edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you. I want to ask a couple of questions on infrastructure. First question: is he confident no DHB patients are currently being seen in buildings that have been deemed unsafe to occupy? Second question: North Shore Hospital recently had a significant power outage. It interrupted clinical procedures—official information I've collected shows that it was caused primarily by ageing infrastructure—so is he confident that the Budget has enough funding to address critical infrastructure gaps in district health boards? Lastly what additional hospital bed capacity is included in the Budget to deal with demand in the future such as when COVID will be managed within our communities?
Simmonds Penny; Little AndrewPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I have a small tranche of questions within the disability support area. Within national Disability Support Services funding does this include any change in the $75 per day respite care payment? And if not does the Government think it is acceptable for people who provide this respite care to be paid significantly under the minimum wage at just over $3 an hour for a 24-hour period? Is the Minister aware of how constraining that it is for families trying to secure respite care? Finally in this tranche are there any specific interventions planned within the disability funding to ensure equitable health outcomes for people with disabilities—given particularly the shortened life span of people with disabilities? Thank you.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member for her questions. What I can say to the member is that Budget 2021 provided an additional $399 million over four years for Disability Support Services. That is just to meet cost pressures. So we know that there is a significant need out there.I'm not familiar with the arrangements for respite care. There are many different forms of respite care and many services providing respite care for those who need it. What we are determined to do is to make sure that the regime we have in place for disability support is not sort of pigeonholed as a health issue. The message I've very clearly heard from the disability community is that they are members of the community. They have a range of needs. One of those needs is health but they require other social supports and psychosocial supports and what have you as well.That is why when we came to consider the Health and Disability System Review report it didn't go too far in relation to disability support services. Myself and the Minister for Disability Issues the Hon Carmel Sepuloni commissioned a further piece of work which is looking at the future governance arrangements for disability support to pay respect to the very clear message we've heard from the community about their wish for a much better focused and much more representative level of leadership over the Government's support that is provided to that community. So that work is under way. It's due to report in a couple of months' time. I'm looking forward to that and I think the member can expect that there will be a new generation of leadership support for that critical area of support that the Government gives to that very important community.
Sharma Gaurav; Little AndrewDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Change is never easy and especially when it comes to health it's quite difficult. I just wanted to say to the Minister in the chair Andrew Little that we know that until the legislative changes are passed the Ministry of Health and the DHBs will retain all existing statutory functions powers and accountabilities. How does Budget 2021 help DHBs to maintain and improve performances during this transition period?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member for his question. The member is right: the existing DHBs continue to be responsible for and accountable for the funding that they get and the services that they provide and we will continue to ensure that accountability through the usual annual planning and expectation setting process and that is well in train. The DHBs have their budget allocations for the current financial year. Their annual plans are coming back now—they're not all in yet but many of them are—and so they'll be examined in the weeks to follow and they'll be finalised and signed off.We know that the big challenge is reining in the deficits. Pretty much every DHB has a deficit—some are significant and some more manageable. All DHBs are showing a willingness and indeed are demonstrating their keenness to rein in deficits for this financial year because they understand that their legacy as the current governors and stewards of those organisations and their part of the health system is what they leave to Health NZ in terms of a well-functioning well-operating efficient and financially responsible health service.So that's where we need it to get to. The Ministry of Health continues to work closely with DHBs not just on financial performance but on clinical and other organisational performance too because that remains crucial even as we're going through this transition and as we head to 1 July next year.
Salesa JennyHealthCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We will now move on to the Estimates debate on health.
Estimates Debate — Energy and Resources
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I thank the Minister Megan Woods for that contribution again and those answers. Another debate that keeps coming up in this House is around gas and whether the Government's decision last term to stop issuing new permits for exploration offshore for oil and gas has contributed to the issues with gas production this year. It's my view that there's no way these things are related. The Government has of course issued new exploration permits for oil and gas onshore. So that really does beg the question of whether the industry and the Opposition members in National and the ACT Party are just going around you know trying to draw some relationship where there is no relationship. From the Greens' point of view given that the International Energy Agency—I'm not sure if the members in the National and the ACT parties have ever heard of this agency but it is the world's premier energy agency—came out in May 2021 saying point blank that Governments have to stop exploration for new gas coal and oil and new developments or extensions to gas coal and oil if we are to have any chance of meeting the commitments that all countries made to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. In other words the International Energy Agency is saying that from 2021 Governments should stop development and exploration for not just coal but also oil and gas because it is not mathematically possible to have a stable climate and increase the supply of fossil fuel production. Would the Minister care to comment on that and whether or not it is possible to respond to climate change and ensure a healthy stable climate for our future and to continue oil and gas exploration not to mention the fact that indeed there is no relationship between a decision to discontinue exploration for oil and gas offshore and the current issues with production and gas that are affecting fields here in New Zealand right now?
