edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to rise in this committee stage on the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. It is good to see—and the Minister's already mentioned it—the cross-party collaboration if you like. We're all supporting this bill. It is a bill that had to come about—well it's been a number of years since the Christchurch earthquake and I'd like to put it on record and thank the Earthquake Commission for all the work that they have done in those intervening years. It has not been easy for them and of course it has not been easy over these years for the victims or for those who suffered damage to their houses and buildings and so forth during the earthquake. This bill makes some changes. In hindsight you might say Well should it have been done earlier?" But it is a very good bill in that we are here today supporting these changes.A couple of questions I do have for the Minister: the threshold is being moved from $100000 to $150000. That hasn't quite kept up with inflation and I wonder why—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is—I think that's in Part 2.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Oh Part 2—OK.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yeah we're on the Part 1 debate.ALASTAIR SCOTT: I'll leave that till Part 2.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you.ALASTAIR SCOTT: The next question I had was on the ability to go over the three-month period. It's good that it is able to be—Hon Ruth Dyson: Which part's that in? ALASTAIR SCOTT: —flexible—sorry?Hon Ruth Dyson: Which part's that in—which clause is that?ALASTAIR SCOTT: Part 1. Part 1—that's the time. The three months and the two years. I think the Chair has got the lead on this. So that is a good thing because it enables people to claim after the old limit of three months. Also the clarity around what is an event and what is not an event is not clear as far as I can see at least and what happens when an earthquake happens today—claimable at four months—and then there's another earthquake another event after that claim. Is there an ability to consecutively claim a number of claims?It is good that there's a lot of other legislation coming forward regarding earthquake management in towns provinces safe areas and corridors. All that stuff is excellent and that is stuff that we will support on this side of the Chamber."
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I'll just take a very quick call here to answer the question that the member has raised there. He asked the question of how people can go two years without knowing they had lodged a claim. Well I think this very much speaks to the genesis of this bill and that is to the experience of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. I think anyone that has been doing constituency work in Christchurch over the last seven or eight years has had experience of people for whom a various number of circumstances mean that a claim was not lodged within the three-year period. I know that I've certainly had situations where there may have been the death of an elderly person and it's only when the family come to clean up the house and empty it out that indeed damage has been found.As the member Stuart Smith identified 99 percent of claims are filed within the statutory period under the old provision but what we do know out of the extraordinary circumstances that we've been through in Canterbury is that we actually do have to have legislative flexibility around some of those extraordinary circumstances that do surface when there is an event such as we went through there. So this is very much—it's not sloppiness in drafting I'd like to assure the member. It is actually born of lived experience of people on the ground doing constituency work and understanding the needs of those that need to use those services. I'm sure that is a feeling that is acknowledged across the House by members from any party in this House that have been working on the ground with that. So I hope that answers the member's question about that but I would like to thank the Opposition for their support for this bill.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to address—I guess it's because of the Supplementary Order Paper proposed by Ms Sarah Dowie—some of the issues around the Fish & Game rangers. I would like the Minister Eugenie Sage to elaborate a little on the clauses in the bill which actually give the New Zealand Fish & Game Council I guess the powers to act. They're asked first of all to develop a policy. So they have to first of all develop a policy and then the Minister has to approve the policy and if the Minister doesn't approve it then no one is warranted on behalf of the Fish & Game Council.So just a short call to say I would appreciate the Minister explaining how the Minister thinks that will operate in practice. Because there have been some interesting questions raised about the issue I do want to understand the protections that are in there given that we do think that Fish & Game Council can do a good job here. But just exactly what are the protections in there? So if you could address that that would be very helpful—if the Minister could. Thank you.
