edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Thank you very much again. Thank you my learned colleague for the questions. First of all to be upfront I don't actually have a preference nor have I made any decision with regard to where I think this levy should go. I just think that because the Department of Internal Affairs was not given the opportunity to truly have a look at all of the international options that we need to give them the time to do that. I hope that what I can do from this moment forward is continue to work with the honourable member and keep him briefed before we get to a stage where any suggestion is put forward to this House because these services as you have mentioned are vital to New Zealanders. So again I think this is a place where—if the honourable member and myself can work together and keep in touch with each other so that whatever this House decides on or whatever I finally bring to this House we have a consensus that it is fair and that it does what it needs to do. There are a couple of problems with what we've got now. People are able to—and I don't like the word but it's a word that's used a lot in the documentation—freeload" by choosing not to insure their property and therefore are not paying their levy but they still benefit from the services. It has increased insurance costs and it's reduced incentives for people to properly insure their properties and so they're under-insuring and that doesn't help anybody either. The levy collection is complex to administer for insurers. Now my learned colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean she quite rightly mentioned that there is one international way that some countries deal with this which is through collecting the levy component inside property rates. That would be a big step for New Zealand but I think it's something we have to discuss. It would have to be discussed alongside of the resourcing and the mechanism by which one supported whether it was local government or—how would that work? It's a discussion we need to have. Car registration for example could include part of a levy rate rather than having it on the side. Again something else we need to discuss. General taxation is used in other nations. We need to put everything on the table and have a really really good look at this in a timely fashion and again I would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi so that there are no surprises. I appreciate that putting this Supplementary Order Paper on the table after this legislation has come out of select committee is not optimum and I apologise for that. Timing is everything I suppose but I do hope from this moment forward to work more collegially with the member so that he knows as much as I know with regard to the pathway we take this so that Fire and Emergency New Zealand will be sustainably funded on a fair and relevant basis. Kia ora."
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Chair. First of all I would like to thank the Minister for her prompt response to the questions raised by myself. I would again like to ask the Minister—the present regime is creating a huge surplus and we want to know where that surplus will be used in the future. That is an important part of this levy set-up which is applicable right now and will be extended until 2024. So if we have got continuous surpluses in the levies where is that money going to go? So that one clarification the Minister needs to make. As my colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean has raised what other options is the Minister considering to replace the present levy regime? That is equally important because the Minister has talked about fairness and that fairness can only be brought in when there is equity for everyone contributing for this important role. The Minister needs to come up with the answer if she can tell us how she plans that in the future—what options she has got for collecting the levy in the future for Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). Lastly about the road accidents—that is another avenue where we see there is increasing constant call-outs for FENZ and they are doing a great job for the community. So if the Minister can address those questions I'd really appreciate it.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Just before I give the call I'm just going to let the member know that I've reset his number of calls back to zero so this is his first call since the leave was taken.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Chair. My colleague Kanwaljit Bakshi chair of the Governance and Administration Committee asked the Minister a pretty fair question in his initial contribution which was what might those funding sources for the levy be? I'd like to reiterate that question to the Minister and I would like the Hon Tracey Martin to explain to the committee her initial thinking perhaps about what other forms of levy options will be considered. Would it be a levy on ratepayers for example? Well if that were so that would require some very careful consideration and from our point of view costs on homeowners and always ultimately on people who are paying rent will have an inflationary effect. Now I understand the you know ups and downs—if you set the levy at a certain point you have to gather it from certain places so there will be pluses and minuses in there—but I do need and would request and urge the Minister