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. So we understand the Government is carrying out a $30 million feasibility study into the Onslow pumped hydro project. That is a project intended to provide for dry-year storage to replace what the Minister referred to as the failure of natural gas to actually support New Zealand's baseload energy requirements at this time". Although the industry would counter that by suggesting it's not so much a failure of gas—because we have the gas—it's a failure of Government policy which makes it so hard to get the gas. But coming back to Onslow that project would be New Zealand's largest hydro dam would flood a Unesco-level wetland and would cost billions and billions of dollars and take decades to consent and construct. It doesn't sound feasible at first glance.Now storing water for a dry-year risk in a hydro dam has merit but that stored energy needs to be close to where people and businesses need it and it's been suggested by many in the energy industry that that is not the right place to store energy because it's so far away from the main centres. That water must also be held as reserves for years and years sometimes between dry years without producing any electricity or revenue for the dam owner. So the private sector energy generators are now asking the Government and they're asking their customers why they would invest in new renewables and baseload energy generation when the Government might build an enormous hydro dam take control of the electricity markets and tank all of their brand new investments.What New Zealand families and businesses need right now is affordable and secure electricity and energy. So Minister my question is: what plan does the Government have for affordable and secure electricity if the business case for the Onslow dam project shows that it is simply not feasible?"
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. It's good to get an opportunity while the Minister Megan Woods was in her disappointed mode to ask a question. When she told me in written question No. 26184 that and I quote I find it very disappointing to continue receiving questions around the wide range of perspectives that make up the New Zealand Battery Project Technical Reference Group."—can she elaborate further on why she as a Minister is disappointed to be receiving written questions?"
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I thank the Minister Megan Woods for her answers so far which have been very clear. Obviously climate change is the single biggest issue facing all of us and there's going to be a need across all sectors for a considerable transition to a decarbonised economy a decarbonised electricity system and energy more broadly. Obviously our largest area of energy—fossil fuels is the energy we use for transport fuels which is mainly used in our privately owned light fleet the cars utes and vans that we drive every day. I bring this up because there has been a lot of misinformation out there I believe—and I wanted to ask the Minister some questions about this—misinformation about the coal imports this year. I've seen reports that coal is responsible for the majority of our electricity generation that the increased coal imports are due to increased demand from electric vehicles. Obviously all of this is not true and so I just wondered if the Minister would care to expand a little bit on the reasons why we have increased coal imports this year.What percentage of our electricity generation this year is from renewable and the increased demand on the grid from electric vehicles? My understanding is there is enough renewable electricity consented to more than cater for increased demand even if we had a 100 percent electric vehicle fleet which we are very far from because previous Governments didn't do anything to actually incentivise electric vehicles.Then I have a second question which is around the role that smaller-scale solar generation might play in the transition to a decarbonised electricity system. My understanding is that the Government has actually invested in some pilot projects recently. Community housing schemes and marae might be receiving funding for solar generation. And I was just wondering if the Minister would like to speak to the benefits of that and how much the Government is investing in that area?
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): In December last year Cabinet signed off on $100 million for the New Zealand Battery project under the shovel-ready initiatives programme. This money is provided in Budget 2021 under the multi-year appropriation energy and resources investment in infrastructure projects. This money included $30 million for an evaluation of different options and $70 million for a more detailed feasibility study. The criteria that Cabinet signed off for this $100 million spend included providing a pathway to 100 percent renewable electricity". Since this decision we have had the Climate Change Commission report where the commission said that the 100 percent target should be "aspirational" and that the Government should consider replacing the 100 percent target with an aim of achieving 95 to 98 percent renewables. So my question to the Minister is: is the Government going to reconsider the objective of 100 percent renewable electricity for the New Zealand Battery project in light of the Climate Change Commission advice to shift away from this? In her paper to Cabinet the Minister said that to ensure the evaluation process was fair and robust and unbiased she had adopted several mitigation strategies including setting up a technical reference group. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment now have set up the technical reference group and while a number of the members have extremely strong CVs we were surprised to see the appointment of a Greenpeace climate and emergency campaigner and one of the founders of School Strike 4 Climate put on the technical reference group. Is the Minister satisfied that these appointments fulfil her expectations of this group that it provide robust unbiased technical advice? The second question on that is: were the appointments to the technical reference group sent to her for approval before they were announced?"
