edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
5. Question No. 5—Local GovernmentHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 5—Local Government5. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Local Government: What advice if any has she received on the likely costs and impacts on councils and ratepayers as a result of the Action Plan for Healthy Waterways?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I've received advice on the estimated cost of councils complying with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management in relation to wastewater discharges. The Government is working simultaneously with councils on voluntary shared-service arrangements for water services to help them respond to the projected cost pressures.Hon Jacqui Dean: What is the Minister's response to Local Government New Zealand's initial economic analysis on the freshwater package which states The human and financial resources needed to achieve the requirements … are vast"?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: My response has been and will continue to be that we will work with the local government sector through some very challenging issues. I understand that the sector has advocated quite clearly through the Three Waters process and the freshwater management process. For the part that I'm responsible for I think we've come to a common ground about what the real pressure is in the costs space and how we can work through those issues.Hon Jacqui Dean: Will she be pushing for differing regulatory requirements for say the Southland region and the West Coast of the South Island and if not why not?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In so far as the Three Waters work programme which I am responsible for. The sector is well aware that one regulatory framework primarily focused on drinking water will be quite an important step forward and it is necessary as a result of the Havelock North inquiry.Hon Jacqui Dean: Is she concerned that work already under way like Environment Canterbury's plan change 7 and all the council time and the cost to ratepayers that is going into it could be superseded by yet another planned change required by the action plan meaning even more cost to councils and their ratepayers?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In relation to issues to do with planned changes that is the responsibility under the Resource Management Act of my colleague the honourable Minister Parker but in so far as the discussion with the local government sector on the Three Waters impacts and the contribution to improving freshwater quality that is a matter that has been well canvassed with the sector and they are aware that protecting source water for drinking purposes and improving discharges into waterways will lead to a total sum gain to improve freshwater quality."
4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements policies and actions?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were given and undertaken.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did he sign off the KiwiBuild housing developments at Te Kauwhata Wānaka and Canterbury most of the houses in which haven't been sold?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was done at the time under the rules of the scheme. The approach was endorsed by officials and we signed it because that was the scheme as it stood.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What is the potential liability to taxpayers from underwriting the homes in Wānaka Te Kauwhata and Canterbury if they're not sold?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: None. The properties will be sold at market rates.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Minister of Housing Megan Woods that the homes he underwrote were about chasing the target" and getting the numbers stacking up and led to "contracts being signed in places where there was little first-home buyer demand."?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do agree with Minister Woods. On this side of the House we can learn from things that don't work unlike the member opposite who spent nine years repeating the same mistakes.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it worry him that in signing the underwrite he acted as a benevolent uncle to developers who had already had developments under way and successfully passed their risk to taxpayers?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I act as a benevolent uncle to two wonderful nieces not to developers.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Government still committing $2 billion of taxpayer money to KiwiBuild despite there no longer being the intention to build 100000 houses?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is the allocation that was put forward in Budget 2018. We've already announced as part of Minister Woods' announcement that $400 million of that will go towards progressive homeownership. On this side of the House we are committed to building affordable homes. We are committed to a Government housing programme that is exceeding expectations already and we started off by acknowledging that there was a housing crisis—something that the Opposition never was able to do."
