connell which were broken down by severity into 157 high-priority files 370 files coded orange and 345 files coded yellow. There has now been substantial progress on resolving these issues. I'm advised that all of the highest-priority matters have now been reviewed and for most of those matters formal compliance action either has been undertaken or is under way but there are approximately 28 matters where further investigative work is being conducted as a matter of urgency. I am disappointed that the New Zealand Transport Agency has failed to carry out its regulatory responsibilities to the standard that I expect as Minister. I am pleased that the agency's board has taken swift remedial action. I've requested that the Ministry of Transport as the New Zealand Transport Agency's statutory monitor review NZTA's performance of their regulatory functions. Given the information that I and the public know about the agency's performance it's appropriate to ask for external advice on NZTA's regulatory performance. This Government is committed to saving lives on our roads. Injuries on our roads are not the price that we pay to travel. They are unacceptable and preventable. I want to assure the Parliament and the public that the Transport Agency is moving quickly to identify and rectify instances where lapses in the system may have meant that safety standards were not met.
Mallard TrevorVISITORSParliament of South Australia House of Assembly—Ms Frances BedfordSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Ms Frances Bedford member of the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia who is present in the gallery. [Applause]
Mallard TrevorOBITUARIESGordon CopelandSPEAKER: Members I regret to inform the House of the death on 24 November 2018 of Gordon Frank Copeland who was a list member for the United Future party from 2002 to 2007 and an Independent member from 2007 to 2008. During his membership of the House he was deputy chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure and Commerce Committees. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory. Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. SPEAKER: Thank you members.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MESSAGE FROM GOVERNOR-GENERALConsumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) BillSPEAKER: I have a message from Her Excellency the Governor-General. It reads as follows: Patsy Reddy Governor-General. The Governor-General on behalf of Her Majesty consents to the passage of the Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill to the extent that it affects the rights and prerogatives of the Crown. Wellington 12 November 2018.""
Tuesday 11 September 2018 (continued on Wednesday 12 September 2018) - Volume 732
Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill; Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill; and Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill — First Readings
Mallard TrevorREGULATORY SYSTEMS (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) AMENDMENT BILLREGULATORY SYSTEMS (HOUSING) AMENDMENT BILLREGULATORY SYSTEMS (WORKFORCE) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingsSPEAKER: Is there a Minister who's going to take the call? [Interruption] Right we'll move on to Government orders of the day—No. There being no Minister taking the call the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.The House adjourned at 10.48 a.m. (Wednesday)
Building Amendment Bill — First Reading
Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It's a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill. It will be a very short contribution. I want to congratulate the Hon Eugenie Sage Minister of Conservation for bringing this bill because in fact we haven't really got anything that protects our freshwater indigenous fish in this country. This bill is overdue and it's important because we actually get to turn our sights to our indigenous freshwater fish species in this country. E Te Mana Whakawā you may not be aware that apparently all fish are equal but some fish are more equal than others. We have many indigenous sea fish and we have lots and lots of marine fish which have over 600 pieces of legislation or regulation that protect them. In this country we have one piece that protects indigenous freshwater fish and that fish is extinct. So it is due time that we pay heed to the freshwater fish in this country. We would say He iti pounamu"—many of them are little but precious. So very briefly this bill as the name would surely suggest specifically looks at indigenous freshwater fish and it clarifies the name of indigenous freshwater fish as opposed to freshwater fish. It looks at changing the principal Act the Conservation Act 1987 to tidy up a whole pile of things. When we hear the Opposition talk about the regulatory impact statement and the timing issues—let's not forget that the Opposition when in Government didn't even bother with some pieces of legislation having a regulatory impact statement at all—we just need to remember that this bill is a tidy-up. It's a fix-up. It's a protection for our freshwater fish within conservation areas. Really it seeks to improve the management of our indigenous freshwater fish and it is essentially a conversation that we are beginning to have about fish such as whitebait and tuna which are very important to us all as Kiwis. So it is the beginning of the conversation. I am looking forward absolutely to the select committee process and as the Opposition knows we take this seriously. We look forward to the contributions of the community. I commend this bill to the House."