and her officials to think very carefully about just who they are going to strike this new levy from. National does support Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 205. National supports this work and commends the Minister for her approach to Fire and Emergency New Zealand. In the time that the Minister has been in charge of that role I think that the changing times for Fire and Emergency New Zealand have been pretty smooth considering the long amount of time that the change has stood in front of Fire and Emergency New Zealand personnel and volunteers and their communities which is why I think in agreeing to this SOP to extend the time for implementation of the levy so that the Minister and her officials can develop some other options for the levy we need to be assured that while time is agreed to timeliness of that consultation should be at the forefront of the Minister's mind and also the equity issues around just who is going to be levied to fund Fire and Emergency New Zealand.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghFIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND (LEVY) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I would like to take a call on Part 1 of this bill. Basically there is only one part. In the bill as originally introduced it was supposed to change the date of commencement from 1 July 2019 to 1 July 2021. During the select committee we went through this bill and the Governance and Administration Committee proposed some amendments which were adopted at the second reading. In those amendments one of the main things which was resolved was that this levy regime should be taken care of and a number of provisions should be taken up. At that time I asked the officials whether they had explored any other options; and I appreciate the Minister acknowledging that when the question was raised during the second reading and some input was given.Now we know that the Minister has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to extend the date further from 1 July 2021 to 1 July 2024. So I have a question for the Minister in the chair: please explain what the reasons are that we are extending this date further and what options she is considering for implementing these levy changes. I know it is very important that fire and emergency services provide a really good service to us as a community and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their service during the recent incident in Christchurch where they were really prominent to provide help to the victims.The Minister may address this question that the levy which is right now funded through the insurance policies—and we know there are a few issues that some of the people don't insure but they get the same service and there are a number of other issues also as the number of call-outs for road accidents is also increasing from time to time. On the other hand the call-outs for the fire services are declining. So overall we need to understand how the Minister proposes to change the levy regime which is in place. Extending the same levy regime until 2024 there will be a huge surplus. Where will that surplus be used? We need to understand the surplus is also available in the future and that is important for us to understand—how this money will be used. I hope the Minister will take a call to explain this.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): Thank you. I'd just like to take a short call to answer some of these questions. Part 2 of course is quite a narrow part of this legislation—it's around the year 2 and beyond provisions as opposed to the other provisions we've looked at.Just in terms of the question that the member Parmjeet Parmar has raised in terms of clause 43 and no preapproval time line within that I'd just like to offer that member some reassurance that this is an issue that we have discussed both with IRD and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials. While there's not a legislated time line in there there is an operational standard that will see IRD looking to give a decision within six weeks on this. So this is an issue that we have given consideration to and this is more rightly put into an operational standard than appearing in the legislation for obvious reasons. Obviously a fixed time line within there could have some perverse outcomes in terms of the integrity standards that we're trying to look at. We don't want to have anything in there that could encourage gaming and poor applications. That is more rightly done within that operational standard that the department will operate.The other issue that the member brought up—that I'd just like to respond to in terms of certifying and preapproval that will operate in this post - year 2 and beyond provision—is of course actually something that business asked for. This was something that we went out before the select committee process when we did the engagement—and a very broad engagement with business actually. Business came very clearly to us and said Look we want to have provisions in there where we can preapprove." It's not like applying for a grant where every time you have to put the application in. There can be for certification or there can be preapproval for smaller businesses and this was very much part of our responsiveness to the sector and listening to businesses around what they wanted. So I just wanted to give some reassurance on those questions."
