edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Rurawhe Adrian: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRurawhe Adrian: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6837. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I am happy to take a call on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill this afternoon. The leaky home saga has been going on for years as has been acknowledged in the House today. The numbers around that of course are quite staggering when you consider that depending on who is doing the estimating it is somewhere between 42000 and 89000 buildings at a cost of $11.3 billion through to $23 billion.So this bill deals largely with around 70 claimants or families and improves their situation—their situation of having been fighting on this issue for many years. They finally have a piece of legislation that comes to the House that actually effectively deals with that. As my colleagues have already said we on this side of the House are supporting this bill in its second reading. We look forward to the Committee stage of course. The many families that this issue has affected which is corrected by this particular bill—I want to pay particular acknowledgment to them for their resilience I guess and for pursuing this issue and in particular to the Osborne family who actually persevered with this issue and really need to be acknowledged for making this change happen.One of my colleagues Dr Megan Woods mentioned that the Minister for Building and Housing when he was in Opposition challenged the Labour Government to just write a cheque and I can understand that. He knew that Labour knows how to balance a cheque book and produce surpluses unlike the Government benches opposite so that was an easy thing for the member then to actually say.I am not going to take up any more time except to say that for all of those families who are dealing with issues around housing whether it be leaky housing or just not having a house or not having a dry warm house we in Labour support those families and we look forward to the time that we can again from the Government benches actually do a lot more for the families involved in this huge housing issue that we are facing in our country. Nō reira tēnei te mihi atu ki te Whare nei i tēnei pō[And so I acknowledge the House this evening].
Foster-Bell Paul: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6836. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. In rising to take a call in this second reading debate on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill I do want to congratulate and thank John and Helen Osborne of Remuera who did bring the case against the Auckland Council which has spurred the Government on to correcting the technical deficiencies in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act which can broadly be put into three categories.No one claims that this piece of legislation is wide ranging is large and is going to make an enormous difference to those who have suffered the terrible issues around having a leaky house a leaky home but it will correct three specific technical deficiencies that were identified by the court as being significantly problematic.Firstly it gives clarity around the definition of what constitutes the built date of a property. In some cases there can be significant differences in the time frame between when a council certificate is issued through to when the final inspection has happened. So this gives clarity around the interpretation of when a building is designated as having been built. Secondly it deals with the issue of the location of the criteria in the legislation. The court was very clear that the criteria could be challenged simply on the grounds that they were contained within the New Zealand Gazette instead of being in the regulations or in primary legislation. This bill corrects that issue and gives greater clarity so that the courts in the future will not identify that particular problem.Thirdly it does address the expiry date of the Financial Assistance Package which the Government has put in place for a fixed period of 5 years and which expires on 23 July next year. So it gives greater flexibility to those who would seek to have redress for the issues that they have suffered in having a leaky home and I think a more liberal interpretation of when they need to start their action rather than having a formal issue of notice to proceed. That will actually bring in place I think a more liberal approach when dealing with those people who have been affected.Contrary to what some members I think have been arguing—and Jan Logie from the Green Party was saying that not enough has been done—significant investment has been put into assisting those with leaky homes. The liability for the Government as it stands right now is $115 million and that is estimated to generate a further $460 million worth of home repairs. So this is clearly part of a significant amount of work that is going on.This particular series of small technical amendments is only applicable probably to around 70 properties in New Zealand. But it is still a valuable change and will mean a huge amount to those people who are affected in these ways. For this reason I commend this bill to the House.
