edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.It's a very proud day for us today to be passing the third reading of this important bill. I'm very proud to live in a country that has an accident compensation scheme that's been in place for over 40 years now. That scheme provides help to thousands of New Zealanders. It's not perfect but it is certainly a lot better than the absence of such a scheme. Today we are improving this scheme once again by making sure—the most salient change in this bill will mean that when people give birth if they are physically injured as a result of that birth they are entitled to compensation. And I think this is really the basic thing that we can provide to people doing such an important role for the future of our country. Again I think it's important to emphasise and the Minister has said it in previous readings of this bill and today again in the House that her view and also the shared view of this House that these changes are intended to cover all physical maternal abuse injuries caused by birth. It is a significant change to the current system where we don't have that cover for people who can sometimes go through—what we heard in select committee and what others have spoken of—an extremely difficult physical process of birthing a child. And I also want to join other colleagues in thanking the brave submitters for coming to our committee. It's difficult that those people won't be covered by this legislation because it isn't retrospective. But as soon as it's commenced which will be at the beginning of next month the mothers and parents and babies who are injured through birth will be entitled to ACC cover. So I say it's very much time for this bill and I commend it to the House.
Clark David; Salesa JennyInstruction to Primary Production CommitteeHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: I move That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 November 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.It's important that the bill proceeds quickly to give certainty to Fonterra farmers and the wider dairy industry. As such it is our intention to enact this bill before the end of the year to enable Fonterra to proceed with this capital restructure as soon as possible. It will ensure all relevant regulatory changes can be made before the next dairy season and it provides some certainty for nearly 10000 farmer shareholders.This bill plays an important part in the ongoing resilience and prosperity of rural New Zealand. We undertook a public consultation from April to June this year where farmer organisations Fonterra independent dairy processors and other affected groups submitted on the discussion document. The consultation process was focused on the practical implications and workability of the regulatory response package.Enacting the bill by the end of the year will require the select committee to be given a compressed deadline to consider the bill. This will be an opportunity for submissions on the bill to be considered further to the already received submissions on the discussion document. I'm therefore proposing that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee with a deadline to report the bill back to the House of Representatives by 10 November 2022.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to make a relatively brief final call this afternoon to sum up somewhat the main points. Three things come to mind listening to the contributions made today and also previously in this debate. The first thing that comes to mind—I think the most frequent comment that was made—is that New Zealand dairy farmers are in fact world leading and that's been well acknowledged as has the fact that Fonterra the cooperative has been a really central part to achieving that. Secondly the bill will provide greater economic security for New Zealanders and also go some way to at least reducing that long-term risk to what is a $22 billion industry our highest value export industry in fact. And thirdly we believe this bill strikes the right balance between supporting that shareholder mandate while also improving the transparency which is important. So the final comment is that we believe certainly that it's important that this amendment bill proceeds quickly particularly because it gives certainty to Fonterra it gives certainty to farmers and the wider dairy sector. So I'm pleased to support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Lewis StephSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. I'd like to start my contribution today by acknowledging the Government's announcement earlier introducing a further 3000 seasonal workers so that's increasing it from 16000 to 19000 seasonal workers a year. I know that that will be welcomed by our dairy industry in particular. As has been pointed out this is a bill to amend Fonterra's capital structure to help it with milk prices when we're seeing a potential decrease in milk supply; so to help give some certainty going into the future. It will also make it a bit more affordable for farmers to buy into Fonterra and become Fonterra-supplying farmers. So on that note I'd like to shout out to the really hard-working Fonterra members—many of the 10000 Fonterra farmers are in my electorate in Whanganui particularly in South Taranaki and Stratford—and I want to thank and acknowledge them for the vital role that they've played in contributing to the success of our economic recovery and for taking the sharp edges off the global economic downturn that we're experiencing.This bill is particularly important because as I mentioned we've got a number of Fonterra farmers in my electorate. In fact if you are familiar with State Highway 3 driving north heading into Hāwera just on the left there before you turn off to Fonterra's Whareroa plant we've got one of our local icons the Fonterra cow. In addition to the Whareroa plant we've got the Eltham cheese plant which is another of Fonterra's plants and the Kapuni plant in my electorate as well. So this is a crucial one for me because Fonterra is a large employer in my electorate. So it is an absolute pleasure to be able to support this bill. I really look forward to hearing the submissions when they come to the Primary Production Committee which I sit on and with that I commend this bill to the House.