edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you very much—I was pretty quick. Thank you Mr Chair. I want to talk to my amendment. It's in Subpart 4 under Offences". It's clause 271(4) and I want to insert paragraph (c) in that clause. So what does it say? It says "A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction to a penalty that is" and it's got "either or both". What I want to do is change both of those to "and". So: "(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months: (b) a fine not exceeding $5000." and my amendment is paragraph (c) which also includes "and; (c) a 13 week stand down from a benefit".I think that by inserting this clause Minister it really does drive home the seriousness of what the person committing the offence has done. It really does drive home I guess that penalty for her or him liable on that conviction. I want to state that because I think that in many ways—yeah imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. It's a long time but if you have a conviction for a penalty that keeps you in prison for 12 months that is something very serious and I don't see why my 13-week stand down added to those offences Minister cannot be added to this particular section especially when we cover quite a lot of the areas of offences.As I've read through this section I've noted that there's some quite light-handed stuff in here. I think when people start to defraud and tell lies to MSD over receiving taxpayer-funded benefits and they lie then I think that the penalty should be harsh. That's why adding the 13-week stand down from a benefit is something that will actually drive home that penalty.So it is without any further ado that when we start looking at offences in this particular area I think that we do have to take all of these things really seriously. I think that without which—you know why do it? I think the 13-week stand down from the benefit on top of those other penalties will show the seriousness of what this side of the House looks at when it comes to offences thank you very much.So without any further ado that is my amendment—Darroch Ball: Lies in Opposition eh?JO HAYES: If you want to talk then call for a contribution. Otherwise it might pay to just sit back and be quiet. So yes he's getting very very angry.Hon Member: Have a Snickers!JO HAYES: Ha! As I said the offence is serious. It's a serious thing when it comes to any benefit. We need to be serious in our ability to convict and to penalise those who seek to crock the system. So I would like the Minister to adopt that and maybe contribute to this—tell me why it can't be added to this particular part of this bill here. I would really like to know why we can't actually add it. So that's my question to the Minister."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Because it's more than once that they have been raised and I did talk about the fact that it seemed that the explanatory note was not fitting with the actual amendments I'm also going to point out why the amendments are not appropriate given that Maureen Pugh has just spoken to this.The first one I'll speak to is Louise Upston's one that is looking at Part 5 clause 217 and is seeking to insert prior to line 1 MSD must advise [person] of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure [person] understand impacts of any breaches." Basically we won't be accepting that because it's unnecessary as clause 92 in Part 3 which we've passed already requires the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to make affected clients aware of their obligations consequences of non-compliance and their review and appeal rights. So exactly what you're attempting to do here is covered in clause 92 in Part 3. So it's unnecessary.Then the other amendment that you've spoken to and others have spoken to in the House is under the name of the Hon Louise Upston and it is to amend Part 5 clause 232(a): "Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD including availability of online MSD services;" Currently that's covered by "good and sufficient reason". In terms of expanding on what good and sufficient reason might be that's in the operational guidelines. So it is quite a long list but it's not exhaustive because you just don't know what circumstances people may have that may actually be good and sufficient that you couldn't account for.One of the ones that is in the operational guidelines to my understanding is what's been proposed by Louise Upston and that is the availability of online MSD services. So it is covered. We don't want to list all of these in legislation because you'd be cluttering it unnecessarily. So having it in the operational guidelines and leaving some room for discretion so that it's not an exhaustive list—and that's acknowledged—means that when someone has circumstances that you may not have pre-empted that of course are circumstances that are good and sufficient then there is scope there to consider those as well."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I was listening to the member Simon O'Connor while I was also going through the amendments that have been tabled. The member Simon O'Connor said There seems to be a lack of understanding of the wording in these clauses." The lack of understanding in the wording and of this part and of this entire legislation is evident in two of the amendments that have been tabled.I don't know if this is just a very bad cut-and-paste job but we've got one amendment that refers to Part 5 clause 232 and then in the explanatory note talks about amending clause 99 which is actually in Part 3. Then if we look at the other one that's been tabled by the Hon Louise Upston as well which looks at Part 5 clause 217 it's got the same explanatory note pasted referring to Part 3 clause 99.So in terms of trying to understand what the members on that side of the House are attempting to propose in terms of amendments it's very difficult when something as simple as this happens. I suggest that perhaps the members on that side of the Chamber would like to maybe take these off the Table and fix them up so that we can actually analyse them properly otherwise it really is a waste of time."