3. Question No. 3—FinanceDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. This morning the BNZ released its latest wellbeing report based on a survey of 1000 New Zealanders. The BNZ said its Wellbeing Index shows that Kiwis continue to enjoy relatively high levels of personal wellbeing despite concerns of a slowing global economy and its impacts on New Zealand. Interestingly the Wellbeing Index also showed that on average New Zealanders rate all aspects of their wellbeing more highly than Australians—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Of course a bank's going to say that.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —more highly than Australians—Mr Brownlee. The BNZ noted that while generally life is pretty good in New Zealand—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Every bank's going to say that.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —there are too many New Zealanders who face financial stress which detracts from their wellbeing. I'm minded to go back to the beginning of the answer for Mr Brownlee's benefit to say that this was a survey of a thousand New Zealanders.Dr Deborah Russell: What did the BNZ report say about the impact of incomes and finances on wellbeing?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The BNZ found that the incidence of financial hardship and stress across different groups of New Zealanders follows a similar pattern to that of overall wellbeing. While New Zealanders have relatively high levels of wellbeing the survey of a thousand New Zealanders—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Bank customers.SPEAKER: Kāti.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —clearly shows financial concerns detract from Kiwi's overall sense of life satisfaction. This is one of the reasons this Government has focused on lifting incomes—particularly for those in low and middle income brackets. Initiatives such as the Families Package pay equity paying the living wage to core Government workers and lifting the minimum wage are all ways in which we are supporting the wellbeing of all Kiwis.Dr Deborah Russell: What does the BNZ report say about future prospects of wellbeing?SPEAKER: And I'm just going to remind the Minister of Finance that a slightly shortened reply would be appreciated.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: So much good news. The report reflects that New Zealanders understand what this Government is doing and are feeling more optimistic as a result. Of those surveyed by the BNZ about their prospects over the year ahead 40 percent of respondents expect higher incomes 50 percent expect to lift their savings and 46 percent expect their debt to fall. This Government is implementing a plan for a productive sustainable and inclusive economy which I could go into a great deal of detail about but I won't.
2. Question No. 2—Prime MinisterHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 2—Prime Minister2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the statement made by Jacinda Ardern in 2016 about the Chiefs rugby scandal that a resignation is not enough: It's the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away. But that solves nothing. After all apologies followed by silence changes nothing and change is what we need."?SPEAKER: No. That question does not relate to a statement of the Prime Minister.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday that "we need to make sure that we have environments in all of our workplaces that meet the expectations of alleged victims and that respond to those situations." and how does that correlate with a situation where the victims were barred from parts of the parliamentary complex?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday that "we need to make sure that we have environments in all our workplaces that meet the expectations of alleged victims" and if so how does that correlate that senior male staffers in her office have known about these extremely serious allegations since at least the beginning of the year and none of these men have brought it to her attention?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again to answer the first part of the question yes.Hon Paula Bennett: Will she be revising her statement made to the UN less than a year ago that "Me Too must become We Too. We are all in this together." in light of her own office's failure to deal with sexual assault allegations involving one of her staff members?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her previous statements that victims should go to one of their line managers and that no senior people in her office had received a complaint?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At the time that I made the statement yes."
SpeechA personal vote was called for on the question that Part 3 as amended be agreed to.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Just as a point of order the ruling was made with regard to matters of business not being a personal vote and this becomes a party vote madam.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No. This is not a procedural matter.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. In light of how much everyone's enjoying this evening of democracy I seek leave for the committee to report progress after it considers Part 4 tonight.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. Well the opportunity was there.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I move that we report progress if that's the right word. I always get it wrong but you get the sentiment.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No you seek leave.SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh I seek leave—jolly good. I seek leave that the committee report progress.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): All right. Is there any objection to that? There is.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I raise a point of order in relation to the amount of time taken for the teller to record the votes and return the voting form to the committee. We've just had a vote where the teller for the Noes Amy Adams was able to count a larger number of votes taking 10 minutes less time to count those votes than the teller for the Ayes Maggie Barry. People might wonder why that was. I've had a member exercise their right to go and observe the voting taking place in the lobby and they reported that actually they saw a group of people including Maggie Barry the teller for the Ayes standing around and talking rather than reporting back to the committee.Furthermore I've had it drawn to my attention that Maggie Barry composed a tweet which was posted the minute before she came out and gave the voting paper to you and I seek your guidance about what sort of recourse the committee has if it suspects that a teller is not competently discharging their duty and allowing votes to occur in a timely fashion.