edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bayly Andrew; Williams PotoANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well I suppose that's covered under clause 9 of Schedule 5 I think—what the Minister is talking to. So this is Certain discontinuation notices given by landlord before switching-on date are of no effect" although some of that's been struck out through the latest Supplementary Order Paper I think. So this clause applies if a COVID-19 tenancy order is made for an area and before the switching-on date the landlord of a fixed-term tenancy may give notice. "The tenant may by written notice given to the landlord before the end of the tenancy's term elect not to continue with the tenancy." If the tenant makes an election the tenancy terminates at the end of the fixed term. If the tenant does not make an election the discontinuation notice is of no effect. This is where we get into the 28-day issue—although I must admit this area's had a whole lot of changes to it hasn't it Minister? So perhaps with all these changes—I see clause 3 has been struck out entirely—what is the difference and how does the 28 days apply? Maybe that's a good sort of start point on that.Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I'm just checking with officials about that. That I think is about—I'll just get some clarity on it—an order that the Tenancy Tribunal have issued. At the end of that period—the 14 days happens at the end of the matter that's been heard by the Tenancy Tribunal. It's not in regards to the 28-day top-up that happens at the end of a termination. So when we come back into level 3 a termination is then given a top-up of 28 days so that tenants are able to find another property and then able to move in. It occurs in a different situation a different scenario. So it's not a movement of the 28 days to 14. The confusion that you describe is not about the situation where we're allowing a top-up of 28 days at the end of the level 4 period moving into level 3 on a termination order. This is specifically about an order that's issued by the Tenancy Tribunal.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I suppose that just raises the question why have a different period of 28 and 14 days which is covered essentially under clause 10 of the Act—why the difference?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Because it's a Tenancy Tribunal matter the tenant may want to move sooner than the 28 days so we've allowed that with the 14-day period.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah I suppose I must be misunderstanding clause 10 subclause (2): the landlord may terminate the tenancy by giving at least 28 days' notice to the tenant within 28 days of a COVID-19 tenancy order ceasing to apply in that area. What I don't see reference to is actually any Tribunal decision. That's the bit I suppose I'm just struggling with."
Bayly Andrew; Williams PotoANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well thank you but I suppose there's another way of looking at it if I may suggest Minister; that is the landlord may have entered into a new tenancy arrangement. So we've got another family on the other side who are now being stymied because they had planned to move into the premises that the tenant indicated they were going to move out of. So what you may actually do is cause more social carnage because people cannot move into the rented accommodation or the landlord may have gone down a route of selling the property may have gone down the route of about to demolish it—you know there's a whole host of reasons that are all perfectly valid so actually you may actually be causing more carnage. That's why I'm asking this—if there must be just cause—otherwise someone might just decide they want to stay on for a while.Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I'm just going to repeat the premise. This is a tenant-initiated termination we're discussing here not a landlord-initiated termination. A landlord-initiated termination would be for the reasons that you describe where if they sold the house or they are going to demolish. This is a tenant-initiated termination. If there is another tenant who is going to move in they too can talk to their landlord about staying in place. That's the protection we're putting in place for tenants.
Bayly Andrew; Williams PotoANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Minister but I suppose the question is: does there need to be just cause? Because what I was suggesting before: if a tenant has already indicated they're leaving they would've thought about where they're going to move to and all those sorts of issues right? They probably would've booked the movers if they were going to go down that route or whatever right? They're planned events. Now a COVID order comes along—can the tenant just decide for whatever reason that they want to stay? Because if there's a lack of discretion around that that I must admit worries me a little bit because I think if there's just cause i.e. that their tenancy of the new arrangement has fallen over—that's just cause and I perfectly understand it. But that's the issue I'm asking.Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Yep thank you. I think in a situation where a tenant has decided to move that's a situation that they've decided and we don't know what the reasons are for moving. It could be for another job it could be they're moving to a bigger property smaller property—not sure right? We don't want to prescribe the reasons where a situation where a tenant is saying you know I've got a situation that I was going to. That situation is now no longer possible. I want to stay in this house." The landlord doesn't lose out because he continues to have a tenant renting his home. So in those situations I'm not sure why a landlord would require just cause. They already have an agreement. What it means is that we don't disadvantage the tenant who may have reasons they are no longer able to take up a tenancy elsewhere. That could be loss of job. I mean they could've been moving for a new job and not able to take it up because of a lost job. So we want to keep it as simple as possible where it's a tenant-initiated termination that for whatever reason they're not able to enact that termination they should have the ability to stay in place."