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm not going to accept that motion but I'm going to put the question.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Chair. I think fundamentally there is maybe a difference in opinion about what constitutes a small business. The Minister of Research Science and Innovation has given a good exposition of her point of view that lowering the threshold to $50000 expenditure on R & D is in fact making R & D investment easier for small business. I couldn't disagree more. I couldn't disagree more about that. There are a number of small businesses which are small—small start-up businesses—that are the very ones who have the innovative thinking innovative policies and innovative plans and where some form of Government assistance which of course they had available to them under the previous Government would indeed be most useful. So I would urge the Minister and I would urge the Minister for Small Business also in conjunction with his colleague when talking about our R & D investment to really have a good look at what is a small business and what is going to be most useful for them because I can think of a number of the many small businesses and start-ups that I have engaged with who couldn't dream of investing a minimum of $50000 in research and development and yet that is just what they need to do to take the next step as a business. I also would note on that point—and I just want to stick to that point—that fundamentally the primary reason that New Zealand does have relatively low levels of investment in research and development is the sheer size of our companies in New Zealand. It is the nature of the New Zealand business economy that most of our business is small. There are a number who grow and there are a number who will benefit from R & D grants but that number is not predominant in the New Zealand economy. So maybe I will finish on this point because we did see back in 2007 under the previous Labour Government when there was an R & D tax credit scheme a lot of attention was given to companies by accountants and advisers about how they would get the best out of that R & D tax credit regime at the time. And I can't see that this time it will be any different for accountancy firms who I know are already beginning to put out newsletters alerting their clients to the work that their business and financial advisers are doing around how to best leverage and how to best use this R & D incentive. So it would seem a shame that there were some adverse impacts coming out of this legislation where it is more about how we classify and code expenditure rather than purely using the opportunity to invest. Thank you.
Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading
Speaker's Statement — Wi-Fi Testing
Motions — Condolences—Sri Lanka and San Diego
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to support this Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill. As the last speaker from this side of the House I'd like to echo my colleagues' congratulations to the Hon Kris Faafoi who seems to have had great success bringing bills to this House that have had wide support throughout this House.Earlier speakers have talked about the issues in terms of the loans that people get into and get into trouble and aren't able to pay which becomes a problem debt. I do actually know that in the ethnic communities—for example in my own Korean community it has actually had issues with people who can't find banks to give them loans for emergency situations whether it is family members who are suffering from cancer and need treatment urgently and they can't go to the bank and actually get loans specifically because it takes too long or they have a particular desire. Earlier the Government member just talked about young people who are wanting cars saying that they probably should not be able to afford and could not afford them but they managed to get these kinds of loans. Some of these lenders could only be classed as loan sharks because these community lenders often provide exorbitant interest rates which are more than the 100 percent target that the Minister has actually put in this bill. I am a little bit worried that it will become a target but compared to what is actually existing within the community for these informal loans that exist it is a much better outcome I think and hopefully that is something that the select committee process might even look at. We've had situations where bad debt has become a conflict situation between the lender and the borrower where there have been physical fights. Quite a few years ago while I was a journalist there was even a murder that actually resulted because of a debt that was not paid back and the interest that grew so much that they were unable to pay it back.I particularly like the idea of bringing lay-by into this bill. I have a fond memory of lay-by when I was a young student when I was in Australia—going into a shop and hoping that maybe I could actually afford that pair of shoes. I would put some money down and go back and actually pay again. So I think all of these things that the Minister has actually put in place are in a good space.The fit and proper person test for directors and executives is one that I always support. But putting more responsibility on lenders I think is one that we should be very clear on in terms of how they advertise and also the criteria. I think what we need to do is—you know often people do not go to these loan sharks or go to these mobile trucks for purchases when they are able to afford them. Often it is the people who are the most vulnerable who actually go to these people for loans who go to these mobile vendors for purchases and they are the most vulnerable in our community and we should be protecting them. I look forward to the debates in the select committee and the submissions from the community. I commend this bill to the House.