Sage Eugenie; Williams PotoCONSERVATION (INFRINGEMENT SYSTEM) BILLIn CommitteeHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question for the purposes of debate with the questions to be taken separately at the end of the debate.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I won't dwell on that. It's in the publicly available material that's been released so I won't breach the rules of the House; I'll just point the Rt Hon David Carter to the Cabinet paper that establishes it. It's available; all of those papers have been released and you'll be able there to delve deeply. I'm more than happy to perhaps you know go out have a cup of coffee and dig our way through that issue for the member.He did however raise two points that are relevant to Part 2 of the bill. The first of those is around the age and he was seeking my assurance that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is not looking—or that's not the reason that this is here. I can confirm that is not the reason that this provision is here. I do know that there are some members of this House who are looking to retire in the near future and quite clearly given the contribution of the Rt Hon David Carter tonight this is a topic of great interest to him. All I can say is that if I have to weigh him and the Hon Chris Finlayson up together for this position you know we'll have a fair contest between the two of them and his membership of the Finance and Expenditure Committee could easily weigh in his favour.In terms of the Treasury observer role I think it's pretty clear and certainly—I'm sure the Reserve Bank Governor has mentioned this to the select committee—they've already trialled having the secretary of the Treasury present at the monetary policy process and it would certainly be my expectation as Minister that it will be a very senior person from Treasury who is there. But like all legislation it's always good to have a certain amount of flexibility in the law.
Scott AlastairPart 2 Repeals and schedulesALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm also pleased to stand. I still have a couple of questions believe it or not—believe it or not. I'm pleased to be standing here this afternoon and I have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair Grant Robertson which I don't think he's quite asked. He may say that it's the responsibility of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to do this and that but my question is: given the limited number of tools available to the RBNZ other than interest rate—other than changing interest rates. We know that the RBNZ have used loan-to-value ratios (LVRs) for example to create some price stability if you like. There was also a discussion around the RBNZ using an income test to restrict people from taking up bank loans and again that was aimed at price stability—not targeting inflation but really around the mandate of price stability. That seemed to work and that has worked and the LVRs have been reduced or eliminated.So those extra tools—or that one particular extra tool was useful and as I say we were discussing the use of another tool for the purpose of price stability which we didn't get round to using and I haven't heard the Minister raise that possibility in recent times. So I assume he would agree with me that that particular tool wasn't especially useful but nevertheless we shouldn't assume.My question is: given the limited number of tools that the RBNZ has what levers does the RBNZ use to focus on full employment or full high sustainable employment whatever that means? I accept that these things can change depending on the parameters that the economy finds itself in—you know the Minister mentioned the global financial crisis for example. So accepting that the employment level may rise and fall I'm interested in knowing what tools or even additional tools the Minister expects the RBNZ to use to focus on that one parameter of full employment given that we've talked about two other tools that were available—one's available; one was possibly available—to the RBNZ for the purpose of price stability. All those things are separate from the ability of the RBNZ to influence the overnight cash rate which of course affects a whole lot of other things. A whole lot of other things flow from the official cash rate being set whether it's the forward curve the futures curve the futures interest rate curve or foreign exchange levels expected in the economy.So a brief question: how is and what tools does the RBNZ have to use to focus on the one particular parameter that he now says has always been considered but has to be legislated because that is some definition of the real" economy. I would challenge that assumption. The real economy does not necessarily have to be prioritised around employment. There's GDP per capita we've discussed a lot before: GDP nominal GDP in itself—those things are the real economy as well as full employment. So how is the RBNZ supposed to manage this parameter and what levers does the RBNZ have to focus on the full employment target?"