Clark David: Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—WithdrawalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Withdrawal[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6827. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): In respect of my previous comment during question time as requested by the Speaker I withdraw.I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order. I seek your considered ruling on the use of the phrase that I withdrew and on similar phrases. A quick search of the Hansard has revealed that raising questions about the honesty of members appears to have become more commonplace and that the exact same entreaty that I used today during question time is recorded on more than one previous occasion in the Hansard with no such rebuke from the Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am not prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the Speaker or to say that he will come back with a considered ruling. I do not think that it is my place to do so. It may well be that the Speaker does in fact look at this and consider whether it is appropriate. However I will warn the member that Speakers as far back as Statham and Oram have indicated that one has to take particular care with anything that might be a reflection on the Speaker. Alleging inconsistency of that sort is one of the things that is a reflection on the Speaker. I was not in the House this afternoon; I did not hear what happened. I have been briefed on it. The particular words used have been used in the past—there is no doubt about that—and they have also been ruled out of order in the past. It is I think a question of context.If members are in fact alleging that a Minister is deliberately not telling the truth then the appropriate thing to do is to write a letter to the Speaker and to ask for a reference to the Privileges Committee. That is I think the approach of the Standing Orders and members may get more satisfaction through that approach than they do by making comments that sound as if they lead to disorder and cause problems for the House. So what I will do is leave it at that. If Mr Speaker wants to make a considered ruling then I have no doubt that he will. [Interruption] Sorry I have just had a quick briefing and as is often my case I have declined to take the advice.
Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—WithdrawalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Withdrawal[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6827. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderUnparliamentary Language—WithdrawalThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before we go to the next speaker I invite David Clark to make a withdrawal.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): In respect of my previous comment during question time as requested by the Speaker I withdraw.I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order. I seek your considered ruling on the use of the phrase that I withdrew and on similar phrases. A quick search of the Hansard has revealed that raising questions about the honesty of members appears to have become more commonplace and that the exact same entreaty that I used today during question time is recorded on more than one previous occasion in the Hansard with no such rebuke from the Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am not prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the Speaker or to say that he will come back with a considered ruling. I do not think that it is my place to do so. It may well be that the Speaker does in fact look at this and consider whether it is appropriate. However I will warn the member that Speakers as far back as Statham and Oram have indicated that one has to take particular care with anything that might be a reflection on the Speaker. Alleging inconsistency of that sort is one of the things that is a reflection on the Speaker. I was not in the House this afternoon; I did not hear what happened. I have been briefed on it. The particular words used have been used in the past—there is no doubt about that—and they have also been ruled out of order in the past. It is I think a question of context.If members are in fact alleging that a Minister is deliberately not telling the truth then the appropriate thing to do is to write a letter to the Speaker and to ask for a reference to the Privileges Committee. That is I think the approach of the Standing Orders and members may get more satisfaction through that approach than they do by making comments that sound as if they lead to disorder and cause problems for the House. So what I will do is leave it at that. If Mr Speaker wants to make a considered ruling then I have no doubt that he will. [Interruption] Sorry I have just had a quick briefing and as is often my case I have declined to take the advice.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—WithdrawalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Withdrawal[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6827. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before we go to the next speaker I invite David Clark to make a withdrawal.
Naylor Jono: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6822. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to rise to make a short contribution on this debate on the free-trade agreement with the Republic of Korea. With so much attention being on some of the sideshow issues that have been going on around the place with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership many people have overlooked the benefits of free-trade agreements in general and in particular of this one with the Republic of Korea.New Zealand has been a trading nation since its inception really and it is important for us to be able to trade where possible on equal terms right around the world. With Korea in particular it is really important for us to be able to continue to trade with it because it is in fact our sixth-largest export destination. We need to do what we can to protect the trade that is going on with the Republic of Korea already and to give ourselves the best possible opportunity to be able to trade on very good terms for our exporters moving into the future.This free-trade agreement does secure the long-term future for New Zealand exports which I have to say has been under threat because of Korea’s other free-trade agreements with other nations. It now means that with this free-trade agreement we will be able to compete with the likes of the United States Chile and the European Union in terms of our ability to trade with Korea. That of course is very important because there are particular products that we want to expand in terms of exports to the Republic of Korea including kiwifruit beef lamb and dairy products and the like.If you look at the likes of Chile which is also in some of these markets it is really crucial that we can attain an even footing with it and be able to compete really well in Korea. Obviously there is going to be a transition period as some of these tariffs are removed but actually over time 97.9 percent I am told of New Zealand’s current exports to Korea will be duty-free by the time this agreement comes into full force. I think that is good news for New Zealand’s economy I think it is good news for exporters in New Zealand and that is why I am happy to commend this bill to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6821. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Clare Curran—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6820. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Denise Roche—5 minutes.