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'll give that matter some consideration. We've got a lot of votes to get through and I'll consider that matter as we progress with the votes. The question is that Simon O'Connor's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 328 to replace clause 19(1) on David Seymour's SOP 259 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye—Simon O'Connor: You can't because you haven't actually called the result of the first one.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Yes I did. I'm happy to do it again for the member but I did definitely call it—Simon O'Connor: Oh my apologies.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —and pass the papers back.Simon O'Connor: I then do apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's right. Everyone's able to make mistakes. Thank you for that apology.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I move That the question be now put.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
SpeechPAULO GARCIA (National): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. I stand to speak to two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) both of which are in my name seeking to amend clause 19 to add detail and criteria to clause 19 to make the Support and Consultation for End of Life Choice in New Zealand (SCENZ) Group more substantially supported in the role that they have to perform—particularly especially as provided by clause 19(2)(g) of SOP 259 in relation to the administration of a lethal dose of medication to someone who has decided and has sought assisted dying. Specifically the SCENZ Group is tasked to prepare the standards of care to advise on the required medical and legal procedures and to provide practical assistance if assistance is requested.Quite clearly the SCENZ Group members will be holding a very heavy responsibility in performing their role and so SOP 330 seeks to prescribe specific skills and background experience for the members of the SCENZ Group that the director-general will be given so that he can choose well. At the same time SOP 336 prescribes for a regulation of its procedures in the performance of its functions and duties and responsibilities; its procedure for handling any complaints about its actions processes or procedures; and making its procedures publicly available in the manner that it considers appropriate. So in both SOPs—SOPs 330 and 336—the aim is really to just be able to provide a meaningful guideline to what the SCENZ Group is comprised of particularly in the skills that are needed in the carrying out of the role that they are given. So currently SOP 259 does not prescribe any specific skills for the SCENZ Group members just that the director-general must appoint members that the director-general considers have collectively knowledge and understanding of matters relevant to their functions. Considering the critical role that the SCENZ Group is given by the bill providing for no specific skills and specialist experience and prescribing only general collective knowledge and understanding reveals the lack of importance and concern for what that crucial role is that they must undertake.SOP 330 seeks to provide for specific skills: firstly relevant skills and experience in the field of medical ethics; secondly relevant skills and experience in the disability sector; thirdly a medical practitioner whose practice specialises in the area of geriatric care; fourthly a medical practitioner whose practice specialises in the area of palliative care; and fifth a person who is legally qualified by virtue of having held a practising certificate for some time these seven years.The proposed specialist skills and experience deal directly with the ability of each SCENZ Group member to effectively perform their prescribed roles and SOP 336 then provides it with the ability to regulate its own functions and carry on with whatever matters may arise from the discharge of their functions. Thank you Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next contributor could I really encourage people to take the lead from the newest member of the House and speak to relevant Part 3 or Supplementary Order Papers.
SpeechEND OF LIFE CHOICE BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 21 August.Part 2 Assisted dying (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Kia ora tātou colleagues. Members when we were last considering the bill we were part way through the voting on the amendments to Part 2. The committee had just completed the vote on David Seymour's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 which were agreed to. We now come to the remaining amendments to Part 2.For the convenience of members all Supplementary Order Papers on the End of Life Choice Bill that are fewer than five pages long have been collated into sets on the Table. Supplementary Order Papers longer than five pages are on the Table individually.So we come to Part 2—clauses 6 to 18. Louisa Wall's amendment replacing clauses 6 to 18 with new Parts 2 and 3 set out on SOP No 235 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour's SOP No 259.
Sio Hon Aupito William; Mallard TrevorHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just in light of the two speeches so far from that side of the House I understand this is a robust debate and I understand that they've got a role to play but I feel really uncomfortable in light of the context of some serious allegations that are making their way through this House of just how much the Opposition—the two speakers—are pushing that line and politicising the pain and hurt in the allegation.SPEAKER: No I have been listening very carefully to the debate. It's not one which is I think comfortable for a lot of members. I have also been listening to the interjections from members on my right who have brought a former Minister from the previous Government into the debate by name and a current member whose alleged offending occurred when he was a member of the National Party. I think when that occurs it is not for me I think to do anything other than what I have been doing and that is closely monitoring what has been said. If people want the rhetoric and the intensity dialled back then my suggestion is that the interjections should also be wound back.