Bayly AndrewRESERVE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND (MONETARY POLICY) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 5 December.Part 1 Main amendmentsANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Chair. Well I was just starting out and now I note we've got the Minister of Finance in the chair which is very good. The point I was making last time is that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and its framework is world-renowned for being independent for being robust and actually over time it has proved to be very very successful.I think the reason why international commentators look at New Zealand and go That is a great model to follow." is that they know that the Reserve Bank has a very clear mandate—and I'll talk about that in a second—that it's highly professional and that it lacks any politicisation of the way it operates. That is the greatest travesty of this bill in my view. At the moment the Reserve Bank's primary mandate because it has some other roles is essentially around how it conducts monetary policy. Of course it has an objective to achieve price stability and the general level of prices over the medium term and we know we've got this target of 1 to 3 percent. What this bill does is introduces a second target: namely that the bank is now required to also have consideration of the maximum sustainable employment of New Zealand. Of course that now cuts to the core of the clarity around the bank's objective.The first question is: why do we need this change? I said before that actually there is no one calling for this change. There is no one internationally calling for this change and until we had the new Minister of Finance take over this role last year we had no one baying for that change except for perhaps Treasury. The Reserve Bank in my view doesn't want this change and there is no real reason why we need to have this change.The thing about this that I find most upsetting is that whilst it sounds good the Reserve Bank already has regard to sustainable employment when it is considering official cash rate changes. The issue is that during times of recession when the Government starts to get into problems and the Government wants to see certain financial outcomes or monetary outcomes from the Reserve Bank it can influence—I'm not saying it will but I'm saying there is now a process for it to influence—through either the remit position or the charter system. That is through the Minister of Finance actually specifying to the Reserve Bank Governor or the Reserve Bank what the arrangements are and what the objectives are for the Reserve Bank.So when we have long periods of recession how do we know that the Minister is going to start writing out changes and try to put more emphasis on one outcome such as reducing unemployment levels as opposed to maintaining price stability? I think that is one of the crucial parts of this bill that I find most offensive. I think the other thing about this is the Reserve Bank has absolutely no influence over unemployment rates."
Visitors — Kingdom of Tonga—Speaker of Legislative Assembly
Obituary — John Gordon Armstrong QSO
Messages from Governor-General
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee stages of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill and the second readings of the Crimes Amendment Bill and the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill.
Mallard TrevorVISITORSKingdom of Tonga—Speaker of Legislative AssemblySPEAKER: I'm now sure that members will wish to welcome the Rt Hon Lord Fakafanua Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom of Tonga who is on my left and his delegation who are present in the gallery.
Mallard TrevorOBITUARIESJohn Gordon Armstrong QSOSPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 5 December 2018 of John Gordon Armstrong QSO who represented the New Plymouth electorate from 1990 to 1993. During his membership of this House he was a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee and Planning and Development Committee. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.Members stood as a mark of respect.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MESSAGES FROM GOVERNOR-GENERALTasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill and New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) BillSPEAKER: I have messages from Her Excellency the Governor-General. The first message reads: Patsy Reddy Governor-General. The Governor-General on behalf of Her Majesty consents to the passage of the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill to the extent that it affects the rights and prerogatives of the Crown. Wellington 10 December 2018." The second message reads: "The Governor-General on behalf of Her Majesty consents to the passage of the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill to the extent that it affects the rights and prerogatives of the Crown. Wellington 10 December 2018.""
Thursday 6 December 2018 - Volume 735
11. Question No. 11—Disability IssuesGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Disability IssuesQuestion No. 11—Disability Issues11. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made about making information more accessible?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): On Monday as part of the international day for the rights of persons with disabilities it was my privilege to be able to launch the Accessibility Guide entitled Leading the way in accessible information. The Accessibility Guide gives the State sector guidance on how to increase accessibility to information through the use of inclusive language and design and alternative formats such as New Zealand Sign Language Easyread and Braille. Government agencies that are signed up to the Government's accessibility charter will be able to use these guidelines to help them to make good on their commitments to accessibility.Greg O'Connor: Why is accessibility important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Issues around accessibility affect us all. There are currently an estimated 1.1 million disabled people in New Zealand. Moreover accessibility is not purely a disability issue; it also affects groups such as seniors carers of young children and those for whom English is a second language. Having limited opportunities to participate can lead to isolation poor educational and employment outcomes and preventable health issues. Accessibility is intimately linked to participation and well-being and that's why this Government is taking the issue seriously.Greg O'Connor: What other steps has she taken to improve accessibility in New Zealand?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On Monday Cabinet approved a work programme to explore how we can achieve full accessibility for all New Zealanders. The work programme will involve collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders including disability groups businesses and families. It will look at how to define full accessibility the challenges and opportunities of different approaches and whether legislation is needed for mandatory codes and standards for accessibility. This is a vital step in the right direction for all New Zealanders experiencing barriers to participation and we are proud as a Government to be getting on and doing this important work.