Foster-Bell Paul: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6819. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. I rise to take a brief call in this second reading debate of the Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill in the name of my colleague the Hon Tim Groser our country’s hard-working and supremely sophisticated Minister of Trade. This bill amends the Tariff Act 1988 to implement the free-trade agreement that was concluded in Seoul on 23 March this year. Our exporters currently pay $229 million worth of duties each year on the products they shift to Korea. This bill implements immediate reductions in the order of $65 million on those duties in the first year alone. It will allow growth in the $2 billion worth of exports that we shift to Korea every year.This is very important for our exporters. The trading relationship with Korea is a balanced one. It is worth about $4 billion in total and it is around $2 billion each way. It is a highly sophisticated and advanced trading relationship given the diverse nature of goods that we shift—from both agricultural products through to highly sophisticated industrial and technological products. The industry has welcomed this bill and the free-trade agreement itself. There have been particularly warm comments from the kiwifruit industry and the wine industry and that might have something to do with the advantages in the reductions in duties that they will experience in the first year of implementation. In fact wine cherries sheepskins aluminium and a wide range of industrial goods will enjoy those reduced duties immediately.This is very good for New Zealand not just for the people who own those companies but for the many many thousands of New Zealanders who are employed in those valuable sectors. It is also useful in that Korea is a significant source of imports into New Zealand—everything from heavy machinery which is used in agriculture and other sectors through to the consumer electronics we all enjoy in our households such as the Samsung Galaxy phones and the LG LED televisions which we all get a lot of entertainment and enjoyment from. This is a positive measure. It is yet another successful free-trade agreement concluded by that hard-working Minister Tim Groser. For that reason I commend the bill to the House.
Tabuteau Fletcher: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6818. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I wanted to take just the last bit of this time to point out to the House that it is not just New Zealand First that opposes the investor-State dispute settlement provisions in these trade agreements and to put it to our trade experts that they could have been a bit more conscientious in the negotiations.We like trade we want trade and we do want our businesses to make that money by selling New Zealand goods overseas. The reality is that back to the point it is not just New Zealand First that opposes these provisions. Around the world now you are talking about countries such as South Africa Germany and France all investigating how to remove themselves entirely either from trade agreements that have investor-State dispute settlement provisions in them or to remove the investor-State dispute settlement provision itself from their trade agreements. They understand that this is an insidious attack on the democracy and the functioning of their Government within their country. They understand that. They have seen the evidence of it and they are desperately now trying to do something about it. The unfortunate reality for them is that they are beginning to discover that it is not that easy to get yourself out of these trade agreements once you have signed up to them. We are talking about 20 to 25 years’ notice in order for those countries to take themselves out of these trade agreements with the likes of the investor-State dispute settlement provisions in them.I just want to talk about the European Union to finish. The European Union has said categorically that investor-State dispute settlement provisions are dead and that they need to go. That is New Zealand First’s stance. There are other ways. There are open and transparent ways to undertake and protect the rights of businesses which they do have in trade agreements but having investor-State dispute settlement provisions through a secret tribunal is not the way to do it.It was a pleasure to come down to the House to take that last call. It is unfortunate that New Zealand First cannot support this trade agreement legislation. There are two reasons as I said to the House: firstly and most important because of the investor-State dispute settlement provisions but to conclude it is actually a bad trade deal for New Zealand. Thank you.