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): For how many minutes Madam Deputy Speaker?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five minutes.TODD MULLER: Five. Very good.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bell at one.TODD MULLER: OK. That's very good. Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to just say a few words in support of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill in the first reading that we started a week or so ago. Obviously we signalled that we're going to support it but I do just want to call out poor process which is becoming a consistent theme for this Government and particularly for Minister Hipkins.When I looked through the regulatory impact statement there was a section here which talked about key limitations of the analysis of the bill's fit for purpose. It says that the key constraint in preparing the policy proposals was time frame. This means that the proposals that are listed in this bill could not be tested. They had not allowed any time for consultation with iwi and stakeholders. And then the reason given for that from the Government is their intense legislative programme. That's what they have signalled is the reason why there has been no stakeholder engagement and the suggestions that are enabled in this legislation have not been tested. I mean this is completely woeful. We sit on the Environment Committee. In the last year we've had the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill which we had to look at a couple of times because we didn't quite get the detail right; the America's Cup Road Stopping Bill which is about two clauses; the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill; and the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill—high-order issues! Clearly we're under the pump on the Environment Committee to the extent that the legislative programme is so packed that we've got to put this bill in front of the House without testing it with any stakeholders and with the quality assurance from the Government officials saying Well actually we don't actually know whether these proposals are going to work because they haven't been tested." That talks to extraordinarily poor process. In fact this Government wouldn't know good process if they tripped over it. They're not under pressure had nothing in front of the Environment Committee and have a new bill that's been pushed through by Eugenie Sage that hasn't been tested with stakeholders hasn't been tested with iwi—and their own regulatory impact statement says "Actually we can't even be sure this will work because we haven't tested the proposals." Now we'll support it because the intent is in the right direction but be assured we will interrogate this fiercely and do what the Government should have done before they put the first reading up in the first place. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."
Tolley AnneCONSERVATION (INDIGENOUS FRESHWATER FISH) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 4 September.DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we were debating this last we were up to a National Party call. I understand it is a split call and so I call Todd Muller with a bell at one minute.
State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill — Second Reading
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I will take a brief call on this bill. This is actually a minor bill. It is not as important as it sounds because much of what we are talking about has been applied to much of the State sector so it is actually a minor bill. This bill actually empowers the State Services Commissioner to basically make sure that our Public Service has strong integrity and accountability. So this is the essence of this bill. Openness is like a keyword in this bill. The current Government has been talking about openness but this is actually what the Government is lacking. What we should also pay attention to is the balance between strengthening the integrity accountability and openness of our Public Service sector and the capability to attract competitive or capable leaders to our State sector. That is another point that we can consider. Overall this is a good bill so we would like to commend this to the House. Thanks.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Tēnā koe Madam Deputy Speaker. Kia ora. I rise to take a call at the second reading of the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill. Previous speakers displayed their respective attitudes as displayed by my learned colleague Matt King but I'd like to follow my portfolio Minister the Hon Chris Hipkins in looking at some principal points under this bill.Now the title of this bill may sound a little bit arid but if we put it into the context it is much easier for us to get the real picture. For citizens Crown entities and the State services sector and so on and so forth are often the face of the Government. Collectively they carry out a wide range of functions from running public hospitals to our schools and performing a broad range of service delivery and regulatory activities. So it is very important that they remain connected around core values based on a unifying spirit of service to the community. So it is a no-brainer for us to maintain the confidence and public trust in Crown entities and State services.Some of the principal proposals in this bill include firstly the remuneration setting for Crown entity chief executives and secondly five-year appointment terms. Previously chief executives of Crown entities had to be appointed on an ongoing basis which in plain English means permanently. This may have created some strange situations because largely board members would be responsible for chief executives whom they did not appoint and a chief executive's terms of appointment would go beyond the terms of appointment of those board members.Thirdly in terms of standards of integrity and conduct for Crown entity board members under the proposals of the bill we would be able to catch up to international practices such as the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies issued by the UK Cabinet Office.Last but certainly not least I mention the State Services Commissioner's powers to investigate. There were different thresholds and powers applicable to different functions but it is highly desirable to put in place a single investigation package that aligns with the Inquiries Act 2013.Without affecting the autonomy of Crown entities' statutory functions the legislative changes in this bill support greater integrity and accountability in the management of State services. So this is a simple narrow but very important bill and without further ado I commend this bill to the House.