Falloon Andrew; Tolley AnneANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to take a brief call this afternoon on the first reading of the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill. I'm really pleased to actually because I think the last contribution I made in this Parliament a couple of weeks ago before the Easter break was on the wheel clamping bill which was another piece of very worthy legislation by that up-and-coming commerce Minister Kris Faafoi. So I congratulate him on both that piece of legislation and the one that we're discussing this afternoon. The roots of this bill though do go back to about 2014 when the last Government passed the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill which was a very substantial overhaul of the legislation. Subsequent to that the current Government have reviewed the arrangements that were put in place and have come forward now with some new considerations that we're debating today. A number of those are quite positive and I just want to run through a few of those very briefly. The first one is to bring lay-by arrangements under the provisions. Also bring in a fit and proper test for directors and also for executives and due diligence obligations on directors and senior managers. But two of the more substantial arrangements are ones that are being talked about a bit this afternoon. The first one of those is around better regulation of mobile traders and unfortunately mobile traders are a scourge on many communities across New Zealand. Deborah Russell spoke passionately about them this afternoon and I agree with pretty much everything that she said. They are a scourge. They are predatory on the most vulnerable in our communities and unfortunately do perpetuate that cycle of poverty. So I'm pleased that this bill will bring better regulation on to some of those mobile traders. The other aspect of the bill which I'm broadly supportive of is bringing in or imposing a limit on the accumulation of interest and fees on high-cost loans to 100 percent of the value of the original loan. Now as has been pointed out this afternoon particularly by my colleagues Jonathan Young and Paul Goldsmith there are some risks in that in that that doesn't become just a limit; it becomes a target. So that's something that we'll be talking about I'm sure in select committee. The other aspect that we'll be talking about I'm sure in select committee is the effect of limiting or capping the level of interest and the availability of people to then access that credit or indeed those goods they would otherwise buy. So those are two really important aspects that we'll be discussing at select committee. I'm pleased to hear that it will be I think coming to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee that I sit on and I look forward to engaging with members from across the House. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call and I call Jo Luxton.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSChamber Lobbies and Galleries—Wi-Fi TestingSPEAKER: Before we move to oral questions I just want to indicate to members that there is some testing of Wi-Fi strength occurring around the gallery today. So if people see someone standing up with something in their hand don't get too concerned—it's just a device which is testing Wi-Fi strength because apparently when all of you are using your devices at the same time there's some question as to whether they're working properly or not.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to offer commemoration of those victims of the Sri Lanka and San Diego terror attacks to offer consolation to their survivors and to offer condemnation of their attackers. Every time terrorists around the world try to separate us using what they view as significant but really superficial differences between different people our response in this House and beyond must be very simple. When they try to emphasise superficial differences amongst humanity we must meditate on what makes us the same the universal individual rights that we all share as humans: the freedom to speak and express ourselves to move to associate to think and particularly pertinent to this case—sadly echoing Christchurch—to worship. Those are the common inheritance of humanity—those simple and inalienable rights—and it's upon those that we must meditate as the only proper response to the terrorists who try to divide us with superficial differences. I'm very proud to be part of this House that once again is united in that conviction. Again I offer condolences to the survivors along with commemoration of the victims and absolute condemnation for their terrorist attackers. Thank you Mr Speaker. Motion agreed to.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party too absolutely stands with this House in condemning both the attack against Christians worshipping on 21 April in Sri Lanka and also those worshipping on 28 April at the Chabad of Poway synagogue in San Diego. I was reminded of my nana taking me to the Easter mass in the Ōtara Rd Catholic church as a child all my life and remembering that once again these people were in the absolute place of worship and peace in an absolute calm and professing their faith to their God. And I want to acknowledge that this again has happened and that we need to make certain that we are protecting these peaceful places of worship for every religion and every community. I was reading about a five-year-old girl who was badly hurt in the Sri Lanka St. Sebastian Church and she asked as she was recovering Why do people bomb?" We know that the motivations share something in common. They seek to fill a place of peace and worship with violence and terrorism and fear and hate. We have to continue to reject those notions in the places of worship and peace around the world. There must be the exact opposite effect and I am pleased to stand here with the Green Party and with all the members of this House to once again condemn acts of terrorism against communities and religions. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): The Opposition wholeheartedly associates itself with the comments of the Prime Minister on the atrocities in Sri Lanka on 21 April which left at least 250 people dead and more than 500 others injured and the shooting on 28 April at the Poway synagogue in San Diego.With over 220 people killed inside churches and places of worship across Sri Lanka it is one of the bloodiest terrorist attacks committed against Christians. Anyone in any place of worship in any part of the world should be safe from hate and violence. Worship and reflection in any faith be it Christianity Judaism Hinduism or Islam should be peaceful it should be respected and it should be done without fear of violence. Easter Sunday the day when Christians remember the resurrection of Christ and the birth of new life is a time to come together with friends and family and remember. On the holiest of days unimaginable sadness and hurt fell on Sri Lanka. These attacks are yet another reminder that there is still much work to be done in our world to ensure the freedom of worship for the God you choose ensure people have freedom of speech and association and ensure that other such freedoms are inalienable rights given to everyone irrespective of where you live and what you believe. We stand ready to help ensure those freedoms are protected and enhanced around the world. I want to particularly acknowledge the first responders who like in Christchurch never expected that when they woke up that morning they would be responding to this evil attack. We stand with the Government in offering our support and indeed New Zealand's support for whatever we can do to help the people affected by these devastating events.