Bayly Andrew; Williams PotoANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. Well it looks like we're going to start to get into a bit more detail and so I acknowledge the Minister the Hon Poto Williams just giving a little bit of explanation around Schedule 5. There are a couple of areas I want to focus on. I'll just deal with the first one and then I'll come back and hopefully we can make this a little bit more interactive.So the first one is just referring to Schedule 5 clause 6. As the Minister just said a tenant may give notice to terminate a tenancy in the area under a provision of this Act a termination date but the tenant may before the COVID-19 tenancy order ceases to apply to the area give the landlord written notice of their intention to remain in the premises in which case the termination notice termination order or agreement to terminate is of no effect and the tenancy continues as if the termination notice had not been given. And then in clause 3 it now talks about 14 days—not the 28 days that the Minister just referred to.So I suppose my first question is: if I'm a tenant I've given the notice I've given the landlord expectation that I'm going to leave and then the COVID order comes in what are the grounds for saying I just want to stay in there."? Because if it's the case of wanting to get another premises or rental accommodation to move to I can understand that but at the period prior to the COVID notice I would assume most tenants have already lined up their next premises to move to. And therefore has the tenant got any right just to terminate that tenancy arrangement just because of the COVID order? Or is there a requirement that they can't move because where they intended to go for some reason as a result of the COVID order they can't? Is there any discretion around that or is it just an outright right for the tenant just to change their mind and say "No I'm not going to move anymore."?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): There are two situations around terminations. There is one that is initiated by the landlord and one that's initiated by the tenant. I think the situation you're talking about is a termination that is initiated by the tenant—so they've given notice to the landlord. And it may be for reasons due to COVID that the property that the tenant is moving to is no longer available. That does happen. So in that situation what the tenant is indicating is their decision to remain in the property that they currently hold."
Wednesday 27 October 2021 - Volume 755
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Chris Bishop's tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.
COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be considered by the Pae Ora Legislation Committee.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2. Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Pae Ora Legislation Committee.
Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 53New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the House establish a committee to be called the Pae Ora Legislation Committee to consider and report on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill and any associated business that may be referred to it; that the committee consist of eleven members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour six New Zealand National two the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand one ACT New Zealand one and Te Paati Māori one; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 53New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
Select Committees — Pae Ora Legislation Committee—Establishment
12. Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and SafetyIBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety12. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding vaccination requirements for workforces?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: The Government announced yesterday a range of measures to help protect workplaces and workers from COVID-19. We've heard the calls from employers and employees to provide certainty on what roles need to be done by vaccinated workers under the COVID-19 Protection Framework. We've provided that certainty and we're mandating vaccination for workers at businesses where customers need to show COVID-19 vaccine certificates. We know that these changes raise questions around what happens when mandated employees refuse to get vaccinated. And so to provide clarity a new four-week notice period will apply if people are terminated if they choose not to be vaccinated and their work requires vaccination.Ibrahim Omer: Why are these requirements necessary?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Both customers and staff will want to have confidence that they are as safe as possible when going into situations where the risk of the virus spreading is high such as gyms and bars. A number of businesses have already gone through a risk assessment process to mandate vaccinations in their workplace but we've had calls from both businesses and unions to make this process as clear as possible. That's why we'll introduce a risk assessment process in law for employers to follow when deciding whether they can require vaccination for different types of work. This process will provide businesses with a clear and simplified legal framework to make decisions about requiring staff to be vaccinated or not.Ibrahim Omer: What engagement and feedback has he had on the new proposals?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We've been working closely with the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) and BusinessNZ and we've had largely encouraging feedback since the announcement. BusinessNZ have said the feedback from business to the announcement has been overwhelmingly positive. The CTU supports the policy and Richard Wagstaff the president is encouraging businesses to start talking to their people about it now. The Employers & Manufacturers Association was very supportive of the Government listening to Business New Zealand and the CTU" and the employment relations and safety manager there said "It's great to see them working together." Retail NZ has also welcomed the greater certainty around vaccinations that has been signalled by the Government."