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I find it really interesting that that member had so much to say on Part 5 given that actually this was one of the parts of the bill that the Social Services Committee and all sides of the House agreed on. So in terms of how we currently have it drafted it is almost exactly in the same form as what was given to us by them. There were very little changes because that section was actually policy-neutral.To come to the committee of the whole House now and throw out proposals for changes goes against what their members on the select committee had proposed at the time. There was agreement in the select committee that Part 5 was policy-neutral and that it achieved what it had set out to achieve. The only small change if I'm to be completely honest is that clause 215 in Subpart 2 has some minor language changes but the rest of Part 5 in terms of what we are proposing tonight is exactly the same as what was in the rewrite from the previous Government. So to come into the committee now with these random suggestions and changes really does suggest that certain members are looking to waste the time of this House.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Excellent—thank you Madam Chair. I rise and it's fantastic to take a second call—my second ever call—on what is a fantastic summation going on here by my colleagues. We've got the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill and I'm just happy to be here to talk about what is as my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro said a very important part of the bill—talking about the sanctions. I want to talk in particular about clause 232 in Part 5 of this bill. So what are we talking about here? We're talking about the clause that looks at the good and sufficient reason for non-compliance such that there's a default from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). So what I have here is an amendment from my fantastic colleague the Hon Louise Upston and she has an—Simon O'Connor: Dame—is she a Dame? DAN BIDOIS: She's not a Dame. She has an amendment here to amend clause 232 of Part 5 and it is to replace paragraph (a) with the following: Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD including the availability of online MSD services;". I think that this is a really important paragraph to add in an age of technological change where they should have access to update their enrolment details or changes in circumstances changes in address and changes in employment status via the online capabilities. I just think that this is an important amendment to make. It brings us together into the 21st century and makes sure that the beneficiaries have a requirement to go online and update their status in order to avoid being in default and being put into default by MSD. So I just think that this is a really important thing and I commend my colleague the Hon Louise Upston for putting this forward. You know I spoke about incentives in my maiden statement yesterday. I think that this part of the bill is all about putting the right incentives in place to ensure that beneficiaries are given the push that they need in order to do whatever they can to get back into the workforce and become gainfully employed. So I do want to wrap up by just saying that my honourable colleague Louise Upston from Taupō—Kieran McAnulty: Keep going—you can do it. Come on keep going. DAN BIDOIS: Ha ha! I really commend her for what is I think a really important part of the clause. I'm all about making sure that everybody has access to online services.So I think I'll just leave it there and we'll keep going from that. I'd like to get some debate and discussion on this amendment because I think it's a really important part to debate and all I've heard from the Government is complaints. Where is their discussion and their debate on this amendment? So—Hon Member: You've got a lot to learn sunshine.DAN BIDOIS: Absolutely. I will just leave it there and say that I once again commend my colleague the Hon Louise Upston for putting this amendment on the Table. Thank you."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Just hopefully to stop that from continuing because it's going down the wrong track. I just want to point out to that member Lawrence Yule that the exemptions with respect to not naming the other parent have not changed in this version at all; they are the existing exemptions that were there that now are still there that are carried over. So there are no changes with respect to that at all. As I said it's policy-neutral. If we had changed those then it wouldn't be policy-neutral.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Actually what I'm standing for is not the Golden Kiwi; I'm standing to correct. Earlier I said the definition for relationships was in schedule 2 on page 323 but it's actually in the version that everyone's got in this Chamber pages 337 and crosses over to 338.