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker—and talofa. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this first reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. It has been said in previous speeches already—but it's worth repeating—that New Zealand dairy farmers are world-leading and the Fonterra cooperative has of course been a central part of this.I want to do a quick shout-out while I have the opportunity to our hard-working dairy farmers in Kaipara ki Mahurangi as was evident at the recent Northland Dairy Industry Awards. There were two prize-winning Wellsford farms both first-timers and it was great to see people like Michaela McCracken only 21 at the time scoop up such prestigious awards so I thought it would be worth a shout-out.Back to Fonterra though: as New Zealand's largest company their ongoing performance is critical to our economy and it's very important that we get the settings right so that Fonterra can continue to perform well. So the Government has agreed to amend the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to support Fonterra's morph to a new capital structure which will enable them to compete for future milk supply on a sustainable basis.The risk mitigation and improved transparency measures in this bill were developed with consultation with industry. They will ensure that there is ongoing support for their performance.This bill in our view strikes a right balance between supporting Fonterra shareholder mandate as well as doing its bit to improving transparency in the sector. With the increasing challenges in the dairy sector in general—and the Minister the Hon Meka Whaitiri in her first reading speech touched on those quite extensively—it is really important that we provide certainty and continued safeguards for Fonterra for farmers and for the wider dairy sector. I commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill the Deposit Takers Bill but also to have the benefit of being a Finance and Expenditure Committee member. So I will be listening to what I've heard today and I'll be taking that back into the select committee process.But it does strike me that in fact there is a difference emerging in the approaches of the two main parties on this bill and I'd say it's a very important one to note. What happened in the global financial crisis was that we didn't have an appropriate system so people who were promised high interest rates had to be bailed out completely. And it's very much that old adage of socialise the risk privatise the profit" because it was the taxpayers who had to fork out the money to cover people to give our system stability.This bill changes that. It shores up the system. It makes sure that it is actually a very stable system with the right regulations in place with the right accountabilities in place with the capacity to have a licensing regime that covers all deposit holders. At the moment the proposal is $100000 and it is very likely that the higher the fees are the higher the interest that's being promised is—that it's more of a credit risk—so they will pay higher amounts of fees towards the scheme. It is in fact supposed to be self-regulating and pay for itself. So no longer will the New Zealand taxpayer who got nothing out of the high interest rates end up forking out for the bill. That is actually a real move forward. That is a mature system and hopefully we will end up with a much more stable system than we have ever had one that New Zealanders can rely on and one that's actually better for taxpayers and that's a win for me. I commend this bill to the House."
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Obviously the number three has been well traversed in this House today. So rather than talking about trilogies in pop culture I think I'd come back to something that I know a little bit better in the field of classical music. I'd like to talk about a piano trio. In a piano trio often we have a viola we have a cello and we have the piano. I think of this bill as something quite like the function of a piano in that trio.What I mean by that is that often the piano just kind of chugs along makes sure that everyone is kept in time; the bassline is there keeping it all together. And that's the point that I'd take: being the bassline" being the absolute safeguard in our financial system is this bill and the levy system that we set up as well—the scheme making sure that 93 percent of depositors and their money are protected; making sure that the scheme is pre-funded by all the levies that we will take. And that's being supported by the Crown to be that backstop so that for the mums and pops and everyone in New Zealand their money is well protected. Therefore I commend this bill to the House."