9. Question No. 9—DefenceJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of DefenceQuestion No. 9—Defence9. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What announcements has he made regarding the security implications of climate change?Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you for the question. Look earlier this year the coalition Government released its Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018 which recognised the impact climate change will have on defence operations particularly in the Pacific. Therefore it stood to reason that we needed to look closer and understand the human security defence implications of climate change. Consequently today the Hon James Shaw and I released a document called The Climate Crisis Defence Readiness and Responsibilities. It's available. This assessment explores the implications of climate change for the New Zealand Defence Force operations and it identifies climate change as one of the most significant security threats of our time and one that is already having adverse impacts both at home and in New Zealand's neighbourhood. Jenny Marcroft: What does climate change mean for defence?Hon RON MARK: With changing weather patterns we're seeing an increasing frequency of more extreme and violent weather events at home and overseas particularly in the Pacific. Our requirement to respond is only going to increase. The assessment released today also identifies that real security impacts may arise over the longer term including vulnerable populations losing their economic livelihoods increased food and water scarcity malnutrition increased droughts increasing competition for resources and population displacement leading to land disputes and changes in the Southern Ocean which will require us to adapt how we are able to operate in that theatre. The Ministry of Defence will need to equip and train and prepare so that it can respond adequately in times of crisis on a far more frequent basis.Jenny Marcroft: Supplementary?SPEAKER: Yes—on the basis that we don't have another thesis.Jenny Marcroft: What are the next steps following the release of this report?Hon RON MARK: Defence is working to have an implementation plan in place next year. The Defence Force will also start planning for increasingly concurrent operations in the South Pacific due to the impacts of climate change. Already the report is actively informing a review of the Defence Capability Plan which I hope to release next year and following the release of the capability plan it will continue to influence the capability procurement decisions we take this term.
8. Question No. 8—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 8—Education8. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has he made about providing classrooms for students in Marlborough?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday I announced that work will begin to co-locate Marlborough Girls' College and Marlborough Boys' College on the existing Marlborough Girls' College and Bohally Intermediate school sites after many years of failing to secure a new site for the co-located colleges. Bohally Intermediate will be relocated and rebuilt on the existing Marlborough Boys' College site. Both of the secondary schools have facilities that are in very poor condition and I'm pleased that the Government's been able to move this decision forward and provide certainty to the community who have been waiting a very long time. Jan Tinetti: What was the reason for the delay in securing a site to co-locate the two schools? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The announcement to co-locate the schools was made in 2015 and a budget of $63.5 million was set aside for that. By the time we came into Government no site had been secured and negotiations with possible sellers had stalled completely. I was then informed that the costings were too low and that it would cost over $100 million to build the new site. I therefore set a deadline for a new greenfield site to be secured and made it clear that if a new site had not been secured by that time we would look to alternative options. We have now done so. The alternative option is co-location on one of the existing sites. That decision has now been made and they can get on with it.