Visitors — New South Wales Parliament—Ray Williams
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 11 SEPTEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.VISITORSNew South Wales Parliament—Ray Williams MPSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Ray Williams MP from the Parliament of New South Wales who is present in the gallery. [Applause]
Tuesday 10 September 2019 - Volume 740
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 303 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to clause 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Education (School Donation) Amendment Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Estimates Debate — Social Services and Community Sector
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The time for this debate has now expired.A party vote was called for on the question That Vote Arts Culture and Heritage Vote Building and Construction Vote Housing and Urban Development Vote Oranga Tamariki Vote Pacific Peoples Vote Social Development Vote Sport and Recreation and Vote Women be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Votes agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Agriculture Biosecurity Fisheries and Food Safety; Vote Forestry; and Vote Lands be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Votes agreed to.
Estimates Debate — Primary Sector
Estimates Debate — Māori Affairs Sector
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Māori Development and Vote Treaty Negotiations be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Votes agreed to.
7. Question No. 7—Regional Economic DevelopmentJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 7—Regional Economic Development7. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements have been made?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Last Friday in Helensville on the side of the Northland line the train whistle blew. The caps of all business representatives were doffed as I announced the $94.8 million injection on behalf of the Government from the Provincial Growth Fund to bring the Northland line out of managed decline. Not only is this the first segment of the $300 million Provincial Growth Fund allocation which was announced by the Minister of Finance in the Budget but it reflects overdue work which will cover 154 kilometres of the 181 kilometre track and it is a recharge for the economy of the Northland area.Jenny Marcroft: Why is this work necessary?Hon SHANE JONES: This work sadly is necessary because of historical neglect. There was a long period of political animus towards KiwiRail and in particular an unmitigated set of events directed negatively towards Northland by the last regime. Had this investment not been proceeded with within 12 months we are advised that the Northland rail line would've been closed and that would've been a very dim and dark chapter for Northland to live through.Jenny Marcroft: What has been the reaction to this announcement?Hon SHANE JONES: It was not unlike a firework display: it was colourful it was loud and it was positive. Not only senior business figures in the form of Don Braid from Mainfreight congratulated the Government on moving in this direction not only the district's local government leaders such as Deputy Mayor Peter Wethey from the Kaipara area who saw great things happening at Maungatūroto—there was one discordant note however. The sitting member from Northland described it as a white elephant rather than me picking a white rabbit out of the hat.Jenny Marcroft: What other Provincial Growth Fund announcements have been made recently?Hon SHANE JONES: Just to show that the fiscal love is being spread around the various provinces the Sarjeant Gallery located in Whanganui has been tottering as a consequence of the former regime doing not one thing to help that landmark that iconic feature of the Whanganui economy to be rejuvenated. A substantial amount of money along with money from the ministry of arts and culture was announced and full marks to my colleague Mr Fletcher Tabuteau who announced it sans fireworks.
4. Question No. 4—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 4—Health4. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made around improving mental health support for New Zealanders?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): On Sunday the Prime Minister and I had the privilege of travelling to Local Doctors Dawson in Flat Bush Auckland to announce funding for 22 medical practices across New Zealand and a kaupapa Māori provider in Tairāwhiti to provide mental health support for patients via their local doctors clinic. New Zealanders told us through He Ara Oranga the mental health and addiction inquiry that we need to provide more support to the so-called missing middle"—those with mild to moderate needs. Providing expert mental health support for New Zealanders quickly and easily via their family doctor is a very good way to prevent little problems becoming big ones. Dr Liz Craig: How does this align with the Government's mental health policy? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government committed $1.9 billion over five years in this year's Wellbeing Budget to address the mental health crisis that we inherited. The $6 million in funding we confirmed on Sunday will mean doctors practices currently providing integrated mental health services will for the first time receive dedicated funding from the Government for this task. They are providing a sound model for other practices and organisations who are developing services of their own where there are none. Shortly we will be allocating a further $30 million in funding to roll out new front-line services in communities throughout New Zealand from the start of next year. Dr Liz Craig: So how much will it cost for New Zealanders to access these services? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: These services are absolutely free although normal charges will apply for the initial doctor's consultation which is yet another reason why it is great that this Government has made doctor visits much more affordable for almost 600000 New Zealanders. This Government is making healthcare more affordable accessible and effective. In the area of mental health alone we have put mental health funding in to support primary and intermediate schools in Canterbury and Kaikōura through the Mana Ake programme which has helped 2000 children in its first year alone. We've extended the nurses in schools programme. We've set up the Piki programme providing mental health support for 18- to 25-year-olds in Wellington and the Wairarapa. We've begun investing—SPEAKER: Order! I think it's fair to say that the member has answered the question."