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I want to point out again that this is a similar situation to what we had earlier. It is so policy-neutral that it makes no absolute difference at all. Basically what the member Maureen Pugh has pointed out is that the Supplementary Order Paper 33 is attempting to amend clause 191 to specify the types of relationships which are applicable to the clause stating that just putting relationship" is not enough. However on page 323 of schedule 2 in the "Dictionary" of the bill there is a line where it's got "in a relationship for a person means that the person is—(a) married; or (b) in a civil union; or (c) in a de facto relationship". So it's already considered there. Obviously all those words are not required throughout the bill because of the fact that "relationship" when you refer to this page is then explained further and that's the definition of it. So a very good argument Maureen Pugh but not quite this time. Thank you."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): OK well this is the only amendment I've seen for this part so far and I do want to commend Chris Penk because he has brought an amendment here that is so incredibly policy-neutral that it does nothing. Effectively what you've got here in terms of what he's trying to do—it doesn't change anything. Adding that is being paid" does not add anything as in order to be paid it must be payable in the first place. So actually it doesn't add anything new. It is so neutral that it changes nothing and so therefore it is redundant.The second part of it in terms of the member wanting to futureproof with respect to any changes that might be made to secondary legislation or through regulation—the reality is that if those changes are made then any other additional changes that need to be made throughout the legislation are also looked at. So there's no need to futureproof it because that can be done at the time those hypothetical changes would be made. I will just end it at that."
Allan Kiritapu; Williams PotoKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The question is that the question be now put.Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have started the question. I will finish it.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Just speaking to the Hon Alfred Ngaro's tabled amendment again there's no point going any further if the amendments that are going up are not proposals that are policy-neutral because we're not looking to change policy in this rewrite. So I need to make that really clear and from what I can see of the amendment that he's discussing it would create the same inconsistencies that I mentioned earlier with respect to the winter energy payment tabled amendment that's been put up by the honourable member Louise Upston. So it really stops there.The member Parmjeet Parmar has also discussed an amendment that she's put forward under her name which would amend clause 146 to insert a new clause 146(1)(a). Again it's not policy-neutral. But I also want to speak to this one because it's probably one of the strangest amendments that I've seen put forward asking that there be an expectation that when someone goes for a job interview a report back be given to the case manager on how well they did and whether they were prepared for the interview and whether they were engaged during the interview process. Well I'd really like—no actually I don't want to know. A number of issues arise for me from hearing that but clearly an interview is subjective and the assumption that that member is making by putting this amendment forward is that people would not prepare or would not be committed to the interview. We know though that not everybody does well during interviews; it's a very difficult process to engage in and actually many politicians in this House including myself have failed in interviews at certain points in time—so very subjective very unnecessary. Not only is it not policy-neutral as I said; it's a strange proposal and it's been put forward with no thought of what you would do if the person actually was deemed to have failed the interview process which would be very hard to measure in the first place.So I think if we're going to continue with the committee stage of this bill some serious amendments would be welcome because actually that is not one that I would consider a serious contender in terms of something that anyone in this committee could consider.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. My amendment which has been submitted in my name to the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill proposes an amendment to clause 166 which is found at the very end of Part 3 of the bill. It amends clause 166(2) so that it states The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; the Human Rights Act 1993; and the Health and Disability Act 2000 apply to P". The reason for that is because it talks in that part of the bill in clause 166 about the application of the health and safety legislation and I just wanted to highlight that the need to apply the consideration to people with disabilities is an extremely important part of their rehabilitation their opportunity to enter the workforce. I know that New Zealand has made huge strides over the last few years in how our communities and our country in fact think about disabilities people with disabilities and how disabled people live. We're a country that's been at the forefront of some of these issues internationally. For example we were instrumental in passing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There are 1.1 million people in New Zealand who experience some form of disability so it's a far from insignificant number. And we are also one of the few countries in the world to recognise New Zealand Sign Language as an official language of our country.I draw our attention to New Zealander Robert Martin. He's a living example of what can happen when a disabled person is supported by their community and given a chance to enter the workforce and he has become a member of—The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but she seems to be talking about an amendment that we don't have yet. Has she recently—can you tell us which amendment that is?MAUREEN PUGH: Do you want me to bring it out?Hon Member: Read it.MAUREEN PUGH: I did read it when I started. It was to amend clause 166(2).The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We don't have a copy of that. Has it not yet been submitted to the office?MAUREEN PUGH: Yes I believe so. I'll sign it.