6. Question No. 6—Housing and Urban DevelopmentANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Housing and Urban Development6. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What interest if any has there been in KiwiBuild's off-site manufacturing invitation to pitch?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The KiwiBuild unit has received 102 responses to its invitation to pitch (ITP) from off-site manufacturers and investors. KiwiBuild asked companies to propose ways that they could help KiwiBuild boost New Zealand's housing supply raise productivity and build affordable homes for first-home buyers.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is the Government incorporating off-site manufacturing into KiwiBuild?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because KiwiBuild not only aims to build affordable homes for young families; it's also about transforming how we build homes to reduce construction costs deliver consistent high-quality design increase capacity of the construction sector and get homes completed faster. Housing New Zealand recently started to use off-site manufacturing as part of this Government's build programme. Their first cross-laminated timber development was constructed in 4½ months compared to the 14 to 18 months it would normally take using conventional methods.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What reports has he seen about KiwiBuild's off-site manufacturing ITP?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We're very pleased to see the calibre of the companies and the entrepreneurs pitching to KiwiBuild—in particular the New Zealand Herald's report that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund was interested in being part of off-site manufacturing in New Zealand and Sir Stephen Tindall's comment that KiwiBuild could be and I quote a mechanism for innovation that could smash the price of home building in New Zealand.""
5. Question No. 5—Housing and Urban DevelopmentHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Housing and Urban DevelopmentSPEAKER: Question No. 6—Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. He pātai ki te Minita o Housing and Urban Development: what interest if any—Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Oh I apologise. I have skipped Ms Collins' question.Hon Judith Collins: How could you forget me Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: I think like many others I find it impossible.5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What is the total estimated value of the 3826 houses contracted for build under the KiwiBuild programme and is he confident in the ability to sell them under it?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The total estimated value is $2 billion. The member should note that the 3826 homes contracted does not include the KiwiBuild homes in Māngere Mount Roskill Unitec or Porirua and yes.Hon Judith Collins: Why has he contracted the building of $2 billion worth of housing when he only has according to his website 293 pre-qualified applications?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because we are very confident that the houses that are being built will be sold.Hon Judith Collins: Is media reporting correct that five of the 25 Onehunga KiwiBuild apartments remain unsold three months after ballots first opened?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So at the development in Onehunga there have been 16 unconditional sales four conditional sales and the homes at the Onehunga development are not due to be completed until August or September 2019.SPEAKER: I think there's one extra number that was asked for that needs confirmation or denial.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Could you repeat the question?Hon Judith Collins: With pleasure. Is media reporting correct that five of the 25 Onehunga KiwiBuild apartments remain unsold three months after ballots first opened?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes and approximately 10 months before the homes are due to even be completed.Hon Judith Collins: Why did he underwrite the sale of 175 homes in Te Kauwhata—a town of fewer than 2000 residents?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don't know if the member's aware but Te Kauwhata is in the northern Waikato. It's one of the parts of the country that's experiencing extremely strong growth pressures. The net population growth in that district over the last 15 years was 39 percent above the wider Auckland regional average. Te Kauwhata itself has experienced a surge in residential consents over the last two years. It is a major growth area and according to the modelling we've done there is significant demand for housing.Hon Judith Collins: So how many of the first 10 Te Kauwhata houses where ballots opened in October remain unsold?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There are currently no houses sold in Te Kauwhata but the houses are not due to be completed until June 2020 at the latest.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): An excellent question. Over the past few days reports of real data have continued to highlight the solid fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. Statistics New Zealand yesterday released data on building work put in place over the September quarter showing that construction activity had continued to rise on a nationwide basis. The big story was in Auckland residential construction. Westpac economists noted that Auckland residential building levels were up 13 percent from a year ago and that they expect building activity to remain strong in Auckland for some time yet". This is welcome news given the significant amounts of private and Government investment required over the next few years to turn around the shortage in Auckland caused by the national housing crisis.Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the impact on the economy of the strength of the New Zealand jobs market?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ANZ Job Ads series released this week showed an annual rise in job ads of 6.4 percent in November compared to 6 percent growth in October. Yesterday's release from ANZ was a real indicator of the growing economic confidence in the regions. Job ads in the Gisborne region are up 45 percent from a year ago; 39 percent in Taranaki; in Northland and Hawke's Bay 25 percent growth; and Southland and the West Coast 20 percent annual growth in job ads. That is serious momentum.Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on how this economic data is being interpreted?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Kiwibank economists this morning said that the strength of the New Zealand labour market confirmed the strong economic growth we're recording with the economy growing at trend and likely to grow above trend next year. These economists said New Zealand's economy was "in a bit of a sweet spot" and that "the fiscal position is strong and interest rates have fallen and will remain low". They added that wages are finally starting to lift and should pick up further over 2019-20. As always we're keeping an eye on international developments and the risks that they pose to the New Zealand economy but it is good to see further evidence of the serious momentum in the economy."