Salesa JennyEnergy and ResourcesCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Meitaki maata. We will now move on to the Estimates debate on energy and resources.
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The Minister has often said that his freshwater reforms will be achieved within a generation. How many years does the Minister define as being a generation for the purposes of his timetable?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are two main parts. Well actually there are three main parts to the changes—actually there are four; I'm going to list the four changes—to our freshwater reforms.The first was a change to the Resource Management Act to change the way in which water plans are made. That has been legislated. We have a Freshwater Commissioner—currently Peter Skelton a long-serving judge Professor of Planning and one of the commissioners that the National Party appointed to Environment Canterbury and a very capable man. With his oversight we are running a new process to help councils put in place good freshwater plans.The second part was a national environment standard which has near instant effect which has some bottom-line rules that everyone has to adhere to and that effectively go like regulations directly into plans.The third part that the member I think is mainly referring to there—the fourth part being regulations relating to fencing and things which I won't go into in detail—but the third part which does take some time is what communities through their regional councils want to do in their plans in order to achieve the requirements of the national policy statement on freshwater management. There are various ways that councils can address their issues. It's for them to decide how they're going to bring their river health and lake health up to the levels that are prescribed by the legislation and they do that through plans. And then those plans once they are in place give a transition to improve things. We've said that we think the improvements back to swimmability and ecological health should take a generation. We actually haven't defined that; we've left that to councils to work out.Hon Scott Simpson: That's why I asked the question.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well we could have prescribed it but it will differ. In some areas they've got bigger challenges than others and they might take a little longer. But I think most people think of a generation as 20 or 30 years. From my perspective the most important thing is to get things on the right trajectory and then I think we'll be able to relax a little bit and take the time to get back to the state of rivers that we used to enjoy as a country 20 or 30 years ago.
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I'd like to ask the Minister: how much of the special allocation in Vote Environment funding for delivering his new resource management system will be spent on more staff at the Ministry for the Environment? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I can't give the member an accurate figure on that. If he cares to put down a question in writing I can give him that information. I am happy though to accept that it's a big piece of work and that it has required the department to engage more personnel in order to land it. There's general agreement across society and I think across this House that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is past its use-by date. If you chunk it down it really hasn't delivered. It takes too long it costs too much and it hasn't protected the environment. In respect of it taking too long and not having good development outcomes you don't really need to look much further than some of the problems that we've had in housing. Although they're very complex problems caused by a lack of infrastructure a lack of trained workforce and various other contributing factors it's also true that in a country that's got low population densities we've got very high land prices. That's in part been caused by the way in which the RMA has been implemented and although there are some fixes on the way to that through the national policy statement under the RMA the RMA hasn't delivered the competitive land markets that we've needed. So we think for reasons of housing as well as environmental protection and enabling development like infrastructure there is a need to start again rather than just make yet another complex amendment to the existing RMA. Now given that the RMA is a cornerstone piece of legislation for the way in which we manage both development land use and the protection of the environment it's important that that be done properly and that is a complex task. I'm sure this will come up in further questions but our proposal is to replace the RMA with the Natural and Built Environments Act another piece of legislation that will have spatial planning on a regional level called the Strategic Planning Act and—to a certain extent separate—a piece of legislation that helps us to adapt to the effects of climate change and no doubt other questions will arise as to some of the details of that.
Rurawhe AdrianESTIMATES DEBATEIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Kia orana tatou kātoatoa. Members the House is in committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates. The House has given leave to organise the debates by portfolio so there will be no set specific debates. All Votes are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to their indicated portfolios only. The Government has indicated that the Minister for the Environment and for Oceans and Fisheries the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Health will be available today. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister's portfolios.This debate expires after 11 hours at which point questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the schedules and of the provisions of the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill. The time for the debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis and may be taken as parties see fit during the debate. New Zealand Labour has five hours 58 minutes; New Zealand National has three hours one minute; the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 55 minutes; ACT New Zealand has 55 minutes; Te Paati Māori has 11 minutes.The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government's current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the Table.The questions is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2021/22 stand part of the schedules.