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): There's a good argument here for having these sorts of bills reserved for late in the evening on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to help cure the insomniacs that we have watching from out there in TV land. It's a bit like watching paint dry or a calculus lecture but it's a necessary—[Interruption] I'm not criticising the last speaker Kiri Allan at all; I'm just saying this is what it's about.Essentially it gives the State Services Commissioner powers to control the terms and conditions of CEOs. Currently the commissioner doesn't have to obtain consent and this law changes that. It's potentially a good law change limiting Crown entities' employment conditions contracts to five years—I would imagine that's a pretty good law to bring in—with a right to renew and setting standards of integrity and conduct for Crown entities boards is another good law.National is supporting this bill. It's essentially our bill. It aligns with the National Inquiries Act".Hon Members: Ha ha!MATT KING: Yeah you like that? I've been what nearly a year in Parliament now and we've been passing a lot of National Party bills in this first 12 months so I'm looking forward to some really good legislation coming from the other side of the House—their own work. I'm really looking forward to the second and third years for that. But I am worried about the direction that public services are going in under this coalition Government—just to spark it up a bit.Jamie Strange: What about your own speeches?MATT KING: The other side's awake now. Less accountability—they've knocked Public Service targets on the head—especially for example waiting times in emergency departments which were proven lifesavers. So it's the direction this Government's going in that I am concerned about.We need to ensure that we are incentivising for performance. Now I know Minister Hipkins is keen on dropping the measurement and setting performance standards—they've been doing that since they got in. Instead of pulling up the bottom rung of the ladder they're trying to take down the top. You've got to remember that these chief executives are responsible for investment and expenditure of billions of dollars. We need good competent people fronting our organisations. Otherwise we'll get bosses like you see on the show Gliding On.We have to compete with the private sector. I know the Institute of Directors states that this bill may undermine good governance that appointing and managing CEOs is one of the most important functions of a board and that it's important that these functions are at arm's length from the commissioner. Boards such as the Superannuation Fund—that chief executive heads a fund with $38 billion worth of assets under management. I would want the best person in charge of that show wouldn't you?So we support this bill. We just have our concerns about the attitudes displayed by some of them across the House."
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Tolley AnneKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to contribute on the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill in its second reading. First of all I would like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Hipkins for introducing this bill and secondly I would like to acknowledge Brett Hudson the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee when we went through the process for his leadership and all the members who contributed during the select committee process.This is an omnibus bill which makes amendments to the Crown Entities Act 2004 and the State Sector Act 1988 to provide for greater integrity and accountability in the management of the State sector services. It is important as the previous speakers have acknowledged that we have the best people to lead our Crown entities such as ACC and the Superannuation Fund and we have to find a relevant person who can lead such an organisation which deals with billions of dollars on behalf of the taxpayers and the Government. They need to have the best talent and that is the foremost important criterion for the leadership at that stage as Treasury cautioned that these Public Service agencies are large organisations and are competing against other private sector organisations for top-quality candidates. As we know it is not only the monetary thing which attracts people to come and lead such an organisation but there are people who are committed and who want to take these organisations to the next level and we have seen in the past few years some of that leadership which has taken those organisations which were performing badly to be the best at this time—for example ACC.The bill amends section 117 of the Crown Entities Act to require the board of statutory entities to obtain the written consent of the State Services Commissioner before finalising the terms and conditions of employment for chief executives and subsequent amendments to them. As we know at present most statutory entity boards are required to take consent from the commissioner and to have regard to the commissioner's recommendation. So this bill emphasises that it is compulsory for all entities to get the consent from the State Services Commissioner so that it can be referred to in due course. We know that tertiary education institutions are already required to obtain such consent from the commissioner.So I think it is a good bill and with more minor amendments it can deliver the best for the country. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very concerned when a senior Government Minister takes this opportunity and this forum to display his attitude to the Public Service which is at best punitive but also by his actions in the past and no doubt in the future could be described as displaying a witch-hunt mentality towards the Public Service.The implied threat today in the House by Shane Jones which was repeated several times was that if Public Service chief executives don't like the provisions in this bill in that their pay and conditions will come under extra scrutiny then effectively: If you don't like it get out." That would be seen at best as being not helpful and at worst just unworthy of a Government. So we really do have to question whether this is a prevailing attitude of a New Zealand First Minister in this coalition Government and whether due to the power balances—which are very much up in the air at the moment with this coalition Government about just who actually is in charge—this attitude of "If I don't like you I'm going after you." is going to prevail over the next couple of years or less until we have another Government.I also want to take issue with the Hon Shane Jones' reference to a senior police officer's appointment process where he regrets I think in the tone of his voice that the process has come under scrutiny and where he contends that the Opposition have trivialised that appointment process. No no no no no. What this Opposition has done is question some of the behaviours that have happened and still happen within New Zealand Police—and I say this in the context of the Public Service appointments process Madam Deputy Speaker.What in fact the concern around police now is 10 years after some appalling police conduct where the Office of the Auditor-General had a programme of scrutiny over the police—and I was assured in select committee by the commissioner that no more police bullying was happening particularly bullying of women. That remains a concern and it remains a concern to me that a New Zealand First senior Minister who seems to be grabbing power with every moment that goes is defending the behaviour of another Minister in his party—Tracey Martin—who's made a complete hash of the inquiry into a senior police officer.So we support this bill—we do support this bill—because it does in Part 1 of the bill make amendments to the Crown Entities Act around the appointment of chief executives for statutory Crown entities. We wanted to go further in the bill but what we want is the best person for the job because it is an important job. Being a chief executive of a Crown entity carries an awful lot of responsibility. Take no notice of what Shane Jones says about putting a bit of un-monetised work into the job—of course they do. Of course they do. From time to time chief executives come under an enormous amount of pressure and it is a very bad situation when that pressure comes from their own Government. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."
Eagle Paul; Tolley AnnePAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Mōrena Madam Deputy Speaker. It's my pleasure to speak on this bill. Can I just acknowledge the Minister of State Services for the work that has gone into this and also the Governance and Administration Committee chair and members here this morning who have contributed to the process to date. It is an omnibus bill with two parts. We've heard about Part 1 making key changes to the Crown Entities Act and Part 2 making key changes to the State Sector Act. But in summary the bill makes three changes really in total: it replaces the use of the old Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 with substantially similar powers from the Inquiries Act 2013 it provides a uniform trigger to enable the State Services Commissioner to use the full suite of investigation-type powers in the wider State services—all the commissioner's powers will be available irrespective of whether the commissioner is directed or requested to act by the Prime Minister or a Minister or the head of any part of the State Service—and finally it enables the commissioner to use the full suite of investigatory powers under the commissioner's own motion for investigations into matters of integrity and accountability.Integrity and accountability—I think this puts the public" and "service" back into the Public Service. I just wanted to comment on a few things that the member for Nelson has brought up in his speech. The best person for the job concept—this is a bill that reinforces that. It's an absolute myth that if you pay more you'll get a better person or more of a person. We see already riddled through the last 20 30 40 years many a chief executive who has come in promised lots and they are on their merry way. Their CV looks great but I wonder truly whether they were "public" and "servants" in that private-public push-pull. This is public money. If you wanted to make money and go do your thing go join the private sector and have a happy life there but when you're in the Public Service you are a public servant and I think what we've seen from taxpayers the people of New Zealand is that it's unacceptable—some of the salaries that are being paid. We've heard that. This addresses some of that. It gets some of the consistency in place that the Government intends to achieve. There is that performance factor and that risk component there. But again we're not a car factory. We're not a tyre factory. If they want to sell more cars more tyres go work for the private sector and get your risk component built into your salary—end of story. You're right—there is nothing cute here. This just really is about a better more transparent and accountable Public Service which at the end of the day gives public trust and confidence in the Government and that's what this bill aims to achieve. I commend this to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call—sorry before I do that I should actually say the question is that the motion be agreed to. I call Brett Hudson."