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): 谢谢 Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the first reading of the Deposit Takers Bill which is being commended to the most excellent Finance and Expenditure Committee. I'm not a member of that committee but I understand that $100000 of Kiwis' deposits in eligible institutions will be guaranteed in the hopefully rare event that that institution should fail. This bill would protect 93 percent of depositors fully.I remember the collapse of Barings Bank and the subsequent collapse of many banks later during the global financial crisis. On a more personal note my father very nearly lost every penny of a house sale as they deposited the money just in preparation for a purchase. Fortunately it was averted but it would have been catastrophic. With regard to trilogies I feel that The Lord of the Rings with the Hon Grant Robertson cast as Gandalf is a more appropriate trilogy. I commend this bill to select committee.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker. It's been interesting listening to the speeches around the House this afternoon. Barbara Edmonds definitely whet my appetite and then obviously the Hon Michael Woodhouse continued that in talking about this omnibus bill and the trilogy and what movies we can connect to this.So I have to admit that I was a bit of a boy back in the day and the Die Hard trilogy—Bruce Willis yes—was one of my favourites; I can't say a few lines of that in this but I'm trying to think how the hell it would work in this situation. Maybe you've sort of got reckless deposit takers being the bad guys and then John McClane being the good guy who maybe comes in and saves the day which is what the Government's doing coming in to support this. Or maybe Pirates of the Caribbean but that's a bit predictable. You've got the bad pirates the good pirates; you've got those who are sort of doing money stuff and it's pretty easy. Then I did actually think about Austin Powers. Dr Evil; remember him? Was it $100000 [Mimics Dr Evil]—see what I did there—actually being the limit protecting 93 percent of depositors?But I digress. I am being frivolous and I won't even mention The Terminator or Mad Max or any of those other ones which would just be absolutely ridiculous. But this is good legislation. It was 2017 as was said earlier by the Hon Grant Robertson when this work was being done and I look forward as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to scrutinising the bill as has been talked about today—to look deeply into this to get into the numbers and to ensure that we have good legislation that will protect people into the future promoting prosperity and wellbeing for all New Zealanders.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): 你好 Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Deposit Takers Bill. As the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I'm really looking forward to this bill coming to us. As the Minister of Finance has said this is the third bill of the Reserve Bank review that was instigated in 2017. Like many members of this House who do enjoy a good trilogy I don't think it's a Hannibal Lecter kind of trilogy—Star Wars there were too many prequels and now there are sequels so I'm a bit lost on Star Wars. Actually one trilogy that I really do enjoy is the X-Men. Now if you could compare the Finance and Expenditure Committee to the X-Men I think this bill would be the characterisation of Professor X in the sense that the bill is about assurance: it is a bill about assuring the consumers and Kiwis of New Zealand who put money into financial institutions that if something goes terribly wrong as we've seen in the past the Government will be able to support them and to guarantee those deposits up to $100000.There are a number of parts of this bill which will indeed—as the member of the Opposition Nicola Willis has just spoken about—require deep consideration and critical analysis. One that I know the member that's just on the other side of the House the Regulations Review Committee chair—I will probably enjoy receiving their letter around the strict liability offences as well as the penalties that are in this bill. I'm looking forward to receiving that letter on what your particular views are around that because there are a lot of regulation-making powers in this bill. Part 6 is the most important part of this bill which is the actual depositor compensation scheme. But the Minister of Finance has set the case out very clearly for this. Consultation was done that led to this bill in 2017 2018 and 2019 and it was off the back of the IMF review in 2014-15. So on that note I commend this bill to the House and look forward to analysing it with the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Wednesday 28 September for the first reading and referral to select committee of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill; the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Screen Industry Workers Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill; and the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Layba Zubair requesting that the House urge the Government to reform the current consent laws.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK:Armed Forces Canteen Council report for the year ended 31 March 2022Māori Purposes Fund Board annual report for the year ended 31 March 2022Education New Zealand Statement of Performance Expectations 2022/23 and Statement of Intent 2022-26.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Alexandra Birt Brenda Tairi Helen Paddison Ingrid Shaw and Zorawar Mann.SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.