Urgent Debates Declined — Minister of Education—Special Needs Education
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDMinister of Education—Special Needs EducationSPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the actions and comments of the Minister of Education regarding special needs education in public schools. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Having considered the matters raised by the member in his letter I'm not convinced that it reached the threshold that warrants setting aside the business of the House particularly given the fact that we're about to commence the Estimates debate. The application is therefore declined.HOUSE IN COMMITTEESPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill and the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill.
Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill — Estimates Debate — Procedure
Hipkins ChrisAPPROPRIATION (2021/22 ESTIMATES) BILLEstimates Debate—StructureHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): My apologies Mr Speaker—I just have to find the right piece of paper to do the bit that I need to do.SPEAKER: Do you want me to read it to you?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No no it's all right; I can get there—I can get there. I seek leave for the Estimates debate to be structured around portfolios rather than sectors and for the chairperson or member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister's portfolios to lead off each debate despite Standing Order 348.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Ministerial Statements — COVID-19 — Suspension of Trans-Tasman Travel Bubble
Genter Julie Anne; Hipkins ChrisHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. We reiterate thanks to the Minister. The Green Party are very supportive of the suspension and of the approach that the Government has taken. It's really a clear reminder as cases are increasing worldwide including in countries that have more extensive vaccination that this pandemic is far from over and that the Delta variant and other new variants are a serious threat not only to non-vaccinated populations but even people who have received the vaccination. Of course we're aware that this will be a blow to friends and family who want to maintain connections with their whānau in Australia but it's really in the best interests of both countries that there is certainty while there is this community spread. Even prior to this outbreak there were a number of cancelled travel arrangements and people stuck in lockdowns in various states and cities and so I think that having this certainty of at least eight weeks' suspension is really a good thing for businesses and family. I just have one additional question about managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). It's a broader issue. It's related to the difficulties that people are having registering spots in MIQ be they coming from Australia or other countries and if the Government is looking at changes or improvements to the MIQ booking system so it can't be gamed by bots and others and to ensure that people actually are able to book spots that are available in MIQ. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): With regard to the overall booking system yes we do keep that under constant review. The MIAS booking system—the managed isolation allocation system—that we have in place at the moment served us very well where supply and demand were relatively evenly matched or where demand was lower than supply. Where we get to a position—which we're at again now—where there are far more people who want to come in than we have rooms available it does create some inequities in terms of who's able to access those rooms. So I am looking at a range of alternatives there to make sure—and that could be anything from a wait list system to a ballot system to a prioritised system. So we're looking at a range of options for what we might be able to do in that particular space because I recognise that there are a lot of people that do want to come into New Zealand at the moment. So we're keeping that under constant review. In terms of the bots the feedback that I've had is that people cannot secure a booking through a bot but they have been able to identify when vouchers are being released and alert people to the fact that vouchers are being released which gives some people if you like a head start to be able to access them. That's quite a difficult thing to be able to stop. So therefore one of the things I think that we will look to do if we continue with the system as it is now is make sure that we're foreshadowing when we're going to be releasing extra vouchers so that everyone gets a fair and equal opportunity at that.