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK I'll take another call right now."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chairman. Can I thank members for their contributions. And in response to Mr Simpson who just spoke: you're correct that this is necessary to correct a defect in the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017.And I won't recount at great length as to why that was a flawed process. We've been through that at earlier stages of the debate. But the effect of the imperfection in that Act was that the cost recovery rights of the Crown to recover from an applicant the cost of running a hearing for their application was omitted. And therefore—people are entitled to make applications. There is a cost to running the process after they make an application but the cost cannot be recovered from the applicant and therefore it falls to taxpayers and that's wrong. So the amendment bill fixes that. The Supplementary Order Paper as Mr Simpson said makes it clear that the principles of cost recovery that sit in the existing Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act at sections 143 to 147 of that Act apply here. You know it's really for the avoidance of doubt—I think that was probably the effect of this anyway. The Law Society said the legislation would be easier to follow and it would put the matter beyond doubt if this amendment was made to the amendment bill and so Supplementary Order Paper 48 in my name inserts in new section 52A new subsection 52A(6) at the end of that section which says See sections 143 to 147 in relation to recovery of costs incurred by the EPA."If members—or members of the public indeed—go to those sections 143 to 147 they will see that they are indeed about cost recovery—section 143 being "Principles of cost recovery"; section 144 "Methods of cost recovery"; section 145 "Cost recovery to relate generally to financial year"; section 146 saying that charges can be prescribed by regulations; and section 147 saying that those charges can constitute a debt due to Environmental Protection Authority. So that's the purpose of that Supplementary Order Paper.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 5 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 5 as amended agreed to.Clause 6 agreed to.Clause 7 agreed to.Schedule agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently."
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. Look I don't think that this committee of the whole House is necessarily going to take too long. The parties across the House I think are in agreement on this bill.There is one aspect that I want to raise and I hope that the Minister in the chair David Parker will take a call just to rise and talk a little bit about the Supplementary Order Paper 48 that he has in his name that makes an amendment to clause 5. This as I understand it is in relation to a submission that was received after the Environment Committee reported back to the House from the Law Society.The Law Society made several good comments and recommendations to the select committee and it was I think useful that cognisance was taken of those matters. This is not a contentious piece of legislation. It's a tidy-up piece of legislation. It effectively seeks to remedy a drafting error that occurred during reforms to the Resource Management Act and to the principal Act that this refers to in the last Parliament. That is an error that occurred due to drafting and it's no criticism of the Parliamentary Counsel Office officials who were responsible. It was a very big piece of legislation—some 700 clauses. It ran to 250 pages and one could easily understand why that situation arose.But I do have a question for the Minister in the chair. I'm keen to know if he could just explain to the committee of the whole House about his Supplementary Order Paper and what that might mean for this piece of legislation.
Speaker's Statements — Fire—Executive Wing
Warren-Clark AngieClauses 1 to 7 and ScheduleANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you. My apologies to the committee. I thought that that's what we were doing.OK so this bill amends the principal Act the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act of 2012. Essentially the bill is to look at the costs of a board of inquiry and to make sure and set up that those costs are recovered and the costs are recovered by the consenting authority or the consenting organisation or the organisation seeking consent.Essentially there isn't a lot more in this bill to talk about. It's actual and reasonable costs there is the provision under the clause to ensure that—apply and consent are asked specifically for what those costs might be—there is the possibility to get that information and essentially the bill clarifies the cost incurred by the Environmental Protection Authority in deciding applications. They're already cost-recoverable and this is just the process of the board of inquiry.So essentially there isn't a lot more to say about this. However I think there's really one matter that we need to just look at and that was the truncated process to just make the point that during select committee we had seven representatives from the oil and gas and seabed mining industries that were spoken to or targeted for consultation. Four out of five of those respondents supported this cost recovery; the other didn't make mention of it.So essentially we have a situation where there is not a lot going on everyone agrees to it and accordingly I commend this bill to the House.