Rurawhe Adrian; Chen NaisiTUESDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Members I've asked Naisi Chen to say the prayer in Mandarin celebrating New Zealand Chinese Language Week.NAISI CHEN (Labour): 全能的上帝为你赐给我们的恩惠献上我们的感恩。抛开所有个人利益我们承认国王并祈祷在我们议案的讨论与决策中得到主的指导。使我们能够以智慧、正义、仁慈和谦逊的态度处理国会事务为了新西兰的福祉与和平奉主基督耶稣的名祷告 阿门。
Tuesday 20 June 2023 - Volume 769
Business Payment Practices Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 363 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.
Business Payment Practices Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill — In Committee
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper No. 360 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I will report this bill with amendments presently.
Charities Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteClauses 1 and 2A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 357 and 362 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule agreed to.
Charities Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 and tabled amendment to clause 15 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon O'Connor's tabled amendment to Part 1 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended stand part.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Charities Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Grocery Industry Competition Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2. Clauses 1 and 2 is the debate on the title and commencement. Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1 as amended stand part.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 2 as amended stand part.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.Schedule 3 agreed to.
Grocery Industry Competition Bill — In Committee—Part 6
VotePart 6 Amendments to other legislationCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 190A to 204 and Schedule 3 Amendments to other legislation". The question is that Part 6 stand part.The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 6 as amended stand part.Part 6 as amended agreed to."
Grocery Industry Competition Bill — In Committee—Part 5
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 353 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 105New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment to the amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 as amended be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments as amended be agreed to.Ayes 105New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments as amended agreed to.Part 5 as amended agreed to.
10. Question No. 10—JusticeHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 10—Justice10. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes in their context.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her tweet on Sunday in response to National's gang policy locking people up and throwing away the key is exactly what gangs want. They want NZers to pay for their university of crime." and if so is she arguing that the gangs want longer prison sentences?Hon DAVID PARKER: In response to the second part of that question no.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe gangs want longer prison sentences so that they can spend more time at what she calls their "university of crime"?Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister was making the overall point that National's approach to law and order is ill-thought-out and lacks evidence to support it.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she understand why Kiwis who hear her saying that prison is just a university of crime and see the Government's target of reducing the prison population regardless of the level of crime are concluding that the Government no longer believes that serious crime should lead to serious consequences?Hon DAVID PARKER: Of course the Government doesn't believe that. And indeed the Minister of Justice has also pointed out that gang membership is already an aggravating factor in sentencing under section 9(1)(hb) of the Sentencing Act and has been applied in the likes of the King v Reihana and the King v Ormsby-Turner to increase the sentences meted out by the judiciary to gang members this year.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So how does she reconcile her statement that making gang membership an automatic aggravating factor at sentencing infringed criminal human rights with Chris Hipkins' earlier statement "I have no issue with curbing the human rights of people who are engaged in criminal activity because I think if they want to engage in criminal activity there's a consequence of that." and is it the case that human rights are only an issue when National proposes something?Hon DAVID PARKER: The two statements the member referred to are not inconsistent. I further would also agree with the Minister of Police's comments at the time in response to the National Party announcement that National's got the policy microwave set on "reheat"."
9. Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and SafetyCAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety9. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcement has she made about more financial support for parents?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Our Government has a proud track record of supporting parents and families. Since we took office we have extended paid parental leave from 18 to 26 weeks made GP visits free for children aged 13 and under extended 20 hours' free early childhood education to two-year-olds as well and scrapped prescription fees. I was proud to build on that track record yesterday when I announced that the Government will be putting an extra $51 per week into the pockets of new parents. That's an additional $1327 for those taking the full 26 weeks of parental leave and just another example of our commitment to supporting parents and families.Camilla Belich: How will this benefit parents and families?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We know it's tough for families right now but the Chris Hipkins Government is committed to supporting Kiwi families to have a bit more in their pocket and ease some of the pressures that they're facing. These changes will raise the parental leave payment by 7.7 percent to reflect the rise in average wage. Eligible parents will see an increase in the parental leave payment from $661.12 per week to $712.17 per week before tax. The minimum rate for self-employed parents will also increase to $227 per week which is equal to 10 hours of the minimum wage for an adult worker.Camilla Belich: How many people will benefit from these changes?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: These increases will support a large number of families. We know for example that 56200 people received paid parental leave payments in 2022. This is a Government committed to making sure that families receive the support they need with this important investment enabling parents to focus on their newborns in their early days.Camilla Belich: What other recent changes have been announced to support new parents?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As part of Budget 2023 the Government announced from mid-2024 new parents will also receive a 3 percent Government contribution to their KiwiSaver while on paid parental leave provided they continue their own KiwiSaver contributions. This initiative in Budget 2023 recognises that child carers can see their nest egg worse off while on parental leave and is yet another example of this Government's commitment to supporting parents and families.