Tuiono TeanauTUESDAY 3 AUGUST 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia orāna kotou katoatoa i te aroa ma'ata o te Atua. Taki nei au ia tatou i tetai pure no tatou katoatoa. Te Atua mana te 'akameitaki atu nei matou iākoe no te tākinga meitaki ta'au i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te 'akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata. Te 'akamā'ara nei matou i te Ariki Vaine e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou 'uri'uri'anga manako kia rave matou i ta matou 'anga'anga i roto i teia ngutu'are na roto i te pakari te tuatua tika e te 'ākono'anga meitaki no te ao e to matou basileia Nūtirēni na roto i te ingoa o Iesu Mesia 'Āmene.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceHELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before I ask the Minister of Finance to answer I'm going to ask the people on my left to be quiet. It's now I think the third occasion where I've asked and I am just getting unhappy with being the recipient of the communications from people who think this Parliament should be able to be heard on the radio and on television.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government's economic plan to secure our recovery has led to more New Zealanders in work and higher wages. Today Statistics New Zealand released the jobs figures for the June 2021 quarter. The data showed that the unemployment rate fell once again to 4 percent from 4.6 percent in March with 17000 fewer people unemployed over the quarter. The unemployment rate is now where it was in the pre - COVID-19 December 2019 quarter—and I want to make sure you hear this one Mr Brownlee: the data also shows that the economy continued to add jobs with 28000 more people in employment in the June quarter split evenly between men and women. This meant people in employment are up by 63000 since the September 2020 quarter when unemployment peaked at 5.3 percent. The underutilisation rate which gives a broader measure of untapped capacity in the labour market fell to 10.5 percent from 12.1 percent.Helen White: What else did the report say about the state of the labour market?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand reported that the accelerating recovery is putting more money into New Zealanders' back pockets. The average hourly wage rose 4 percent to $34.76 an hour compared with a 3.3 percent rise in inflation. New Zealand's robust economy is seeing gains across a number of sectors including construction retail and accommodation with most commentators expecting wages to continue rising over the coming year.Helen White: What reactions has he seen to the positive job start-ups?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The consensus among economists had been that unemployment would fall to 4.4 percent. The result is also well below Treasury's Budget 2021 update which forecast unemployment to be 5.2 percent in the June 2021 quarter. In its review of the data BNZ's economists called the labour market report a stonker" and that everything about the labour market data was stronger. ASB's economists expect the momentum for demand in the labour market to continue due to New Zealand's resilient economy. The ANZ bank added that it thinks it's only the beginning of strong wage rises this year. There are some who can always see the negative whereas on this side of the House we can see New Zealanders working hard and getting the reward for that work."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I rise disappointed with the out-of-touch members on the other side of the House who don't even understand what's happening in their backyards in Auckland which is full of congestion which is hard to get around and this bill is trying to seek a solution to a problem which will and could save lives for people where there are electrical emergencies. The cases that I put forward are where there are people who—there are accidents where cars go into electrical power lines where the electrical response vehicles can't respond quickly due to the fact that they are stuck in traffic while police and the ambulance and fire brigade are there and they can't do anything until the power is off people who are medically dependent on electricity. This is the Government which is meant to be about kindness but has nothing to say about the people who are the victims in this situation. The Labour Party and the Government—all they had was excuses: This is too much work." Well I'm sorry. Sometimes it actually takes a bit of work in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to actually do some work. Sometimes you actually have to do some work around the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.This Government hasn't delivered on one single transport project in Auckland. Your cycle bridge over the harbour bridge—that's about to be a "gone-burger". It's about to be gone. Just so you know if you're an electrical response vehicle person you can't actually get all your tools on the bus or train. You actually need a vehicle. And you can't get them on your bike either. You've actually got to go down the roads and those roads are getting busier and busier in Auckland but also across New Zealand in our other major cities. This Government is out of touch with the needs of New Zealanders. This bill is about addressing one of the significant issues which needs to be addressed. I commend it to the House."
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Kia orana Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this Regulatory Standards Bill at its first reading a member's bill in the name of David Seymour and I congratulate you Mr Seymour on having your member's bill drawn. The bill has a noble intent: to improve the quality of regulation in New Zealand—and heaven knows we need it after the last four years—through a set of principles and robust analysis that all legislation and regulation would have to comply with. My colleague Mr Penk has emphasised already that over the last four years this Government has pushed through and often under urgency very poor-quality legislation which has imposed numerous regulations with little or no analysis to them and with no understanding of the consequences and impact that often has passed significant cost on to our businesses and therefore on to our economy. Political ideology without understanding potential impact and it's led to particularly bad lawmaking. Now unfortunately this current Government doesn't understand very much about cost-benefit analysis. I'm not even sure that it knows what it is because if it did know what it is it certainly wouldn't have announced a $785 million walking and cycling bridge in Auckland and at the same time it has cut $7.5 million from roading and bridging funding in Southland. The notion that there should be some benefit for spending is quite foreign to this Government. Roads and bridges in Southland carry milk tankers and stock trucks and log products that earn this country export dollars or at least they did until a number of these roads and bridges had to be closed because of funding cuts. So clearly cost-benefit analysis is not a strength of this Government. But this bill would bring in good robust regulatory principles and analysis. This bill would provide an improvement in our lawmaking. While we do have some reservations—and certainly we wouldn't want to see judges legislating from the bench—we would look forward to being able to work through any of those reservations in the select committee process. We'd certainly support a bill that seeks to improve the quality of our country's laws and regulations and you'd have to say to any member of the public watching this that they would be questioning why all of the members in this House wouldn't be wanting to see robust analysis or wouldn't want to see some sort of standardisation that enabled good consistent high-quality lawmaking from everybody in this House. So I stand here supporting this bill today and sadly it sounds like the other side don't have the same aspirations that we do for seeing an improvement in the lawmaking but given the previous four years they should have. But I certainly support this bill. Thank you.