Ardern JacindaTUESDAY 30 APRIL 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSCondolences—Acts of Terrorism Sri Lanka and San DiegoRt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice that this House condemn the Easter Sunday bomb attacks in Sri Lanka on 21 April and the shooting at a synagogue in San Diego USA on 28 April.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move on behalf of the Government That this House condemn the 21 April act of terrorism against Christians worshipping in three churches and tourists in three hotels in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday and the shooting on 28 April at a synagogue in San Diego leading to the loss of innocent lives.The Government of New Zealand wishes to extend its deepest condolences to those communities in Sri Lanka and the United States affected by these tragic events the effects of which will be felt globally. I am struck by the tragic parallel between these attacks and the one which took place in Christchurch on 15 March. They all saw innocent lives lost in the act of peaceful prayer and worship. New Zealand stands with the people of Sri Lanka and the United States of America against such assaults on religious freedom tolerance and compassion.New Zealand immediately registered our shock and concern with the attacks in Sri Lanka and the share scale and magnitude of those attacks was truly horrifying. In addition to my statement of 21 April I have written to the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka to express New Zealand's sympathies and solidarity with the people of Sri Lanka and to offer any assistance that we can. The Governor-General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have likewise written to their counterparts. Consular advice and support have been offered to New Zealanders in Sri Lanka and the New Zealand Police has provided force-to-force support to Sri Lanka police. Our thoughts and aroha are with the people of Sri Lanka our Sri Lankan communities in New Zealand their families and friends and all those in our communities affected by this tragic event.The Minister of Foreign Affairs has also written to Secretary Pompeo expressing the Government's concern at the attack on Jewish people worshipping in San Diego and our sympathy to the United States of America and our stand against such assaults based on our shared values of religious freedom tolerance and compassion.New Zealand stands alongside both countries in condemning all forms of terrorism. These atrocious attacks that we have experienced in our nation are an affront to our shared values and common humanity. We share that same perspective when we see these assaults abroad. They remind us why it is so important that New Zealand remains a country that embraces and celebrates diversity a place that stands for the values of inclusion compassion and empathy. We encourage all our communities to work together towards this goal.