6. Question No. 6—ForestryHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of ForestryQuestion No. 6—Forestry6. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent forestry announcement has the Government made regarding the New Zealand emissions trading scheme?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): This Government acknowledges the importance that the forestry sector plays in our economy worth approximately $6 billion annually and provides over 40000 jobs to this country. Yesterday alongside the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw—we both announced that public consultation opens for the redesigning of the permanent forest category.Hon Phil Twyford: What is the importance of this announcement? Hon PEENI HENARE: Last year the Government consulted on proposals to restrict permanent exotic forests in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS) in response to concerns about the impacts on the environment and rural communities from these forests. The proposals generated wide interest prompting the Government to look further into the permanent forest category. This announcement ensures that we work alongside our valued communities iwi Māori local government and the forestry sector to redesign the permanent forestry category. This announcement complements the recently announced changes to the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry that will give locals and communities more control over deciding which land can be used for plantation and carbon forests. The proposals being consulted on consider the overall incentives driving afforestation and aim to help ensure the right types of forests are in the right locations and for the right reasons.Hon Phil Twyford: How does this announcement fit into the wider ETS announcement?Hon PEENI HENARE: We need to act now to tackle climate change and we need to use every single tool available to us. The NZ ETS is our main tool for meeting our domestic and international climate change obligations. There needs to be a strong role for forestry in our climate change strategy and we need to make sure that people also pollute less forests store carbon helping to address climate change by reducing Aotearoa New Zealand's net greenhouse emissions.Hon Phil Twyford: What is being proposed to guide the redesign of the permanent category?Hon PEENI HENARE: The three key design choices that guide the redesign of the permanent forest category are (1) what forests should be allowed in the permanent forest category (2) how a transition forest should be managed to best ensure a successful transition and (3) what rules will best maximise the benefits of permanent forests in that category. The consultation is an opportunity for New Zealanders to boost the benefits of permanent forests for the climate environment and landowners while also minimising the risk of these forests in the same areas. I encourage all involved in the forestry sector and communities around the country to have their say on this very important matter.
4. Question No. 4—HealthDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 4—Health4. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made about increasing the number of first-year medical school places?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week I was proud to announce that funding for medical school enrolments will be increased by 50 places to 589 places annually beginning in 2024. Training more medical students will help us grow our medical workforce over time ensuring we can provide sustainable public healthcare.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why has the Government increased the number of first-year medical school places?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: To build a sustainable workforce we must grow and invest in our domestic doctors especially where there is global competition for internationally trained doctors. We are growing the number of doctors trained in New Zealand to help meet the needs of our population and to ensure health equity across the country. We want to train and retain as many local health workers as possible. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will this change support the Government's priorities in health?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The funding for medical school enrolments is one of a range of investments the Government is making in the health workforce to ensure all New Zealanders can access the medical care they need when and where they need it. Workforce is a key priority for the Government. We are working on long-term plans to ensure a sustainable representative and responsive workforce to meet the future needs of New Zealanders no matter who they are and where they live.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What feedback has been received about this announcement?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This announcement has been received very positively by the sector. Professor Tim Wilkinson Otago Medical School's Acting Dean said it was a significant investment" and Professor Warwick Bagg from the University of Auckland's Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences said that "the funding for these extra places is a great start to strengthening our domestic workforce and responding to the health needs of all New Zealanders.""
Personal Explanations — Annual Review Debate—Correction
Brooking Rachel; O'Connor GregPERSONAL EXPLANATIONSAnnual Review Debate—CorrectionHon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you. I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct an answer to a question in the annual review debate.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is no objection.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: In answer to a question about cameras on fishing boats I said that $68 million was a fixed price with Spark. In fact that is the total funding of the programme over four years.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.