Dean JacquiHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up on the exchange between Ingrid Leary and the member around the fact that as the member has acknowledged this bill is not about the overall sustainability of New Zealand super or actually the age of retirement within the New Zealand super system. While I note that the member has said that the intent of this bill is to move us to where other countries have gone in terms of raising I guess the requirements towards New Zealand super this is ultimately about a very specific population group that we're talking about. In regards to inequities within our migrant communities I wanted to unpack on the comments around life expectancy. Does the member not see that there could be some issues and that therefore higher healthcare needs between migrant groups that have had disproportionate lower health outcomes and pushing these groups towards perhaps needing a main benefit or perhaps not even qualifying for income support at all means that we could inadvertently be putting certain groups at higher needs of the healthcare systems? The actual initial briefing by the Minister for social development very specifically touched on the impact this bill could have on disabled people. So I note in the initial briefing what the Ministry of Social Development was mentioning was that as people get older—and I think we all know this—there tends to be more of a need within the healthcare system and people may end up becoming disabled. So as the initial briefing touches on the outcome of restricting New Zealand super will be an increase in poverty and material hardship amongst disabled people affected by this bill and while the initial briefing and the member's own contributions and people across the House have said that the savings throughout this bill will be quite minor we will see an increase in material hardship in some groups. I guess to me in terms of reaching a balance or reaching fairness I don't see much fairness in increasing material hardship for disabled people or perhaps other population groups. I guess I am seeking assurances by the members that this bill is driven by evidence and by good research as opposed to an ideological drive to reach a place of sustainability when the evidence that we've been given says otherwise. So I'm just seeking assurances that we're debating something that is evidence-based not just purely ideologically based.
Smith Damien; Dean JacquiDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): It's a bad day in New Zealand for the Green Party that purports to support various groups and the youth of New Zealand by lacking the support for this bill. Let's put on the record that they've let down that group today.I think Mr Bayly and the Minister have reached a very sensible settlement in the two-year time frame. I think if you look at New Zealand super it's one of the few schemes internationally that gives everyone who fits the residency requirement a generous payment and it's the last line of defence in terms of keeping people from very difficult situations. So if you're legally resident now for 20 years after the age of 20 it's not means tested or income tested and the two-year time frame and extension has the support of the ACT Party. We congratulate Labour National and ACT for bringing this to the committee today.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Helen White. Just before the member starts could members when they are wanting a call make a call by addressing the Chair Madam Chair" which indicates—I'm telling the whole committee this—that you are seeking the call. Thank you."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. It is good to be debating this bill in the committee of the whole House. As I think all members will be aware this is a bill about increasing the age of entitlement to New Zealand super and veterans' payment from the current provision 10 years to 20 years. It is proposed under the original bill that this would take place over a staged process—effectively for every two years there would be a requirement for one extra year to be worked so that over a period of time over the next 10 years it would progressively move from a situation of if you were someone who wants to be entitled to New Zealand super you would not only have to work for 10 years but progressively over time to have to work for 20 years before you are entitled to it.Now the big question around this is: when should such a provision start? I just want to acknowledge Minister Carmel Sepuloni for working with me to look at the commencement date. There have been discussions with the Retirement Commissioner who expressed some discomfort that under the bill as introduced into the House it would have allowed for that progressive increase to 20 years to commence straight away. By agreement with the Minister we have decided and proposed through a Supplementary Order Paper that the commencement date is deferred not from 1 July 2021 but actually to 1 July 2023 so that people have more time to consider matters of their superannuation and if need be to start planning for working an extra period of time so that once those provisions start to cut in then there is more time available to do the planning. So I am very grateful for the Minister and hopefully we will be able to work our way through some more details but I'm looking forward to the debate.