Wednesday 1 May 2019 - Volume 737
Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the name of Marama Davidson to clause 8 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brett Hudson to clause 3 be agreed to: replace clause 3 with:3PurposeThe purpose of this Act is—(a)To specify the process that the Gore District Council must follow to return Otama Rural Water Supply Scheme to scheme users through Otama Rural Water Limited.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
10. Question No. 10—Social DevelopmentANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Social Development10. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What support if any has the Government introduced to help families with heating costs over the winter months?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Last year we introduced the winter energy payment which was implemented on 1 July 2018 as part of the Government's Families Package. Single people who are eligible will receive an extra $20.46 a week and eligible couples and people with dependent children will get an extra $31.82 a week from 1 May to 1 October this year—1 May. The winter energy payment has the largest eligible population for financial support within the welfare system and benefits around 1 million New Zealanders. Under this policy more Kiwis will receive a helping hand to keep their homes warm and dry over the coming winter months.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What feedback has she received about the winter energy payment?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Overwhelmingly the feedback has been positive. We have had people over the year tell us what a difference this payment has made helping them keep their homes warmer and themselves and their families healthier. Recently I have had people write in to say that they can finally use their heating without the fears of it being unaffordable come the end of the month. Some have said that the additional support almost brought them to tears. We are proud of the impact that this payment is having for Kiwis across the country.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is this important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Winter is coming. As we know every year too many of our seniors are hospitalised due to respiratory illnesses during this period. I've also been told of many others in our communities on low incomes concerned about—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! At the risk of wanting to show a personal interest in this I would like to hear the answer.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Would you like me to start again Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: No.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Oh OK. I've also been told of many others in our communities on low incomes concerned about the cost of heating with some seniors saying that they stay in bed all day just to keep warm during winter. That's not right and we can do better. The winter energy payment is a simple but important way of supporting over a million New Zealanders to keep warm and stay healthy over winter.
6. Question No. 6—Pike River Re-entryRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entryQuestion No. 6—Pike River Re-entry6. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: What actions is the Government taking to meet its pledge to re-enter the Pike River mine?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry): On Friday 3 May the coalition Government will start the process of re-entering the Pike River mine drift following the tragic loss of 29 lives in the 2010 disaster. This is the first step in meeting our pledge of re-entering the drift. Re-entry will enable the thorough investigation of the drift which will hopefully allow us to better understand what caused this dreadful loss. This will be an ongoing process and there are still many challenges ahead. Our primary focus will always be safety and if our commitment to safety means delays or a slower process eventually then so be it.Rino Tirikatene: What work has been done to ensure that Pike River can be re-entered safely?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Re-entry to the Pike River drift is a complex undertaking. This is a site which even eight years after the explosions that caused that great loss of life still poses significant but manageable hazards. This has required robust planning and the Pike River Recovery Agency has done an incredible job getting ready for re-entry along with important oversight and scrutiny from WorkSafe New Zealand. The agency has received advice from international experts and the independent ministerial adviser Rob Fyfe and has operated with a commitment to safety first. Rino Tirikatene: What support has the Minister seen for the Pike River Recovery Agency's re-entry plan? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I want to acknowledge the Pike River families for their patience and determination to see that justice is done. I'd like to acknowledge the advocacy and support of local MPs the Hon Damien O'Connor and Rino Tirikatene as well as the New Zealand First and Green parties for their support. I'd also like to acknowledge the Hon Mark Mitchell for his support and I look forward to seeing him there on Friday morning. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that as promised the re-entry will be led by the Rt Hon Winston Peters? SPEAKER: Order! Order! He's not responsible for undertakings made pre-election. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Unlike that questioner I am experienced in going underground and I'm happy to answer it myself. SPEAKER: I'm not certain which particular Standing Order he was referring to. Rt Hon Winston Peters: The one where I—SPEAKER: Well the member's skating on pretty thin ice at the moment.
5. Question No. 5—Housing and Urban DevelopmentHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Housing and Urban Development5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his answers to oral question No. 6 on 12 March that The test applied to determine whether a KiwiBuild underwrite should proceed is additionality" and that "I'm advised that the threshold can be met in four key ways"?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes in its original context.Hon Judith Collins: Does he have confidence additionality tests undertaken so far have been robust enough to determine whether a KiwiBuild development should proceed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.Hon Judith Collins: Has he seen any of the additionality tests that were undertaken?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Those additionality tests are carried out by officials in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and I'm advised by those officials that the test was conducted in each case.Hon Judith Collins: Is he surprised to hear that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development have advised when asked for a copy of additionality tests that these tests are done verbally with builders and no written record existed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well I was surprised to learn that too but I am advised that there are other documents and that the ministry will clarify its response to the National Party research unit later today. However the point is that KiwiBuild reduces the price paid for those houses by first-home buyers. It enables new affordable homes to be brought to the market more quickly and our Government makes no apologies for backing builders to build more affordable homes.Hon Judith Collins: Is it acceptable for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to be playing so fast and loose with their response as to how these sign-offs for $700 million worth of homes have been assessed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well that is a matter for the ministry but I understand that while there is no specific single assessment document as requested by the National Party research unit there are other documents and communications that set out the negotiations and record the ministry's work in this area. The point is that in the case of for example the Mike Greer deal 104 affordable homes will be brought to the market more cheaply and more quickly for the benefit of first-home buyers.Hon Judith Collins: Is the quality of the response from his ministry dependent on who is asking the question?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No not at all."