Curran Clare; Williams PotoHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. I'm sorry about that. I was hoping the previous call would go right through until the 6 o'clock break.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I too rise to take a fairly short call on this the second reading for the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill to help speed this through its progress. We'll see if we can get it passed tonight eh?This is a bill that makes minor changes really. They were initiated by the previous National Government under the then Minister Michael Woodhouse and were initially intended I understand to be part of a regulatory bill—not actually deserving of a bill in themselves.This has I understand been a good submission process in the Education and Workforce Committee and that did provide the opportunity for people who have concerns outside of the scope of this legislation in relation to ACC to raise those concerns to this Parliament which I think was of benefit to all of us and I am sure the members on this side of the House who heard those submissions will be feeding those through for consideration on the Government's agenda.I would note that that had support from the Opposition as well so I look forward to their support for progressive ACC legislation in the future. It's just a shame that after the many many horror years under their watch in relation to ACC now they've come to the view that we need to listen to people. It would have been nice if they'd come to that view nine or 10 years ago.What this bill does to really briefly recap is it clarifies the current provisions to ensure that all claimants who are close to or above New Zealand superannuation age receive up to 22 months of weekly compensation and removes the election requirement for ACC claimants to choose between compensation weekly compensation or New Zealand super and it allows surviving spouses to receive up to five years of weekly compensation regardless of age and removes the requirement for another dependent to elect between weekly compensation and New Zealand superannuation. It moves from an annual review to a biennial review of the accident compensation and it enables maximum and minimum liable earnings to be specified by a method linking it to the minimum wage and labour costs indexed respectively to improve the workability of that levy.So they are all pretty technical changes that will make a difference in some people's lives and others will not notice at all. The Green Party is happy to support this legislation.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to take a short call on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill in its second reading. As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee we have taken submissions on this bill considered the bill and reported it back with only the one minor amendment around the implementation date. I would like to acknowledge the chair of that committee Dr Parmjeet Parmar for the work that she has done in guiding the committee through the process and ensuring that those who submitted were given a fair hearing on this piece of legislation which of course was a National Party bill. It's great that one and a bit years after the election we're still here debating the good work that the last National-led Government put on the Order Paper and working our way through these changes.This bill makes a few changes to the ACC legislation. They are important changes to help improve and make the system fairer. I would like to just comment briefly on some of those changes but I won't be spending too long on this bill as I think it's important that we continue its progress through the House.The amendments are intended to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of this regime while also improving its justness and fairness. They include removing the election requirement for ACC clients to choose between weekly compensation and New Zealand superannuation after being entitled to a year of both and amending the current provisions to ensure that all clients who are close to or above superannuation qualification age receive up to 24 months' weekly compensation. An important one is allowing surviving spouses to receive up to five years of weekly compensation regardless of age.So I think all those changes relate to times in people's lives which are very difficult and which can be very unexpected but this provides some fairness and justice to the ACC scheme to ensure that those people who are through no fault of their own found in those positions are provided some additional support to assist them through those difficult stages in their lives and are supported by the State and through the ACC system to help carry them through.I just want to also comment briefly on the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. As has been mentioned there are essentially two avenues for disputes to be worked through. This is going to streamline that through the disputes tribunal by disestablishing the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority and ensure that there's only the one process now. There were very few cases going through this authority so the impact will be very minor and I think by most accounts quite well supported by those who have used it and who may need to use that authority in the future. So we commend this bill to the House and look forward to its continued progress and continued support and hope that it will be passed into law very shortly. Thank you.
Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Second Reading (continued)
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): This is a great afternoon. This whole House agrees with this piece of legislation.Matt Doocey: Not ACT.LAWRENCE YULE: Oh ACT doesn't? My apologies Mr Whip. So the whole House bar one who doesn't agree with this legislation. It has been through the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. It is largely a National Party bill that has been amended and for that I think we should be grateful in the last hour in the second to last sitting week of the year.So this Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is actually a tidy-up. And I do want to touch on some things that have been made by previous speakers particularly the comment from Gareth Hughes about cowboys because I am not aware of any cowboys operating in New Zealand of any significance in terms of the space and I think it does an injustice to the industry and all the professionals involved in those industries who support the extraction of minerals from New Zealand for the betterment of our nation and supply jobs and all those things. So I don't think I've seen any significant examples of cowboys.What we're addressing here is largely some commercial realities and some changes. If in fact there is a change of ownership or a shareholding dilution or some other change of the entity that has the permits then there needs to be a way so that can be represented and managed in a commercial way. So obtaining a permit from a Minister pre - a change of ownership in the commercial world we operate in—it's not that easy. If you have shareholders if you're on the share market if there are a whole lot of things then that's not an easy thing to do. And in reality what we're trying to do is manage protecting the environment and the concerns that people have versus the commercial reality of the management of the Crown Minerals Act.Why are we doing that? We're doing it because New Zealanders want to make sure companies follow the rules under which they've been granted consents whether it's the Resource Management Act rules Crown minerals rules the local authority rules or in fact any other rules. They want to make sure that their compliance is sought and managed and looked after. But also on New Zealand's interests and on behalf of the environment we want to make sure that if there is a liability associated with a permit or a clean-up or other activities in the future people can't contract out by changing ownership of those liabilities.So there are new sets of regimes there are significant fines and there are a whole lot of technical things in this bill. But in reality what it does is it modernises the Crown Minerals Act. It allows for some very sensible commercial realities to play in the terms of change of ownership of various entities and importantly it makes sure that the nation of New Zealand looks after its environment and its liabilities are looked after by subsequent owners. And in closing I think this is a wonderful example across the Parliament of how we can all agree on doing something that's very sensible. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on this Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. I feel a bit sorry that my colleagues over there aren't able to see the glory in this bill or the more recent amendments that we're going to be making in terms of the petroleum gas and oil permits and explorations. Both Maureen Pugh and Melissa Lee signalled that they were ready to get up and have a good go at this one. Unfortunately this is the very technical bill—very technical to the point where this won't make the news tonight but it will make life—Matt Doocey: It will if you say something.TAMATI COFFEY: Ha ha! It will make life pretty easy in fact as we do a spring-clean of this particular Act as it relates to permits. This has been an interesting bill to sit over. As I say it's incredibly technical. If you don't operate in this space you won't know that this is the bill that seeks to clarify things that need to be clarified plug the holes plug the gaps and fix it up so that it is fit for purpose.I want to say thank you to the 11 submitters who fronted up. Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tāhu was one of them and I hope as they look at our report as it's been reported back and as they look at the amendments that we've made to the bill that actually they will feel a lot better that we've addressed some of the concerns that were made. The primary one is—and this is one that's been touched on by a lot of my colleagues and previous speakers—that under the principal Act a change of permit operator requires the prior consent of the Minister of Energy and Resources or another delegated authority. It's because of this that the Minister will then have the oversight and be able to understand the appropriate transactions in this sector. It is very important to understand who's got one of these permits and should it change hands it's very important that the Minister has that oversight to be able to know.The Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee have examined the bill. We've unanimously recommended from all sides of the House that it be passed with amendments. The recommendations are put there for everybody to see. There's not much more that I can say about this particular bill so I commend it to the House.