Wednesday 12 September 2018 - Volume 732
State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
10. Prime Minister—Contact with Minister of Government Digital Services and Minister of CustomsHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime MinisterPrime Minister—Contact with Minister of Government Digital Services and Minister of Customs10. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Yes. Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Prime Minister asked Clare Curran whether there are more emails between her and Derek Handley? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I believe I advised yesterday I have had the assurance from Minister Curran's office that she will be ensuring that all relevant correspondence across all forums are appropriately archived. Those will then be able to be accessed. Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Prime Minister had any conversations emails or texts with Derek Handley?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have in the past had correspondence with Mr Handley. It's on the public record that I've known him for a number of years.Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Prime Minister publicly disclose those conversations emails or texts?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am subject to the Official Information Act as everyone else in this House is.Hon Paula Bennett: When Meka Whaitiri told her she did not assault her staff member did she believe her?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said in the House yesterday this is a contested allegation. That is why it's being investigated by Ministerial Services.Hon Paula Bennett: Can her Ministers have confidence in her to take them at their word and not question whether they are telling the truth and then get Ministerial Services to investigate them?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have advised this House recently when I contacted Minister Whaitiri she wanted this process to be transparent and open. She has been fully cooperating and Ministerial Services as is rightly so is undertaking an investigation in a transparent way.Hon Paula Bennett: When she said in the House yesterday that no personal grievances have been lodged against Meka Whaitiri since becoming a Minister." is she aware of any other staffing issues in Meka Whaitiri's office where Ministerial Services have been involved?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I advised what my office had been advised in relation to personal grievances. We are otherwise investigating this specific allegation via Ministerial Services.SPEAKER: Question No. 11—Jonathan Young—Hon Simon Bridges: Shifty."
9. Education—Learning Support and Direct Access PathwayJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Associate Minister of EducationEducation—Learning Support and Direct Access Pathway9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: What actions if any has the Government taken to provide more options for children and young people with complex and challenging learning-support needs and their families?Hon Tracey Martin: Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: The Hon Tracey—Hon Tracey Martin: Martin. SPEAKER: Martin—sorry. Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Kia ora thank you. SPEAKER: I was going to call you Tracey Nelson. I don't know why. Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It's all right. Other speakers have called me other things too. SPEAKER: Yes so have I. Hon TRACEY MARTIN: On 23 August the Minister of Education and I announced a new direct access pathway for students with complex learning-support needs to attend residential schools. This will mean that more children and young people will be able to enrol in Government-funded places at our three residential special schools: Halswell Salisbury and Westbridge. We are delivering on a commitment to ensure that our young people can access the support they believe provides the best option to participate in and progress their learning. Jamie Strange: How does the new direct access pathway make it easier for children and young people to apply to enrol in residential schools? Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Previously access to a residential special school was via the Intensive Wraparound Service. The direct access pathway will allow children and young people to be assessed by independent regional panels—as they are for the Intensive Wraparound Service—to enrol at the school without having to be accepted into the Intensive Wraparound Service first. Families are able to put in their enrolment applications now with the new pathway commencing in term 4. Residential schools and parents have been asking for some years to establish another enrolment pathway for young people with complex needs to go into residential schools. We made this commitment and we are pleased to have been able to deliver on it.
7. Business Partnership Agenda—Minimum Wage Increase and Provincial Growth FundHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceBusiness Partnership Agenda—Minimum Wage Increase and Provincial Growth Fund7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What components of the Business Partnership Agenda are designed to increase productivity and improve our economy's international competitiveness?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): All of them.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How will increasing the minimum wage by 27 percent in the next three years increase our international competitiveness?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: More productive businesses and more productive workers will improve our international competitiveness.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So what is the process that leads to an increase in the minimum wage automatically leading to higher productivity?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I wouldn't say it's automatic but making sure that we lift the wages that New Zealanders get will mean that firstly they'll be spending more money in the economy which we know that those on the minimum wage do. The member needs to get alongside the businesses in New Zealand who are involving themselves in things like high performance engagement programmes which actually lift both—[Interruption] Well I'm glad to see the members opposite laughing at some of our largest companies improving their bottom line improving the prospects of their workers and lifting their wages. It's possible to do all of them Mr Goldsmith.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What would he say to an exporter whose products require a lot of labour and who doesn't believe he or she can remain in business while increasing their wages 27 percent?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is hypothetical. The exporters that I talk to are ambitious for New Zealand. They want to get alongside the Government with our plan to lift investment in research and development to build the infrastructure that will support them and to get the free-trade deals that those exporters want. I think the member needs to be more optimistic about our exporters' prospects.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he concerned that the Provincial Growth Fund which he hopes will be a driver in productivity has so far devoted less than 1.5 percent of its funds to the entire South Island and if so is it fair to conclude that the Government is not focused on South Island productivity?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not. As somebody who grew up in South Dunedin I can tell you that this Government has got a laser-like focus on all of the regions of New Zealand. And indeed Mr Shane Jones the provincial champion has been touring both the North and the South Island to some acclaim all over the provinces of New Zealand and I have great confidence in him that we will see the fruits of the Provincial Growth Fund spread widely—I hesitate to use the word seed"; the fruits anyway—across the sector."