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I think the lesson for that member Erica Stanford is: before you come to the House and accuse a Minister of not doing their homework it pays to read the bill that you're speaking to because suggesting that we're going to have to come back here and amend it to remove any reference to decile would have a legitimate point if there was a reference to decile in the bill. In fact there isn't.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I suspect that the issue that the member Dr Parmjeet Parmar just raised around what the definition of a school camp is may come up a little bit so I thought I'd be happy to enlighten the committee that the Gazette notice that I intend to issue under this section—assuming the House passes Supplementary Order Paper 303 and the bill as it's been reported back from select committee with those amendments I intend to then issue a Gazette notice that defines a school camp as any curriculum-related activity where students are expected to stay overnight as part of that activity. I think that's relatively straightforward. I think the example that the member raises clearly would be covered by that. I don't think there really is any ambiguity. I think the school knows what a camp is and what a camp isn't. A day trip is not a camp because students don't stay overnight. If they stay overnight then it's a camp.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to speak last on this bill and a special pleasure because of the great cross-party support we've got for it. It is a great piece of legislation that the National Party didn't quite get round to passing in their time in Government. But the good thing about it really is it's one of a raft of measures that this Government is taking that's looking out beyond three years and in fact here 30 years. Along with the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill the zero carbon bill all pieces of legislation that are looking out not just three years not just 10 years but out for generations to come.I heard only today on the radio Infrastructure New Zealand talking about the pipeline effect. What this does is stops that kind of chit chat that kind of oppositional approach saying The Government needs to fund more infrastructure." and says "Let's give it to an independent body who will actually tell us what the pipeline is and whether this lobbying is accurate or inaccurate." We don't want to be making big decisions about New Zealand's infrastructure simply on the back of what is essentially political game playingThere's $42 billion that this Government's committed to five years and that's fantastic but we need to be able to plan out 10 years 20 years 30 years as well to give certainty to the industry to give certainty to our vocational training so that we make sure we've got the people on the ground the expertise the resources but also to stop bottlenecks. I've seen bottlenecks in Christchurch. What they do is they escalate prices and there's profit taking and it's not good for anyone but a very small group of people. We want to make sure we have great infrastructure and we spread that around.So this really is about wellbeing. It's not just about roads. It's about water but it's also about things like digital infrastructure as well to make sure that our communities are well connected not just in the cities but right across the country right down the West Coast Haast all of those all nooks and crannies of the country to make sure that everyone's well connected.It's great to see the improvements that the committee made to the bill under the great chairmanships of Deborah Russell and Michael Wood. Also drawing in information-gathering powers of local bodies so that the commission can be as well-equipped as possible to look at the information and make careful considered decisions balanced decisions that aren't short-termist aren't dictated by political cycles aren't dictated by the Government of the day—I recognise the cross-party support for this bill—but will look out for generations so that the infrastructure upon which this country is built upon which the wellbeing of its citizens is built is well-planned well-funded and well-built. Thank you Madam Speaker.Bill read a second time."