Dowie Sarah: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDowie Sarah: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6818. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise to take a very short call in support of the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill.Listening to some of the arguments opposite I find it bamboozling actually when it comes to our no-fault 24/7 scheme for cover of injuries which is the fabric of New Zealand that anything that moves to make it more transparent and to make levy-setting more accountable and in line with the standards of our Public Finance Act—that people would have a problem with that. It is a good thing. This is a good bill. We are updating the framework so that we ensure that solvency ratios and levy ratios do not fluctuate more than necessary. This is a good thing.But I also pick up on what the Green Party mentioned before. The Minister will be consulting with stakeholders as to the setting of those levies finding out what they think and explaining the situation we find ourselves in with those funds. That is about accountability. This is a good thing. This is a good bill that is moving our ACC framework forward. It is all about transparency and accountability. Again this is a good thing so I commend this bill to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6816. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call. Poto Williams—5 minutes.
Bayly Andrew: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBayly Andrew: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6815. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on this Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill. It is interesting to hear some of the perverse sort of history that people have conjured up about ACC. Look if you go back just a few years back to 2008 ACC reported a deficit—a deficit—of $2.6 billion and it had net assets or funds under management of roughly about $9 billion.You go forward 7 years and you find that it has actually reported a surplus of $2.1 billion and actually the funds under management have grown to $27 billion. So here we are: we have had major fluctuations over that period of time—that 6 or 7 years. But as one of my colleagues explained before even month by month due to changes in discount rates and all those sorts of things there can be substantial change in the value of the funds under management.What this bill is about is that we are going to stop ACC being a whipping boy. What we wanted to do in the spirit of the Financial Reporting Act was to put in some framework to ensure for future Governments that they cannot play around with the ACC account and so that we get proper levy setting. My colleague on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from New Zealand First who talked before Clayton Mitchell talked in the present tense. This bill is designed to be forward looking and to be actually an imposition on future Governments.In essence it is about putting in place a framework to make sure that levy setting is set at a consistent and a stable level. It essentially has two parts to it. The first part is to have a framework that determines how that levy is set so that it is clearer it is more transparent it has a long-term focus and also it supports a flattening of that levy change so we do not see large changes.The second thing that it is about is ensuring that the residual levy is not over-collected and we have heard a bit about that today. During the select committee deliberation we had quite a conversation about the level of consultation in that decision-making process and we were pleased to receive a number of submissions from a number of parties—including the august Regulations Review Committee which I am lucky enough to be a member of—that led to some changes to the consultation process which I believe personally are much more effective and much more appropriate for future setting.There is widespread support for this bill. I know one of the members talked about Business New Zealand. I want to just quote you something that I actually picked up from Business New Zealand: “the ACC Financial Responsibility and Transparency Amendment Bill … will ensure levies reflect sound insurance principles and is a major breakthrough towards ensuring public trust in ACC.” I support this bill.
Tisch Lindsay: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call David Seymour—5 minutes.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6800. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: From my point of view and as I have said many a time in this House I certainly go back and examine the way that the proceedings have gone. I acknowledge to this House that I sometimes make decisions that in hindsight I might not have wanted to make. However they are made and as I said earlier when I make a decision members may not have to like it but they have to accept it. I will assure the member that I will go back and have a look at the Hansard today.
Brownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6800. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): It is not hard to work out what this is all about and I would suggest that the member rather than asking for clarification from the Speaker take out his Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and go to Standing Order 359 to find that the person who was I think the person seeking a clarification over a matter etc. etc. does have some remedy for his concerns.
Prosser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6800. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If a member raises a point of order in this House that contains an assertion that assertion then leads yourself to pass a ruling based on that assertion and that assertion can then subsequently be proven to be incorrect—Hon Member: False.RICHARD PROSSER: —false will you take action against that member?