3. Question No. 3—VeteransDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for VeteransQuestion No. 3—Veterans3. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Veterans: What announcements has he made regarding funding for veterans' support?Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Last week I announced additional funding to support the well-being of veterans and their families. The funding will be used to meet ever-increasing demands for services and for new health and well-being assessments to ensure our veterans are linked into the right support services when they leave the Defence Force. I also announced additional capital funding to improve the application and IT systems at Veterans' Affairs to make it easier to get assistance online and to free up case managers to provide better support for more complex cases. This is on top of the extra $250000 we allocated to the RSA and on top of the $25000 that we've allocated to the No Duff Charitable Trust.Darroch Ball: Why are early interventions for veterans important?Hon RON MARK: Whilst there are approximately 11000 veterans from World War II Korea Malaya and Vietnam we now have upwards of 31000 contemporary veterans in New Zealand—that is people who have seen active service since 1971. Many of these vets return with service-related health and mental health issues in particular post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Where we see severe and complex PTSD issues arise it is paramount that they be identified as early as possible and that support is put in place to prevent self-destructive behaviours leading to self-harm and suicide. It is with all this in mind and this Government's particular focus on mental health and well-being that we decided to put in the extra funding.Darroch Ball: How much additional funding will be allocated?Hon RON MARK: Over the next four years there will be a $2.1 million boost in operating funding representing a 5.4 percent increase in the current Veterans Affairs baseline. Capital funding totalling $2 million has also been allocated to overhaul Veterans Affairs' client management structures and IT systems. It is money that will be very well spent and the changes will enhance support and services to our veterans and their families ultimately leading to improvements in well-being and better transitioning into civilian life.
Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Arbitration Amendment Bill and I'm going to make a contribution of equal value to those made by Nick Smith Chris Penk and Maggie Barry combined but much much shorter. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a short call on the Arbitration Amendment Bill. While I am not a member of the Justice Committee I am happy to take a call on this bill and I want to acknowledge the Justice Committee for thoroughly considering this bill and debating this bill. From what I can see from the notes and previous speeches it went on for some time. It actually came back to the Business Committee to possibly consider something that was a provision that was out of scope which was agreed to and so it's had quite a long time in this process. So I really want to acknowledge the member Andrew Bayly who is now carrying the bill in his name and the Justice Committee for their work on it. I also want to acknowledge the Chief Justice the independent adviser Paul Heath QC and the submitters on this bill.The purpose was to improve the framework for arbitration which is a helpful method of resolving commercial and other disputes. As previously a lawyer and somebody who studied alternative dispute resolution I too am a fan of encouraging alternative dispute resolution. We are very litigious in New Zealand and we do love to go to court. The point was made earlier that that can be a lengthy process and quite a costly process and so this is an alternative to that process which does have some real benefits to it. The section I did want to talk about was concerns around open justice and it being a fundamental aspect of the New Zealand justice system. The point that has been made well tonight in terms of in arbitration information is kept confidential but when it is taken up to the courts—the proposal as it was first introduced in the bill was something that Labour wasn't supportive of but through the process of the select committee the right balance has been met and so I thank the committee for the work that they did on that and the collaboration. I commend the bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's great to go after Dr Nick Smith and I do hope he stays in Parliament because we want to keep the unemployment rate down. I've only got two things to say about this bill. Firstly what we didn't realise when this started—we thought this was a technical bill that Mr Bayly was pressing on with like that terrier of an MP that he is but in fact what I realise now in retrospect is that it was quite a deep philosophical discussion about the place of arbitration and its relationship with