Verrall AyeshaAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 7 to MinisterHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct an answer to an oral question.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is none.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In response to question No. 7 this afternoon 20 June 2023 I stated that I was advised that the equity adjuster is used in two hospitals: Auckland and Middlemore. However I have since been advised that the equity adjuster is used in Auckland and Greenlane hospitals. Due to outsourcing arrangements patients within the Auckland district are sometimes treated outside of these two hospitals. Since answering the question I have also been advised that the equity adjuster was also in the process of being rolled out across a small number of subspecialties in the wider northern region.
Dean JacquiProgress to be reported.House resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Grocery Industry Competition Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has considered the Charities Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has considered the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Business Payment Practices Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah thank you for the response Minister. I'm reminded when I heard those soothing words that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will be supportive and do educational things. I'm reminded about when we did the health and safety reforms and we had two key aspects in the health and safety reforms which we worked closely with the then CEO about having both an educational aspect—and a big focus on that—and alongside that the enforcement.Of course the preference was for as much educational focus as possible to support and encourage better health and safety practices across businesses. Now four CEOs later you could argue that we've ended up with an agency that seems overly fixated on prosecutions and is probably paying less attention to education and that's where I am concerned. Whilst it sounds all very nice that these fines and all that sort of stuff and the approach and that the ministry will be supportive; actually in many years to come that often is not the case. Some people forget and certainly don't go back and listen to the debate or the speech by the Minister in the chair at the time. So I suppose the issue with these fines and the compliance the pecuniary penalties has got to be read and understood in connection to clause 15 which I did highlight earlier on which is saying that the regulations will specify at what point an error or omission has occurred and at which point a company or a CEO or an owner whatever has to come and say to the registrar Look I made a mistake." There's an inevitable consequence of that because that's what clause 39 is about. If it's deliberate or whatever—and that's obviously an interpretation issue—and if there's a different interpretation why the company actually ended up with an incorrect period than what they nominated in their return then potentially they could be up for a $50000 fine individually or $500000 for the entity.So one of the big concerns we've always had is about this reliance on regulations because the Minister says it's out for consultation. I know most of the business associations actually oppose this bill because they don't think it's necessary. So without the clarification of the regulations but we know on the other side the hard coding around the pecuniary penalties then there's a real issue with that. What's disappointing in the bill is there's no graduation of different types of infringements that may lead to a penalty; it's just hard coded those amounts.So what further assurance can the Minister give that the type of errors or omissions—whether genuine or not—covered in clause 15 are and not going to lead to the situation where an individual is up for a $50000 fine or in fact a company or an entity is up for a $500000 fine? Because those are not insubstantial amounts of money."
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Lucky me. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Thank you Minister I appreciate you taking a five-minute call there to run through the list of questions this side of the Chamber have been putting to you. That is definitely an improvement from what we saw earlier today so it's appreciated from our members.You mentioned there around productivity and how the move to e-invoicing will improve productivity. Yeah it absolutely will. That's a really positive thing and a better work-life balance—absolutely a good thing. Just a quick question about that. Why would we then undermine those advances by burdening companies and officials or people who could be doing productive stuff in the economy? Why would we then burden them with a regime like this that gives them information that goes into a system that is out of date and probably won't get used for the specific purposes that your side of the Chamber has been saying that this is why it's such a fantastic thing to have? Thank you.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair. A question now on clause 25 Registrar may monitor and investigate compliance with Act" and reading through this one does get the concern that it is somewhat arbitrary but more importantly is going to take up a lot of resources—not only of the registrars and the person that the agency will have to employ to fulfil those requirements or those duties that the registrar has power over but also for the businesses to then make sure that they are fulfilling the tasks that are set on to them.So if you look at clause 25(1) you see that the registrar has the power to "(a) to ascertain whether information provided to the Registrar is correct: (b) ascertain whether a person is complying or has complied with this Act:" and then to "(c) ascertain whether the Registrar should exercise any of the Registrar's powers under this Act:" and "(d) to detect offences against this Act." The powers there—there are quite a lot of them that are listed you know: to require a person to confirm information is correct. So presumably that means the registrar will have to employ a set of people. They will then go out to these large companies and say "Can you please confirm this information is correct?" and then require that company to produce documents which will then get sent to the registrar. Just try and think through how you would operationalise this. You know then they've got to go away and inspect them all and review them and then give that feedback back. And you know they'll take copies of the documents they've got the ability to take possession and retain them.What I can see here and I'm wanting to get a bit of feedback from the Minister or ministry officials on this is: what is the cost imposition on this? Not only to the registrar—how big of a workload do they see them taking on? Has there been any study done on what sort of burden this would place on the registrar or any consideration to the time and money loss to businesses who have to fulfil all of these requirements: answering these inquiries producing the documents sending the documents answering queries going backwards and forwards? What sort of analysis has been done around how often the registrar will require information to be collected or reviewed or copies sent in and the general cost that this could have and also the consideration around lost productivity as a result of filling out information for a registrar. Thank you Minister. Thank you officials."