10. Question No. 10—Education (School Operations)ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)Question No. 10—Education (School Operations)10. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What work is she progressing for students with the highest learning support needs?Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): Last week I announced a review into students who are considered the highest need for learning support intervention. This review was one of the deliverables under priority area 4 of the Government's Learning Support Action Plan 2019-2025. We know that some students aren't getting the right support they need and when they need it. As a result it's expected that 50000 to 80000 students are expected to benefit from the outcomes of this review. The Government is committed to barrier-free access to education for all students. This review will ensure all Kiwi kids are receiving the education they deserve.Angela Roberts: Why is this review needed?Hon JAN TINETTI: The learning support systems we have in place now were established over 20 years ago by the previous Labour Government led by the Rt Hon Helen Clark and haven't been reviewed since then. This review has been widely called from the education sector to parents and those in the disability sector. Fundamentally this review is about addressing inequity in the education system for young people that have challenges with learning. At the moment some learners are being excluded because their learning needs aren't being met. As a Government we have set our goal in education to build an inclusive education system and that must include our most vulnerable learners.Angela Roberts: What are the next steps for this work?Hon JAN TINETTI: The terms of reference approved by Cabinet underwent extensive consultation with over 80 stakeholder groups to help us understand the nature of the issues relating to individualised learning supports and services. Most stakeholders indicated that the system needs to shift from the current deficit-based approach of accessing and receiving supports to a strength-based mana-enhancing one. That is our goal. The Ministry of Education will now undergo further and wider consultation on the substance of the review over the next 12 months. Recommendations are due to the Government in 2022. I encourage all of those who wish to have a voice in the future of learning support services to actively engage in this work. More detail can be found on the Ministry of Education's website.
8. Question No. 8—COVID-19 ResponseCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 8—COVID-19 Response8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by all of the Government's actions and statements in relation to the response to COVID-19?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes. In particular I stand by our action to mandate vaccination of workers in the health and disability education and corrections sectors and for all workers at businesses where customers need to show COVID-19 vaccination certificates. This will help make our workplaces at particular risk from COVID-19 as safe as possible and give confidence to their staff and customers. On this side of the House we are doing everything we can to support getting vaccination rates up across the country.Chris Bishop: Has New Zealand ordered specific vials of Pfizer vaccine specifically tailored for 5- to 11-year-olds?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We are in conversations with Pfizer. As the director-general indicated this morning a paediatric formulation of the vaccine has only been very recently—i.e. in the last day or so—approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the USA. I think every country will be looking at that and in our conversations with Pfizer the agreements that we have with Pfizer do secure us access to a paediatric dose if one should be developed.Chris Bishop: Has he had any correspondence with Pfizer encouraging them to apply to Medsafe for approval of the vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven't personally written to Pfizer. On this particular matter I'm absolutely confident that Pfizer will submit the documentation the application to Medsafe in due course quickly; I think they want to see the paediatric vaccination rolled out as soon as possible as well.Chris Bishop: Why are fully vaccinated travellers with negative pre-departure tests still spending 14 days in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) in Auckland while 562 people with COVID isolate at home in the community?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government will make further announcements on changes to our overall MIQ and border settings tomorrow; we're working through some further details of that. One of the issues that we have to work through is that our international border operates across the whole country and not just Auckland.Chris Bishop: Why does the New Zealand vaccination system not recognise vaccinations given overseas and what is being done as a matter of urgency to sort out this problem given impending mandates and certificates?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can provide an absolute assurance that before any requirements for vaccination certificates are put in place people will be able to have vaccinations that they have received abroad recognised through the vaccination certificate system.