the courts. What has been resolved after a lot of quite hard thinking and with a lot of expert advice not only from Paul Heath QC but also from the great minds around the Justice Committee table and from some great submissions by very experienced arbitrators and by the advice of the Chief Justice of the time herself was that the courts must retain their primacy. There is no place for having arbitration as a dominant means of dispute resolution. The principle of open justice must prevail and the principle of access to the courts in respect of beneficiaries of trusts must prevail as well. That is an important principle. But having said that I've got one other thing to say and that is the absolute importance of having alternatives to the court system because the court systems absolutely do not work for everyone. Sometimes they don't work because of the complexity and size of disputes which arbitrations—as Mr Bayly noted—relate to but also for a whole lot of other disputes which may be smaller and require more simple procedures and again arbitration has a part to play there. So I think it's a vote of confidence in this bill—the tidying up that's being done for arbitrations to have a very very important place in supplementing our justice system. But they must always play second place to the courts who must always be able to supervise in an open way dispute resolution in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.
Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill — In Committee—Part 3 (continued)
Patterson MarkGORE DISTRICT COUNCIL (OTAMA RURAL WATER SUPPLY) BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 3 Matters relating to transfer of scheme (continued)MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Mr Chair—Matt Doocey: He's going to ask himself questions. MARK PATTERSON: Yes I am—well I would like to just sum up. The member Jacqui Dean did start to make a call on Part 3 so just to look at that and to pre-empt maybe her other questions that might be coming through of course Part 3 is around the transfer of assets or indeed what's not affected by the transfer of this scheme. Of course there is no liability—there is no right to breach or amend contract and no release of guarantors. There must be as Jacqui Dean pointed out notification to the Southland Regional Council—which is of course the regional council overseeing this area—and the GST will be zero-rated under section 8 of the Goods and Services Tax Act of 1985. So in case I do not get a chance to summarise again I'd just like to thank everyone for their participation in this debate. I think that the people of Ōtama in eastern Southland will be delighted that the Parliament has put some scrutiny over this bill and has taken the time and effort to make sure that it is fit for purpose within this committee stage. So I'd like to thank all that have participated particularly those that have brought amendments forward as well and I acknowledge Marama Davidson of the Green Party for her work on that side of that. Thank you Mr Chair. Part 3 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Dean Jacqui; Rurawhe AdrianPart 3 Matters relating to transfer of schemeHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Chair. I will be brief. Although this is a very important local bill and particularly important to the farming community of Ōtama and Gore there are other more pressing matters to follow so I will try to at least give a good account of the interest and hard work of the farming community of Ōtama as they have developed this bill. Part 3 applies if the water scheme is transferred to the water company. So Part 3 is redundant if this doesn't go ahead but if it does then there are a number of things contained in Part 3 which really puts in place notification to the regional council that this transfer has—of course they know. But it's to give a formal notification to the regional council that the transfer has taken place. It provides for all contracts being in place and those might be maintenance and renewal contracts. There'll be issues around legal contracts and there will be issues around renewal of consents and all of those things will continue upon the transfer of this water scheme under Part 3. There are some other legal matters. This is happening as an exception to the Local Government Act and that of course has to be noted again in Part 3. It also covers off taxation and the duties which will arise for the new owners of the water scheme and finally it covers off the transfer of land. I have talked about the easements. That is contained in Part 2 so maybe I'm slightly out of order here. But all of these matters should and must be contained in the bill and in this instance they are contained in Part 3. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members in order for Tūtehounuku Korako to make his valedictory statement I will report the bill with progress and the committee will sit again presently. House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.