6. KiwiBuild—Targets and Mount Roskill DevelopmentMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentKiwiBuild—Targets and Mount Roskill Development6. MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress if any has been made towards the Government's KiwiBuild homes targets?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Well it's more good news from the Government. On Sunday the Government announced another large-scale development—a transformational project to build 10000 new homes for families in Mount Roskill. This development will include more than 2400 modest affordable KiwiBuild homes for first-home buyers around 3000 homes to be sold on the market and more than 3000 new warm dry State houses. Building in Mount Roskill South has started already. In stage one 80 new State homes will be built with the first ready to move into by next year. Stage two will begin mid-next year and will see 90 worn out old State houses replaced with around 300 new homes including 95—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Thank you.Michael Wood: How will the Government ensure that local residents are able to rent or buy homes in the completed Mount Roskill development?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'm determined that the local community benefits from this redevelopment and are not simply priced out of the new homes. HLC are working to keep the prices of KiwiBuild homes as low as possible and we're working on long-term rent and shared-equity options. For KiwiBuild we will be using priority ballots to ensure that local residents in Roskill have the first shot at owning their own home in their own community.Michael Wood: How does the Mount Roskill development fit within the Government's plans for large-scale urban development?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well this Mount Roskill development is the second fully integrated transport and housing development. HLC and the KiwiBuild unit are working closely with the New Zealand Transport Agency - led light rail project to ensure that they are both fully integrated. Integrating transport and housing is how we invest in the infrastructure needed to get ahead of the growth. The Mount Roskill development joins Unitech Northcote and Māngere as initial large-scale developments where this Government is building starter homes for young Kiwi families.Michael Wood: What progress is being made on the Government's immediate target of 1000 KiwiBuild homes in 2018-19?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well on Monday the Prime Minister also announced that the ballot had opened for the first 18 KiwiBuild homes at McLennan and our Government is opening the door to families locked out of homeownership by building affordable starter homes where the market has failed. Another 12 properties are already under construction and a further 58 of mainly three-bedroom homes will be built at McLennan. In the coming weeks I'll be announcing more KiwiBuild projects and tomorrow our Government will be announcing the first homes to be built through the Buying off the Plans initiative.
5. KiwiBuild—Mount Roskill DevelopmentHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentKiwiBuild—Mount Roskill Development5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he agree with all the reported statements of his Government on KiwiBuild?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I stand by such statements if correctly reported and in their context including the statement from the Prime Minister that she is proud to lead a Government that is making housing more affordable.Hon Judith Collins: Was the Mount Roskill development that he announced on Saturday the same project that started under National in October 2016 or is this a different project now because it's been rebranded KiwiBuild?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It's a different project because it's got a light rail line running right through the middle of the community and not only has this Government committed to building 10000 new houses but 2400 of them are going to be affordable KiwiBuild houses for young families to live in.Hon Judith Collins: Is $2 billion of capital allocation in Budget 2018 likely to be sufficient to deliver 100000 quality affordable homes throughout New Zealand within a decade." or does he anticipate that more money will needed from future Budgets?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The answer's yes to the first part of the question.Hon Judith Collins: Oh so it will be sufficient—OK. Are the KiwiBuild projects that have been announced so far likely to deliver a profit to the Crown to be reinvested in future projects?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well the KiwiBuild homes that are going to be built in these large projects will be supported through the $2 billion recycling fund but actually those large projects in general are expected to wash their face—that is they are expected to break even over time.Hon Judith Collins: Does he then agree with HLC—formerly Hobsonville Land Company—chief executive Chris Aiken who said the cost of the Mount Roskill redevelopment project alone would be $4 billion and that net cost "zeroes off to a break-even position"?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I agree with Chris Aiken. He's an excellent excellent public servant and he's right; that development will break even.Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct that if KiwiBuild projects only break even in order to deliver 100000 homes with a budget of $2 billion money will have to be recycled through the fund once every three months and is this likely to occur?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Over the 10-year period a high level of recycling of that fund will take place. We're talking about investing and redeveloping an asset base that is worth billions of dollars. I know that the members opposite don't think it's possible to build affordable homes for New Zealanders. They don't think it's possible to build whole new communities which is what we used to do in this country routinely a generation ago. It's a shame that for nine years they had so little ambition. That's the reason we got into the housing crisis in the first place."