7. Question No. 7—Building and ConstructionGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 7—Building and Construction7. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcement has she made about providing greater assurance for homeowners?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Yesterday I announced the Government will be introducing a new code of ethics for licenced building practitioners. These are building practitioners who carry out restricted building work including work that is essential to the structure weathertightness and fire safety of residential buildings. We know that the vast majority of licenced building practitioners are already working to the highest professional and ethical standards. However this code sets out new standards for practitioners to give the industry consumers and homeowners clarity on what is expected from those who are licenced. With the building consents at a record high for the sixth month in a row New Zealanders need building practitioners who are trained skilled and accountable.Greg O'Connor: What other changes is the Government making to improve the quality of building work in New Zealand and to better protect consumers?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This new code of ethics is part of a wider series of reforms to lift the efficiency and quality of building work in New Zealand. These include a stronger product certification scheme a new information requirement for building products and a new certification scheme for modular component manufacturers. These reforms will see a more efficient building system a lift in the quality of building work and lead to fairer outcomes if things go wrong.
6. Question No. 6—Climate ChangeMARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Climate ChangeQuestion No. 6—Climate Change6. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Climate Change: Has he seen KPMG's Net Zero Readiness Index 2021; if so what is his message to New Zealand farmers who have ranked first in the world for climate change readiness?SPEAKER: I think the Minister can answer the question as it was written. Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): In answer to the first part of the member's question yes. In answer to the second part of the question I'd like to echo the words of KPMG's Global Head of Agribusiness Ian Proudfoot who said This ranking represents New Zealand's high levels of forest biomass low levels of food loss and our comparatively high number of agricultural clean tech companies. However when you are first there is only one way you can move in subsequent surveys unless we work harder faster and more collaboratively. There is still a lot of work to do and with well-resourced countries only just behind us there is no room for complacency."Mark Cameron: When does he believe the rest of New Zealand—that only ranked ninth in the world for climate change readiness—will catch up with rural New Zealand on climate change?Hon JAMES SHAW: Well as I have said many many times in a number of forums New Zealand has yet to see a sustained decline in our greenhouse gas emissions right across the economy and in fact once we do start to see that sustained decline we need to see that every year until we hit net zero. That just underscores the importance of the work that we've been doing over the course of the last four years to bend the curve of our emissions downwards over a sustained period of time.Mark Cameron: Does he agree with the former leader of Greenpeace who called for aggressive action on agriculture?Hon JAMES SHAW: I do agree that we do need aggressive action right across the economy. Over the course of the last 30 years New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions have risen when they should have fallen. Mark Cameron: Point of order Mr Speaker. If I may Mr Speaker that was quite a salient point about agriculture. I don't think he addressed it. I think he was more obtuse in his answer.SPEAKER: Well I think the question was addressed even if the member didn't get the specific answer he wanted.Mark Cameron: Is he aware that emissions from the agricultural sector—that have remained consistent over the last 20 years—are in fact lower than levels seen since 2005 according to data from the Ministry for the Environment as confirmed by the Parliamentary Library?Hon JAMES SHAW: I am aware of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions inventory yes. Mark Cameron: Will he be advocating for a split gas approach to better reflect New Zealand's agricultural industry at COP26?Hon JAMES SHAW: That's not on the agenda no."