Dowie Sarah: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDowie Sarah: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6798. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Food Safety: How is the Government helping businesses understand the requirements of the new Food Act 2014?Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for Food Safety): Today I launched an online tool so that anyone providing or selling food can easily find out how the new food safety rules will apply to them when they come into force in March 2016.Sarah Dowie: Why will this tool make the transition easier for businesses?Hon JO GOODHEW: This online tool takes people through a series of yes/no questions to help people understand where their business sits on the food safety risk spectrum and which food safety rules will apply to them. This is necessary because the new Act is flexible and risk-based. It is designed so that people can manage food safety themselves in a way that best suits their business activities. It means that low to medium risk businesses will not be overburdened by the stringent requirements necessary for higher-risk businesses.
Barclay Todd: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBarclay Todd: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6793. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Health: What are the next steps for the redevelopment of Dunedin Hospital?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The Government is committed to the redevelopment of Dunedin Hospital and to ensuring that the people of the Southern District Health Board region receive the future health services they need. The first stage involves investing $22.5 million to upgrade Dunedin Hospital’s intensive care unit and other wards as well as for urgent hospital maintenance. In addition I have announced today the appointment of the Southern Partnership Group to oversee Dunedin Hospital’s redevelopment. It is just a pity that Mr Clark could not stay in the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member does not need to go there if he wants to remain to answer a supplementary question.Todd Barclay: How will the Southern Partnership Group deliver the upgrade of Dunedin Hospital?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Southern Partnership Group is responsible for working closely with the district health board to review current services and to prepare the service planning component of the business case. This is the same process as used for the current Christchurch and Greymouth Hospital rebuilds. The immediate upgrade and maintenance projects will ensure that services continue to be delivered while the planning for future redevelopments progresses. I would be delighted to brief Mr David Clark of Dunedin North on this issue seeing he is missing this—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Minister to leave the House. I warned him earlier—[Interruption] Order! He knows full well that it is against the Standing Orders to refer to a member who is not in this House. The Minister has now finished answering the questions; he can leave the Chamber.Hon Dr Jonathan Colemanwithdrew from the Chamber.
Foster-Bell Paul: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6792. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Social Housing: How is the Government ensuring there is a diverse supply of social housing?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): The Government’s social housing reform programme is increasing the supply of housing that suits the needs of some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders. Since April last year registered community housing providers have been eligible to house tenants and of course receive the income-related rent subsidy. Just this week I opened eight brand new two-bedroom homes in Miramar built by Accessible Properties. The tenants whom I met could not have been happier with the new homes that they are going to move into. That is 147 units completed by Accessible Properties and more are on the way.Paul Foster-Bell: How will the Crown’s land development programme improve social housing?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Along with the work that the Hon Nick Smith as well as others is doing on opening up that land so that it is available for affordable housing there will be a 20 percent component that will be social housing—or up to 20 percent. I am absolutely thrilled with this because I think that it will increase the number of houses that we have in New Zealand and in Auckland obviously which is the most important. Also we see those community housing providers getting an opportunity.Paul Foster-Bell: How is Housing New Zealand Corporation ensuring its portfolio is better suited to the needs of today’s tenants?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Along with a very intensive maintenance programme and the work that Housing New Zealand Corporation has done on “warm and dry” in the last few months where it has got a specialist team making sure that those homes have the right kinds of curtains and carpet and that there is extra insulation for those houses that need it its rebuild programme is well under way. Just recently along with Minister Bill English Nick Smith also visited the Fenchurch development in Glen Innes. It was really impressive to see 11 new homes that have been constructed on a site where there used to be only three. This makes a huge difference to those tenants and to the types of houses that they are living in.
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6787. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Pursuant to Standing Order 56(1)(a) I move That the sitting of the House on Wednesday 23 September 2015 be extended from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Thursday 24 September 2015 as advised to the Business Committee for the consideration of the third reading of the Environmental Reporting Bill the third reading of the Standards and Accreditation Bill and the third readings of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the Taxation (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income) Bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Business Statement[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6787. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 22 September the Government will progress a number of bills on the Order Paper including the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill.
Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSittings of the House[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6787. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Sittings of the HouseHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Pursuant to Standing Order 56(1)(a) I move That the sitting of the House on Wednesday 23 September 2015 be extended from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Thursday 24 September 2015 as advised to the Business Committee for the consideration of the third reading of the Environmental Reporting Bill the third reading of the Standards and Accreditation Bill and the third readings of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the Taxation (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income) Bill.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.
Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBusiness Statement[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6787. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 17 September 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 22 September the Government will progress a number of bills on the Order Paper including the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill.
Vote: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6773. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Reserve and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.
Roy Eric: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6785. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call David Shearer.
Roy Eric: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6783. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Eugenie Sage—a 5-minute call.
Foster-Bell Paul: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6782. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata. In taking a brief call on first reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill I would like to say that this is a very sensible bill. It brings in some much-needed reforms in reducing bureaucracy and in increasing consistency and the implementation of a regime that provides for the safety of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. But in doing so it does not compromise the provision of that safety.This bill is not a silver bullet for the issue of water safety for young people. We know that of children in New Zealand who tragically drown 80 percent are below the age of 2. So by keeping young people away from the source of this risk we can do much to further increase the safety levels and to reduce the risk of that accidental drowning.But I would like to acknowledge that there is a wider issue of water safety in New Zealand and I would like to also acknowledge my colleague the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga who has done so much to advocate for life jackets and water safety particularly among his people in the Auckland region. But I would also like to acknowledge John Morrison the former Wellington city councillor who is on the board of Water Safety New Zealand and has done an enormous amount to raise money for Wellington ocean sports and for better safety training for people who go out boating casually through to those who may fish off rocks for instance or use our coastline for recreational purposes. So there is a wider piece but this is an important and significant component of the wider water safety issue.Just to give an example I know of I used to work in the New Zealand embassy in Tehran where the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 believe it or not applied or at least we sought to make sure that we adhered to New Zealand safety levels. We had a fence with razor wire round the embassy but for the purposes of that piece of legislation the swimming pool itself which was also our water reservoir for emergency earthquake use was not deemed to be properly fenced. Clearly that was illogical and so under this piece of legislation where a barrier complies with the Building Act it will be deemed to be sufficient to keep children out from the swimming pool area. That is very logical.There are currently highly illogical cases where something certainly acts to keep children away from a swimming pool but does not meet the definition of a fence so this modernisation is necessary. The original legislation dates from 1987. There are very few members of this House remaining here who were around in 1987 so this piece of legislation needs serious updating and for that reason I am commending it for further consideration by the excellent Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you.
Williams Poto: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to take a short call. There have been some really useful contributions on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and I do want to make the point that this is a bill that will tidy up a whole lot of issues in local communities.I really want to make only two particular arguments in this final debate on this bill and one is about community consultation. The previous speaker Tim Macindoe talked about the length of time it has taken for communities to have input into this piece of legislation. I think 7 years is an extraordinary amount of time to require communities to contribute to this piece of legislation and I think it is a little disingenuous of that member to suggest that that is why it has taken so long to pass this bill through the House.When Minister Lotu-Iiga introduced the third reading he made three statements that I think are very relevant. He said that this bill determines land use of both public and private property; he said that it meant that obstacles are being removed; and he said that the community interest is at the heart of this process. I want to say that this bill is absolutely about and it should be about community consultation processes and how local and central government can work together to ensure that community interests are indeed at the heart of the process.This is where I want to make my second point in this discussion. I want to perhaps pass a cautionary note for when this type of legislation may come to the House in the future with regard to what will happen around the residential red zone in the Canterbury area in particular the 80 or 90 percent of residential red zone in Christchurch that resides within the Christchurch East electorate. What will happen at that time will be some very difficult conversations about the future use of that land.Why it is relevant in the context of this bill is that the council and the Government are talking about swaps of land that may be used to ensure that the public have facilities that are useful for future use. It may mean swaps from what is currently council land to what will become public land in the ownership of the Crown. It is important to recognise that at the time that those consultations happen the public the people of Christchurch East in particular and the people of the wider Christchurch and Canterbury region need to have a fulsome opportunity to discuss the use of that land so that we are not bound up in legislation at a future time to unpick the difficulties and the issues that may come about because of that.I am not going to speak any more on this. This bill has taken a long time to traverse its passage through the House and I commend it. Thank you.