New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill — Second Reading
SpeechHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Most of it's been spoken about tonight. I'll just take a brief call but I just want to acknowledge my previous National member's contribution Ian McKelvie. Ian I'm not cutting your lunch tonight. I've only been here a couple of years but I know not to cut someone of your standing of your stature—I am not cutting your lunch and you've been doing an excellent job and I appreciate all the personal support you've been giving me and the farmers out there Ian.Just three points I'd like to make this evening. Firstly you only need to look at the Waterview Tunnel to see how important infrastructure is. I don't particularly spend much time in Auckland but when I do get there if I'm not visiting my colleagues my hard-working Auckland MPs I like to get out of there reasonably quick to get on the plane back down to Southland back down to those wonderful farmers down there. But you only need to look at the Waterview Tunnel how well that's been working and all the taxi drivers I do talk to when I'm in Auckland tell me how appreciative they are of the previous National Government of what they did there how it's just speeding up traffic. A little concerned about the Labour members' contributions that they believe in infrastructure yet they've stalled seven projects across the country. They've introduced petrol taxes in Auckland yet the Minister's not saying or determining how those petrol taxes are going to be spent.Also I want to acknowledge one of my colleagues Tim van de Molen. The Waikato Expressway goes mostly through his electorate. He's been doing fantastic work in this space launched a wonderful petition but it's incredibly disappointing that the extension of that expressway has been cancelled. It's incredibly important that for farmers for producers of this country we can get their goods to the market as quick as possible especially if it's goods like crayfish or goods that only have a certain shelf life.Thirdly I just want to acknowledge the panel members that have been appointed. Some of them have made some very good comments in the media especially around PPPs—public-private partnerships—and why they work. If you look at evidence across the world they do work. They deliver projects on time to high quality and for a lower price because they're held to account. I commend this bill.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Speaker. I've had my lunch cut twice on this already tonight so I won't need to say very much but I guess one of the interesting things I find about this is that I've lived through five—well I was going to say five Labour Governments; haven't got to the end of this one yet but it won't be long and five National Governments and I've never seen one of them take a blind bit of notice of a recommendation of an infrastructure commission. Interestingly having said that I then listened to Shane Jones who spent his whole speech talking about how these infrastructure commission recommendations—they're wonderful but of course we're elected and we'll do what we want when we get here. I then listened to James Shaw doing the same thing. So I'm a little cynical as to whether this will work.I certainly support this. I think it's a very good piece of legislation it's a very good idea and it would give some stability in New Zealand to a contracting industry which frankly is fragile has always been fragile and has never had a constant stream of work in front of it. So I think the greatest advantage of this bill will be to give that contracting industry a stream of work in front of it and give our communities some stability when it comes to what it should expect of its infrastructure going forward. In other words I think if it was to work properly—and it won't—it would preclude Governments from constantly changing the direction that happens in New Zealand.We've seen interestingly the Local Government Act 2002 try to do exactly the same thing to local government—made not a blind bit of difference because effectively the Parliament kept changing its mind about how the local government bill should work. So whilst we set a train or a path in place for local government we then kept on changing it. So you get no certainty in life and our poor old ratepayers and taxpayers get no certainty in life either and one of the great advantages that this sort of piece of legislation were it to be adhered to would create for us is some certainty in life for the people that pay the bills.I won't speak for long. I think this bill is a good bill. I think a lot of what was talked about in the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been talked about tonight. Deborah Russell as she always does gave us a very complete view of the world from the infrastructure commission's perspective and in fact summed it up pretty well. So whilst I certainly support the bill I'm extremely cynical about the potential for it to work—in fact I don't think it will. Thank you Madam Speaker. That's my lot.
SpeechHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Speaker thank you. I'm happy to take a brief call in this second reading debate on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill. While I'm no longer part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I was during the initial consideration of this bill.The previous speakers are right: National does support this legislation and why wouldn't we? It's our policy. It was in our policy document for the last election and this Government is so bereft of ideas that two years in all they're doing now is recycling our policy our legislation and this infrastructure commission bill is just one of them. How typical of this Labour Government. They had no ideas of their own no infrastructure projects so they're trying to hide behind setting up the commission—which is a good idea but it isn't a substitute for actually building infrastructure. That's what this Government is failing to do.So by all means set up the commission—we support it; it makes good sense; it was our policy—but for heaven's sake build some actual infrastructure. Build some fibre. Build some roads. Build some irrigation. Build some water systems. Build some actual infrastructure. Don't just talk about it don't just announce intentions don't just set up bureaucracy; actually get on and do it. That's my message to this Government.How interesting that here we are two years on into this Government and they are still filibustering their own legislation—that we support—because they are so bereft of actual ideas actual policy and actual plans. They have nothing to do nothing to talk about but steal our ideas and set up bureaucracy. So this is good as far as it goes but it is not a substitute for building the infrastructure that New Zealand needs and deserves.
SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's my pleasure to take a short call in support of this bill and while I acknowledge a lot of what the last speaker has just said I'm not sure the Minister has actually cut too many ribbons in this term because we actually have to build some things. But anyway this is all about funding it's about contracts it's about workflow and as we go through all of that we should use international experience and this bill actually does that. I've travelled to other jurisdictions and other countries where this is well used this concept—in Australia in the UK—and what they found is that it gives enduring efficiency not only in the raising of capital but also in the way that that capital is spent. I'm pleased to see that some changes have been made in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I'm pleased to see that local government has been almost completely brought into this from the information-sharing proposal. There are grounds where it can be refused and that was covered in the select committee but it's important that this is done in a partnership. If we look at New Zealand we're a small country. We have a small tax base by international terms yet we need infrastructure that's first class whether that is in transport water and even some of the infrastructure that will be required for climate change adaption into the future. As we do that we need to make sure that we are getting the best advice the most independent advice and we're making the right decisions. So for us to reach pretty much universal agreement in the House I think is a mature result for this Parliament and I think will serve New Zealand well into the future. Some of the lurches we may have had from political sways from time to time may vanish and New Zealand will be the beneficiary. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading
Tinetti Jan; Mallard TrevorJAN TINETTI (Labour): I'm delighted to take a call here tonight on the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2). Knowing that this bill has such a long name I'm not going to take very long here this evening on this particular call. But I'm excited too that this is coming to the Education and Workforce Committee as a bill. I think it is as the previous speaker Barbara Kuriger has just said a result of the work that has been done around MPs' pay. I'm looking forward to our select committee examining this further and looking forward to the submissions that we have coming forward and having a really really good in-depth look at it. We are wanting to create a more productive and sustainable and inclusive economy in this Government and this bill fits in as part of that work plan. With that I'll leave it at that and I commend this bill to the House.SPEAKER: The question is—Clayton Mitchell: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Clayton Mitchell.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): In August last year after the Remuneration Authority proposed a 3 percent increase for the year to 30 June 2019 the current Government announced that it proposed a pay freeze and a review of the formula setting for MPs' salaries. It said that MPs' salaries had risen at a rate out of proportion with wage growth for most of New Zealand. We understand that MP pay is always a contentious issue. In August last year we supported the Government's bill to freeze MP pay and a review taking a look to see if there was a more fair way to set it which the public thinks is appropriate. The Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) introduced on 28 August 2019 is the result of that review and we look forward to examining the proposals in this bill at select committee where the public of New Zealand will have the opportunity to have their say. We support this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I know that we don't have much time left in this debate so I thought that I'd just say a few words to close. I just wanted to really start by saying that what will be evident in this debate tonight and through the Estimates debate in general will be that this side of the House is looking to tackle the long-term challenges that we face as a country that we're looking ahead 30 years and not just three and that we're taking seriously the future of New Zealand and New Zealanders. Before I was talking about the focus that we have now in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on work—a focus that was missing with the previous