3. Question No. 3—ACCBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister for ACCQuestion No. 3—ACC3. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister for ACC: Does she have confidence in the Accident Compensation Corporation? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: Yes. Brooke van Velden: Is she confident in ACC's ability to keep New Zealanders' information safe when it has been reported that ACC staff routinely accessed files that they were told not to? Hon JAN TINETTI: Approximately 27000 sensitive claims are actively managed by ACC each year. It is critical that ACC has enough appropriately trained staff with access to the right information available to support claimants. However it is clear that ACC has work to do to reassure New Zealanders that their private information is safe. ACC has already been looking into staff access to sensitive claims information and this work is ongoing. Brooke van Velden: Does she believe it is appropriate that 1414 ACC staff have access to sensitive claims information in light of the privacy breach reported today and if so why? Hon JAN TINETTI: I want to reiterate what was in my first answer which is that we have in this country approximately 27000 sensitive claims that are actively managed by ACC every year. It is important that we have enough trained people. When we're dealing with 27000 sensitive claims that are very complex in nature it would make sense that we would have up to 1400 people who would be appropriately trained to look into those claims. Brooke van Velden: What is her response to an ACC employee who's put off lodging their own sensitive claim because they do not believe their information would stay private and who stated All of my providers that I've been talking to therapists and things they say you know it's confidential information. But I work for ACC so I know it's not."? Hon JAN TINETTI: On behalf of the Minister: I am concerned about the claims that are coming forward and have noted that it is clear that ACC does have work to do to reassure New Zealanders that their private information is safe and as Minister I have made it clear to ACC that privacy and culture are to be a priority. This will be in my next letter of expectations which I will discuss with the new ACC chair who is coming in in the next couple of weeks along with the board chair. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. I think most members think this is a very serious matter—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Indeed. SPEAKER: —I'm on my feet Mr Woodhouse—and I think the House should treat the matter with some respect. Has the Minister finished? Brooke van Velden: What next steps aside from simply writing a letter will she take to ensure the privacy of sensitive claims information held by ACC to give people peace of mind and the dignity they deserve? Hon JAN TINETTI: ACC is a Crown entity and I am only able to direct its actions in very limited circumstances. However I have made it clear to ACC that this is unacceptable and I expect all ACC staff to respect claimants' privacy. ACC has already been looking into staff access to sensitive claims information."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Mālō ni Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The export sector continues to support the recovery. Today Statistics New Zealand reported exports of goods rose 10 percent to $4.4 billion in September compared with the same period a year ago. The main contribution came from dairy products with gains in prices in sales of milk powder butter and cheese. Statistics New Zealand noted that this was a strong start to the export season with this month having the strongest value for exports for any September month since 2013. The meat sector also contributed strongly with sales rising 22 percent in a month.Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on other parts of the export economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well the dairy sector continues to support the economy. Yesterday the dairy cooperative Fonterra increased and narrowed its milk price forecast range for the 2021-22 year to $7.90 to $8.90 per kilo of milk solids from $7.25 to $8.75. The mid-point rose from $8 to $8.40 which I can see the Opposition are welcoming. This would equal the highest milk price paid out in the 2013-2014 season. It shows the dairy sector is holding up well and would see Fonterra contribute around $30 billion to the economy. We thank the dairy sector for their contribution to the economy.Barbara Edmonds: How are exporters adapting in response to the pandemic?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The 2021 ExportNZ DHL Export Barometer found that Kiwi exporters remain confident and optimistic as New Zealand continues to move through the pandemic. It shows that exporters have adapted to a volatile global environment by looking for opportunities for developing new products and services to increase export sales. Because of this 51 percent of exporters saw an increase in their sales. The report also shows 62 percent expect international orders to increase indicating a strong year ahead in 2022. While the survey shows exporters are mostly feeling optimistic it also shows that they are facing challenges as we work through the global pandemic.
COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
Smith Stuart; Rurawhe AdrianSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Point of order. Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to seek leave on the member's behalf for an extension of time—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member knows he cannot do that.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry I just want to make sure that the Minister in the chair is the Hon Chris Hipkins or—I mean we're in an unusual situation because we can only have one because if the Hon Kris Faafoi is now the Minister in the chair then he will take precedence in getting the call. That's what I'm saying.