Mallard Trevor; Dean Jacqui; Bayly AndrewSPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill.NEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION AND RETIREMENT INCOME (FAIR RESIDENCY) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House in committee on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. We turn first to Part 1 this is the debate on clauses 3 to 10 Changes to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001". The question is that Part 1 stands part.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part."
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Kia orana Mr Speaker. I would like to start with a massive congratulations to the Hawke's Bay exporters of the year Frost Fans. Frost Fans are a business that's built on the back of a horticultural sector and they are going places. At the exporter of the year awards we saw businesses celebrating the success they've had—yes in a hard tough year but they're out there celebrating and doing well. It's been a big big week in Hastings because we've heard from the Minister of Immigration that this Government has announced that we're opening a corridor with our Pasifika islands to bring in the RSEs. The RSE is a scheme the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme that was developed under the Labour Government. It has been one of the single greatest tools that has driven this horticultural sector and this is why we do it: because when you get the fruit picked you grow long full permanent jobs for Kiwis and that's the important thing. In this year in this season we have seen 2600 job seekers come off the benefit to come and work in horticulture. That is a fact and those are the things that matter when we start growing jobs from the best place in the world to grow apples and pears.I want to give a great big shout-out to the growers. They have developed excellent relationships with the Labour Government. They have been talking. They've had an open way through to speak with the Minister. It has been tough but they are celebrating this week. We know that when it comes to this season we are going to pick harvest pack export thousands of premium quality beautiful apples that will go to the other side of the world. That's what we do here in the Labour Government. We developed the RSE scheme. We are keeping it rolling out. Thank you Mr Speaker: this is what matters on this side of the House where we're working with business and growing apples growing jobs. Thank you Mr Speaker.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I wanted to use this brief opportunity to talk about the workforce crisis that we have in this country. At the beginning of the recess I went out on the road along with a massive number of people from the rural sector to voice the concerns that we're seeing around the overreach around Government regulation particularly in that sector.One of the key issues that we're seeing particularly in Northland—and I spoke with a farmer up there Adam Cullen—was that there was a significant challenge around the turnover of the farm workers on his farm. He has one of his farm workers that have actually had to relocate to Australia because the Australian immigration department is so much more advanced than ours and has already offered his staff permanent residency.The healthcare sector is also suffering from a workforce crisis—of which this Government is failing to listen to the concerns of those very workers on the ground. I was in the North Shore ambulance station only last week talking to a couple of the front-line medics there. The workload and challenges that they are faced with at the moment primarily due to workforce shortages and crises are significant. These are real people—young people within our communities—that are paying the price for action and non-delivery by that side.The aged-care sector has got 900 nursing vacancies in this country and probably a number of thousand vacancies across the wider country in wider roles. Again we are seeing no action from this Government around listening and putting in place practical applications and practical actions that will deal with closing these gaps. We have a thousand doctors and nurses sitting in the immigration queues wanting to get into this country to fill the many thousand vacancies that we have within this country and again we are told that we are planning and considering but we are not taking action.The number one issue that I hear across the period of the recess with business was the lack of workforce. Hospitality: in the Northcote electorate The Engine Room restaurant in the electorate across the row here—where the MP Shannon Halbert was talking about how good they are—has actually gone and done their own petition because they are struggling with the significantly high number of vacancies in the hospitality sector. Yet their own MP is failing to act in his electorate to deal with some of those issues.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.DEPUTY CLERK: Petition of Mark Ross requesting that the House of Representatives urge the Government to pass legislation requiring that all front-line police officers in New Zealand carry firearms on their person at all times.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Papers have been delivered for presentation.DEPUTY CLERK: Fire and Emergency New Zealand Statement of Performance Expectations 2021/22Government Response to the Report of the Education and Workforce Select Committee on its Inquiry into Student Accommodation.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.DEPUTY CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for second reading.
Utikere TangiWEDNESDAY 4 AUGUST 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Te Atua mana te 'akameitaki atu nei matou iākoe no to tākinga meitaki ta'au i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te 'akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata te 'akama'ara nei matou i te Airki Vaine e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou 'uri'uri'anga manako kia rave matou i ta matou 'anga'anga i roto i teia ngutu'are na roto i te pakari te tuatua tika e te 'akaāta no te meitaki e te au o to matou basileia Nūtirēni na roto i te ingoa o Iesu Mesia 'Āmene.
Thursday 8 July 2021 - Volume 753
Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.