Government—and I really wanted to just expand on that a little bit. We have said right from the beginning that where people are able we want to support them to be learning earning caring or volunteering. It's a much more fulsome approach to New Zealanders if you ask me and an approach that will ensure that we don't end up with the same churn on and off and on and off benefit that we saw under the previous Government. The investment in work so far is really starting to show off and in fact the investment overall with regards to how we treat people at the front line who come through MSD offices. Just the other day I was at the Māngere MSD office. They've gone from having 300 appointments a day to 180—180. Now how they have done that is by making sure that when people come to them for support they traverse their circumstances and they give them all of the support that they need so they don't have to go three or four times just to get the support in the different areas that they need it. Then what that means is that by doing that they're able to be much more proactive once they've stabilised someone's financial situation with respect to the work focus. So the site manager there was telling me that now they're freed up to be able to make proactive phone calls to the people that have come through just to follow up to see whether or not they have been getting the support into upskilling and training and work that they need. That is the culture shift that we were after as a Government. That side of the House has alleged that we were all about being soft on beneficiaries but actually what we know on this side of the House is that the punitive approach that has been taken for far too long over the last nine years is not what worked. In fact treating people with dignity and respect working to stabilise their financial situation and then working with them where they're at to get into meaningful and sustainable employment is what New Zealanders want. So I'm very proud of the achievements that we've made to date in the MSD space. I'm looking forward to many more and can I say that with some of the information I've seen recently we can expect a lot more good news in this area. Thank you very much.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm pleased to take another call. I want to respond to the accusation that was laid by Minister Faafoi about the facts that I provided in my earlier contribution. I just want to give credit to the Ministry of Social Development and their quarterly statistics to the Minister that's just resumed her seat Carmel Sepuloni and to the Prime Minister for the figures that I used in my contribution. So of course benefits statistics come from the quarterly statistics—you might like to read those Minister Faafoi. For your information that does show 15500 people increased on job seeker benefits in the last year. He thinks that's boring. I don't think taxpayers will think that's boring particularly when you use this House to allege incorrect information.The Prime Minister's quote when she launched Mana in Mahi Thousands of young people will be given the chance to gain valuable qualifications"—you might want to read this in case you haven't already. "Thousands of … people will be given the chance to gain valuable qualifications and meaningful work". Here we go a few paragraphs down: it's going to start with 150 people and be up to 4000 in a year's time—in a year's time. That year's up. Oh guess what! The number's reduced to 2000. So check your facts out Mr Faafoi before you make accusations in this House. There are 8000 extra children in benefit-dependent homes—your own ministerial colleague. Check your facts."
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): I would like to address some of the issues that the last speaker Andrew Bayly has spoken about especially as it pertains to building and construction. So I'll focus on Vote Building and Construction initially and then I'll touch on housing. We are tackling long-term issues in building and construction. When we came into Government the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment told us that we were short by 30000 skilled people in the sector. We know now that in five years—what we're told is—we will be short by possibly 80000 skilled people. This is what we were handed by the previous Government. But we're tackling those long-term problems. It is one of the reasons why we are ensuring that as we procure—one of the things that we have done in Government and this was launched by the Prime Minister in April of this year. We know that we cannot address this issue on our own in Government. Yes we're going through legislative changes in terms of the Building Act 2004 because there are long-term challenges there too. We have been landed with all sorts of issues in the building and construction sector but in the previous Government they actually didn't tackle those issues. We are.One of the things we're doing in procurement and Cabinet has approved this is as we procure the $41 billion that we procure in Government we will ensure that we are taking on people to train them because this is our way in Government of ensuring that we try to level that playing field. We know that only about 10 percent of industry is taking on people to train right now. This is something that our procurement guidelines which Cabinet has agreed to will ensure: that we in Government—because we have that lever—are utilising that lever to ensure that we train more people.In terms of the number of houses that we have I will go with the words that our Minister of Housing actually said earlier on. We are building over a thousand public houses a year. If the other Government had actually built 1600 public houses per year that would be 14400 public houses. We wouldn't have such a huge waiting list in terms of all of the folks that are homeless right now. We are here as Government to deliver. We're here to build and to ensure that more of our people actually get into homes. We are a Government that is delivering and making sure that we have the houses that we train up our people that we ensure we utilise our own procurement processes to train more of our apprentices. We are indeed looking out for New Zealanders. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.