SpeechChris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you. Thanks to the Leader of the House and Acting Minister of Local Government" for that elucidation. I think it would've been helpful if that was made clear to members at the start of the committee stage debate by either a presiding officer or a senior Government member; that was not at all clear.So look I suppose the situation is we find ourselves where we find ourselves and we're now getting well into the substance of the bill. We have the appropriate Ministers here so I suggest we proceed on that basis.David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I think we'll proceed as we earlier discussed. My understanding is that there was a discussion but no agreement at Business Committee and the Minister the Hon Chris Hipkins is correct. So we will proceed according to the Standing Orders. However as I indicated earlier for the purpose of efficiency the committee seems to be of a mind to go through each schedule one by one. I think that's still OK.David Seymour: Point of order Mr Chair. Could I just note what the Leader of the House has just said that the Government can introduce laws to Parliament try to pass them through and Ministers only have to show up and answer for them if the Opposition specifically asks them to. The onus has never been on the Opposition to make sure Ministers show up and be accountable.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I can rule on that. The Minister in charge of this bill is the Hon Chris Hipkins; in actual fact he is the only one or someone in his place that needs to be here. My understanding was that the offer was made because of the broad nature of the issues covered within the schedules that other Ministers would be available to respond to members' questions relating to those schedules. In actual fact we can only have one Minister in the chair. As the Hon Chris Hipkins is that member he is the Minister in the chair right now.David Seymour: Speaking to that Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—David Seymour: I take your point but we don't normally amend 15 laws at once.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No no—you're not speaking to that. I've made the ruling and the Standing Orders are very clear: if you have a contribution to clause 3—David Seymour: Yeah absolutely.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —then I'll absolutely hear it."
Rurawhe Adrian; Bishop Chris; Webb Duncan; Seymour DavidClause 3 Amendments to enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We now come to clause 3. This is the debate on the amendments to enactments and includes the debate on Schedules 1 through to 8. The question is that clause 3 stand part. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Sorry Mr Chair when you were—I'm struggling how to phrase this without breaching the Standing Orders. The House has already resolved I think via consensus that we will move through the clause 3 schedules—which is let's face it the substantive part of the bill—schedule by schedule if that makes sense. So Schedule 1 is in relation to the Department of Internal Affairs amendments. Part 1 is the Gambling Act so I think it would be helpful to deal with the Gambling Act amendments and then potentially move after that to the Local Electoral Act and then so forth. We've sort of agreed on that I think. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): Speaking to that point of order it was agreed that the order of debate would run through those schedules so that Ministers and their officials could be most efficiently used. But there wasn't I don't think an agreement that each schedule would be taken as a separate clause. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Speaking to the point of order Mr Chair perhaps I can assist. I actually sought leave while the previous presiding officer was in the Chair for precisely the course of action that we would debate each schedule in turn. The presiding officer didn't put the leave saying that that was already her ruling so we've all been working under the understanding that indeed we would separately debate each of the schedules given that those are effectively for want of a better term the parts of this particular piece of legislation. I would have insisted that the previous presiding officer put the leave had I not understood that she was saying she agreed with that course of action. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I want to thank all members for their contribution to this issue. I was fully aware of the ruling of the Hon Jacqui Dean. My understanding of what I heard was that we will go through clause 3 and the schedules. For the purpose of efficiency we'll deal with one schedule at a time which I think would be as I say an efficient way of doing it but there'll be just one question at the end passing all of clause 3 and the schedules. To do anything else would be contrary to the Standing Orders and I think would have needed an instruction to the committee when we were still in the House. So if we can proceed as such then we will go to Schedule 1.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Webb Duncan; Rurawhe AdrianDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm tempted actually after that contribution.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Now I just thought it would be worth clarifying the understandings that were reached in respect of this debate at Business Committee because Mr Bishop's contribution really touched on the commencement in respect of Schedule 8 which is the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and we have in the Chamber Ministers to address questions which other members have indicated would be asked and they were on at Schedule 5 the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development; Schedule 6 the Ministry of Justice; and Schedule 7 the Ministry of Transport. Now the parts referred to by Mr Bishop are technical amendments which are required to enable bodies corporate and companies to undertake business electronically including various constitutional matters so it's appropriate to have a hard commencement date so that those businesses can do that retrospectively. But I'm not the Minister in charge—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member started off talking about an issue not necessarily related to clause 2 and criticising the previous speaker which was ruled in order. So the member should get to his point on clause 2.Hon Member: Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No Dr Webb has the—Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you Mr Chair—simply pointing out that the commencement date there is there so that the members who are organising bodies corporate and companies can undertake constitutional matters such as meetings and AGMs by electronic means.