Dean Jacqui; Bayly AndrewPart 3 Compliance enforcement and offencesCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 27 to 45 Compliance enforcement and offences." The question is that Part 3 stand part.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I note the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of the Minister extended the date for "Review of compliance notice" in clause 29(2A) "The application for review must be received by the registrar no later than 10"—and the new insertion is—"working days" effectively two weeks "after the date on which the notice was served."So on one side of the coin the Minister has chosen to increase the time period for an application but on the second in clause 30A her SOP reduces the appeal against review decisions to be lodged at—what it states under 30A(2) "The appeal must be lodged within"—and this what it says existing terminology—"14 days after the date on which the notice referred to in section 30(4) was served" and has reduced that to 10; not 10 working days just down to 10.So I suppose my first question is—I can understand the 10 working days because that is a useful metric. Why has the Minister chosen to reduce from 14 days to 10 days and even if she were to do that why haven't we used the term working days? Because all that's happened is that we've reduced it quite significantly in terms of days. That means a week and a half and if there's a long weekend in between that becomes impractical and I would have thought that that was actually a bit of an issue."
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) had as far as I'm aware given no advice to the committee in terms of costs or the cost of sitting up the register but I can tell the member that MBIE is looking at the most cost effective option. I would also note that MBIE has a considerable amount of experience in administering public registers. They currently register 23 already and given the experience they do in doing this work already they are well placed to ensure maximum value for the system that is put in place. The other question that keeps coming up about how do you find a business in—where was it? Cambridge—Andrew Bayly: Cambridge but with Pukekohe—Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —or Pukekohe. How do you search and find a business in Cambridge or Pukekohe? So the purpose of the register would be for those bigger firms—in New Zealand I can find the exact number but it's those fewer ones that have over $33 million in revenue. So those bigger firms are the ones that will be listed and the purpose of listing those big firms that have a far more substantial overturn far more substantial revenue each year is so that there's transparency in terms of how quickly they pay their bills. And the value comes to the business in Pukekohe or to the business in Cambridge that is then able to look on that register and find the bigger business that they are trading with and to determine—if they have a choice in providers they can have greater choice amongst those listed on the register to then determine if they would prefer to do business with one who in fact might be slightly further away but does indeed always pay their bills on time. That in fact is the value of the register.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I'm just giving the Minister a little bit of time to hopefully answer my rather serious question—because it did take up quite a considerable amount of time of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee—about what sort of system will be running this platform and whether it's managed or operated by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) or whether in fact it's by someone else.What I now want to talk about is clause 24 because this states the Registrar's power to delegate; (1) The Registrar may either generally or particularly delegate functions and powers under this Act to any employee of the public service (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 2020)". That's a bit of a worrying thing. Does that preclude then—maybe this is another question for the Minister—that a third-party provider couldn't provide these functions under contract to MBIE because it's precluded under clause 24 of the bill? So hopefully I might get a response to that."