Macindoe Tim: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6771. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I am delighted to follow Dr Graham after that learned and considered oration but I just want to return to the speech of the previous speaker Mr Goff which was certainly one of sound and fury signifying nothing. But methinks that member does protest too much on this occasion. Mr Goff of course has two stock speeches that he delivers in this House whenever he needs to fill in a little bit of time. One is the speech of mock outrage about an arrogant unprincipled Government that is rushing legislation through at breakneck speed and trampling over the democratic rights of the people. The other speech is the one about this unbelievably lazy and incompetent Government that cannot sort out its own legislative programme and takes years and years to deliver. Of course the fact is that neither of these two actually applies.This is simply a case as he quite rightly noted of a bill that is largely uncontroversial. It is obviously going to be supported by people over there. Nevertheless the reason it has taken some time is that there are many communities throughout the length and breadth of the country—we have heard from people from the north right down to the very sage and rapidly ageing new member for Clutha-Southland who spoke of the dramatic impact of this bill in the fine metropolis of Winton. The point is—and it is a serious point—that all of those communities had a legitimate interest. They did need to be consulted. The Government has therefore taken the time to do that job properly. And of course this is not one of those bills that have to be pushed through at breakneck speed.We are a very busy Government with a very full legislative agenda. We have been focusing on issues that matter. That is why we have these extended sitting opportunities—in order to be able to get through some of these other non-controversial measures and I am very pleased that we are doing just that. I thank all members for supporting it.
Graham Kennedy: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6771. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):I just want to give a split call to pick up seamlessly from where the Hon Phil Goff left off and reaffirm that the Green Party will be supporting this bill for the reasons essentially outlined by my colleague Eugenie Sage.The only critical issue here is the process by which the bill has worked its tortuous way through the New Zealand Parliament to its third reading today. It has taken a very long time indeed. Our Labour colleague David Cunliffe said that it was 7 years I think. New Zealand First seemed to think it was 6 years. I can add value to this debate by having checked and can say that it was introduced on the Order Paper in July 2008—[Interruption] Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Yes I can confirm what you are conveying with such grace and eloquence to the New Zealand public—I can confirm that it is 7 years and 2 months since it has been on the Order Paper.So now that we have cleared that up we can acknowledge that all parties I think are supporting it with one exception and that is New Zealand First. I tried to fathom the reason why it would be opposing it and I gather that the reason is that the bill is “old and irrelevant” and that therefore the only sane approach would be to oppose it. So picking up on sanity as being the principle criterion on whether to oppose or not oppose a bill—it is not a bad criterion to use I suppose—we would question whether in fact if a bill is very old that is a sane reason to oppose it.On that we find that one of the principal reasons why it was deferred is the difficulties that arose with regard to the way in which the legislation would apply to the land issue in Ōpua as Eugenie Sage has said. And that apparently seems to have been the misfortune of a Minister at the time in seeking to essentially privatise a particular aspect of a public land. I think that that particular issue is best summed up by my colleague David Clendon who is worth quoting. He said: “The extraordinary thing is that it took so long for the minister to see that the proposed ‘easement’ would have effectively privatised part of a public reserve. While it’s a small area the precedent it set could have created real difficulties for protecting larger sites in the public domain”. I think as he said sanity finally prevailed and those clauses were withdrawn.Those are the kinds of reasons why bills are held up unnecessarily. But that is not a sufficient reason to oppose it and of course there are other clauses in the bill applying to other areas of land as well. If it is irrelevant that would be a reason to oppose but it is very clear listening to Government explanation of the bill and Labour’s comments on it that it is not irrelevant. It is highly relevant. It is necessary and so therefore the Green Party is very happy to support it. Thank you.