Dean Jacqui; Bishop ChrisClause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We move now to clause 2 the debate on the commencement clause. The question is that clause 2 stand part.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Look I'm a bit troubled by clause 2 and I'm going to ask a Minister to get into the nitty gritty of the detail. Clause 2 has two subclauses. It's all about the commencement. So clause 2(1) says This Act comes into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. That's perfectly standard. That's a very sensible piece of legislation. Then it says "However section 3(2) and Schedule 8 come into force on 28 October 2021."Now it's the 27th today and I can tell you now that this bill is not going to be passed today. So tomorrow we may get through the committee stage although frankly the way things are going we're going to be here for quite a long time I have to say. There's a very chunky piece of legislation still to talk to but we'll wait and see—we'll wait and see. We'll see how much courage the Government's got because they've outlined a very long extended hours reading list. I think it was 15 bills Kris Faafoi read out. There's no way they're getting through all of them but we'll see.So section 3 and Schedule 8—and Schedule 8 is in relation to Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment amendments. It's a requirements for entities modifications and exemptions. It makes various class exemptions to—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just—order! The member is addressing clause 2.CHRIS BISHOP: Yep that's right clause 2 the commencement clause of the bill. So what I'm seeking clarity on is section 3(2) and Schedule 8 come into force on 28 October. Now it's unlikely that the bill will be an Act by 28 October. In fact it's likely to be potentially after that. So I just seek guidance from the Minister as to what will happen in that circumstance if the bill is passed later than the 28th i.e. early in November. Does that mean that section 3(2) and Schedule 8 are actually deemed to have come into force retrospectively as well? That's the question."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to speak on the title of the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill and I support my colleague Mr Bishop's call for it to be renamed the COVID-19 Response (Retrospective Legislation) Bill". The reason for that is that this does contain some key elements that create a retrospective change to some of our key contractual provisions.The reason why we have a First World economy in this country is because we have the certainty of the rule of law. We have the certainty of contract and people who rely upon that are making the investment decisions and from those investment decisions we have an effective economy. Without that people will not invest. We will not have the certainty that people require to build a functional and effective economy and I would speak to the other alternative name for this bill which Mr Seymour alluded to and we could call it the "Banana Republic Law Bill"."
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Madam Chair Speakers' rulings are very clear: that a debate on a title clause cannot be used as a way in which to criticise the content of the bill. I'd ask for you to explain to the committee how the previous speeches have been ruled in order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that point of order. The Chair is the sole judge of relevance. I am listening very carefully to the speeches and the member may have noticed that I have reminded speakers to speak to that section of the bill which as you so rightly point out is the title clause.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. Alice in Wonderland is sort of where we are now with this as it goes down the rabbit hole and I just want to reiterate the iterations from both Mr Seymour and Chris Bishop about retrospectivity. So here we go. I think we could quite happily call the title of this bill COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill/The Rabbit Hole". So there you are. It speaks of retrospectivity and unfortunately this is the new norm for a Government out of touch."