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and it seems we are all in support so I shan't be taking the full complement of 10 minutes to actually speak on this particular bill. This bill amends the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the permitting regime established by that Act.Sometimes in the House when members actually debate there is the title of the bill that comes up and often members get very excited. I got very excited when the Crown Minerals Bill" was going to be debated and I thought I was going to be given an opportunity to once again have a conversation and oppose the devastating impact that the Government has actually created in the region of Taranaki. Then lo and behold I realised that we all talk in code sometimes. This particular bill isn't the same one as the previous ones that we got really excited about. This one we agree on.National on this side of the House—the National Opposition—supports making minor changes to tidy up bits and pieces in the Crown Minerals Act 1991. I think there were actually 11 submissions. I wasn't here when other members actually spoke but there were 11 submissions and members of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee actually sat through some of the hearings. I remember hearing some of the concerns that businesses actually had in terms of changes in the companies for example when there are takeovers.This particular bill puts a huge financial penalty of up to $800000 where change of control of the permit could attract penalties. Although that actually seems right there were some concerns that were raised and it was really interesting hearing those submissions because sometimes there were inadvertent things that actually happened—for example takeover of company. I think officials actually advised us that those things will not be taken under consideration when they are dealing with this particular aspect of the bill where the penalty will be charged.I will only speak of one particular bit. We made several changes to new section 41AC inserted by clause 8 to better regulate late applications for consent to change the control and that's the bit that I was actually talking about. For example when there's a takeover and they were late coming to notification it was actually going to be OK. An application must still be submitted so that if a person has breached the rules of the control they cannot revert the new entity. That was one of the things that we discussed.We also recommended changes in new section 41AC to allow for no offence being charged whereby an application is still under consideration but a change in control had taken place and only allowing for it when the Minister has explicitly denied the application. That seems pretty fair to me. I'm sure that other members of the committee will actually talk about a couple of other things but all in all we are in agreement and I commend this bill to the House."
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thanks Madam Deputy Speaker for this opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act. I think I'd like to start off by pointing out that as has been said before what we're dealing with here are a few minor and technical changes to a piece of legislation. I know and I appreciate the contribution from the previous speaker but it's good to point out that most of these changes went through the previous Government's Cabinet and so it's good to see that consistency from the other side of the House.I'd also like to applaud the work of the select committee the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. It's true to say that there was more work done together on this legislation. It was worked through sensibly with ostensibly a common goal in mind and I think we've come to that now in the House. So it's a pleasure to speak to that unanimous decision and those recommendations put forward to the House from the select committee and I thank them sincerely for their efforts.The amendments are here to ensure that the New Zealand Government through the Minister of Energy and Resources has oversight where appropriate over the transactions in this sector. Why is this important? Well I think what we're seeing around the world is that the nature of exploration is changing. We're seeing I suppose almost a dichotomy of the industry itself in that we are seeing an increasing amount of large acquisitions and buyouts by large international corporates. But conversely in other parts of the sector what we're seeing are quite different dynamics being played out in that what's great to see—and New Zealand is an example of this—is smaller more agile companies taking advantage of new technologies to essentially eke out more and more from existing fields and mines.This presents the Crown with a need to ensure legislation is fit for purpose. Our hope is that legislation done well will mean an optimal usage of our resources not only avoiding wastage or underutilisation of New Zealand's natural resources; actually doing this right means maximising the return not only to those savvy businesses but to the Government itself and the people of New Zealand. It also means that we are aware of and can manage risks that changes within the sector can bring. This is simply about ensuring that the original intent of this bill can continue to be undertaken—that is retaining appropriate oversight of acquisition and divestment activity within the sector.I was going to go into the detail but that seemed to be adequately covered by the previous speaker Hamish Walker and I'm sure will be covered by many more contributions in the House this afternoon. So in summary this amendment bill will clarify and update gaps and inconsistencies in areas within the existing legislation and I believe therefore this will ensure that there is clarity for the industry and clarity for our regulators so thank you for the opportunity Madam Deputy Speaker.