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I can't resist taking a call on clause 1 as well. I have a slightly different perspective on it though and you'll understand that when I've finished speaking. But my perspective on this is really when you think about life and you think about what is going on in the course of the legislation we are about to pass my proposal is that we call it the Rip Off the Old People Bill" because actually when you think about what COVID has done to my generation—David Seymour: The member's got a conflict of interest!IAN McKELVIE: —ha ha! So have you!—it's precluded us from going to our own funerals it's precluded us from all sorts of stuff. But the most—David Seymour: You can go to your own funeral—you can go to your own funeral.IAN McKELVIE: Yeah but you don't know you're there! Ha ha! You might not know that you're gonna have one either! But the challenge for me is that what has happened to a lot of people—or our seniors particularly with respect to superannuation—is they've gone around the world for various reasons a lot of them very good reasons quite unsuspectingly and have been trapped overseas and they get to the point where they want to come home they can't come home the Government then cancels their superannuation and they end up kind of adrift around the world.The other thing just with respect to the proposed name change I have is I think that COVID has changed the world; this bill changes a lot of things that we've come to understand in this country and come to live with and my generation are frankly the lucky generation. I don't know what is going to happen for the next generation because a lot of things have changed in recent times. But all the same despite all that I still think that it is worth a try and I think it is well worth looking at the title of this bill and thinking that we should just change it to at least reflect some of the—not damages done because who's to know whether it is damage in the long term or not but to reflect the position we've got to. Thank you Madam Chair."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. First of all my first question is: I didn't think they served bananas in the Koru lounge. So I know this bill had its genesis in the Koru lounge when Mr Faafoi was on one of his frequent trips around the country and came across some people who actually had some property interest and thought it might be quite a good idea to change it. But I certainly agree with Mr Bishop that it is a retrospective bill. So I personally—if I was in the Koru lounge I wouldn't like bananas; I'd like something like cherry tomatoes or even God's given little green apples or something like that.But in terms of this bill it is certainly retrospective and I think that after a COVID crisis hit this country back in March last year this is where we're getting to today. We're debating this bill. We're debating one of the principal elements that should have been addressed all those 18 months ago with the issue with property rights. The Government tried in the last term of Government and failed. Now 18 months later we've got this situation where we're now applying a retrospective clause and actually in a number of the issues in the schedules that we're going to be discussing there is an issue around how that retrospectiveness applies. So I think—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Could the member address clause 1 which is the title clause.ANDREW BAYLY: Yes. So I do agree with Mr Bishop. I think it should be the COVID-19 Retrospective Bill" on a whole lot of fronts because we've got a bill that deals with what 20 or 15 different Acts. I think the issue is that we should have done this a long long time ago. We're late to the job and largely because we've got a Government that hasn't got on with the job much sooner than it should have."
Bishop ChrisClause 1 TitleCHRIS BISHOP (National): Oh thank you very much. Look I wasn't intending to take a very long call on clause 1 which is the title—[Bell rung] Well that didn't take long! Goodness me!Hon Kris Faafoi: Fair call.CHRIS BISHOP: That hasn't happened to me since year 9 debating! But in the spirit of what is I think soon going to come I think that a more appropriate title for this bill would be the COVID-19 Response (Retrospective Property Law Amendment) Legislation Bill 2021" because what we have before us is a bill that seeks to retrospectively interfere in the sanctity of contract and contracts signed in good faith by landlords and tenants and seeks to reverse what the legal position was at that time for reasons that have never been explicitly or convincingly articulated by the Government. In fact about the best that the Minister has managed to do so far is that there's been anecdotal feedback that this would be a good idea. That's it—anecdata basically. Kris Faafoi who I've got a lot of time for—he's a great guy. He's not a bad medium-fast bowler in the parliamentary cricket team. He's a good guy. Everyone likes "Faafs"; he's a great guy. But I'm sorry running into some people in the Koru lounge and having a glass of orange juice over the socially distanced Air New Zealand buffet is not a good enough reason to retrospectively interfere in the sanctity of contract. It's not. It's just simply not.And as others have pointed out in the legal community and in the property world in the commercial world this puts everyone at risk actually because once you get down to the situation where the Government will go along and interfere in commercially negotiated contracts and just retrospectively change the law and override those contracts—it's bad enough just overriding contracts; the legislature should be very wary about doing that on any level at any time but to do it retrospectively to pretend that the law wasn't what it said it was at the time undermines certainty of the rule of law and undermines the sanctity of contract. And to do that you need a very good reason before you do it and we have never had articulated as I said before from the Government a good reason as to why that is the case. And everyone has lined up in opposition to this—everyone. The Property Council the Auckland District Law Society—nobody thinks it will work; everyone thinks it's a bad idea. And we are yet to see from the Government a convincing rationale.So I think a good title change would be the "COVID-19 Response (Retrospective Property Law Amendment) Legislation Bill 2021". That is my opening contribution to what I'm sure will be a long and exhausting debating. Thank you Madam Chair."