Speaker's Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Given the way the bill is drafted and to ensure that the debate can be a reasonable one I seek leave for the debate on all of the clauses in the bill to be taken as one debate with each clause put separately at the end.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not. Just a moment—just for clarification it's now one debate but each question will be put separately.
Warren-Clark AngieEXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND CONTINENTAL SHELF (ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Yesterday I spoke in relation to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill at its second reading. What a difference a day makes. We're here today asking the questions—I think I perhaps spoke for two minutes in relation to this bill which was probably sufficient in relation to the matter.I guess rising today to speak in committee stage as a whole is a different case and I wanted to really just start to have the conversation a little bit more in case people don't fully understand what this bill means.So firstly let's again address the purpose of this bill—The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We're on clause 1 which is the title of the bill.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: The title of the bill—right.Tamati Coffey: Four minutes!ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha ha! I've got five minutes to talk on the title of the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well you don't have to talk for five.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: My apologies—I thought we were doing the whole part. Okey-dokey. So this is not my best work today—ha ha!—I've got to say.Marja Lubeck: Go word for word Angie.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Word for word—I have to find it. Essentially if we look at the work that we've had to do over this last month or so essentially we have very few pages here. So I'm just pulling out the bill in relation to—oh. Department—[Handed bill] Oh thank you!Hon Chris Hipkins: Sit down for a minute and I'll just sort it out.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Oh we're going to have some—all right. Thank you.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSFire—Executive WingMr SPEAKER: Can I inform members that there was in fact an actual fire on the ground floor of the Beehive. It has now been extinguished but my understanding is that the Beehive is still currently evacuated while further checks are occurring. For any members who want to go to Bowen House my advice would be that they go outside. The Beehive is not yet available for people to go back into.
Wednesday 20 June 2018 (continued on Thursday 21 June 2018) - Volume 730
VoteA party votewas called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lawrence Yule to clause 50 be agreed to:Clause 50In clause 50 amend new section 17(1CB) by deleting the words disregarding any law of a foreign country relating to the secrecy of information"A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 55.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to."
Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill — In Committee (continued)
Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill that all members wishing to speak that have already spoken in Part 2 have the ability to have a full four calls reset to zero so each member is able to restart their speaking number.Ayes 55New Zealand National 55.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before that's voted on may I raise a point of order because we're in the committee; otherwise we'll be out. I just want to clarify that Mr Bayly's successful seeking of the call wouldn't constitute one of his speeches in the committee stage.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I think that just to be on the safe side—Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In that case I seek leave for the call not to be counted for the purpose of the committee stage count.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Motion agreed to.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 12.51 p.m. (Thursday)
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the committee report progress on the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill.
Rurawhe Adrian; Bayly AndrewNew Part 3 Parameters of ReviewThe CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Andrew Bayly.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you very much.Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I'm sorry to interrupt Andrew Bayly. I do understand that he wants to speak on this. I would just like to point out to the committee that if I don't do this next bit if I don't get the call at this point the House will not be able to end its urgency and question time will not be able to happen and the Treaty bill that we are going to be debating this afternoon will not be able to be debated. I'm not attempting to stop him speaking on this. As soon as the committee resumes its debate on this bill in normal sitting time he I'm sure will be seeking the call. I'm asking his indulgence to give me the call so that we can end the urgency right now and then we can come back and Parliament can finish its regular business for the day.ANDREW BAYLY: Give him the call.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member has agreed. I call the Hon Chris Hipkins.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to take a call in regard to clause 38 of the bill and that is in regard to the new section HD 30 and that's Members of wholly-owned large multinational group". This clause had a number of submissions on it from ASB the Corporate Taxpayers Group New Zealand Bankers' Association PricewaterhouseCoopers—The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member but we are on Part 2 which is clauses 49 through to 53B.Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK."
Williams PotoA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Jami-Lee Ross amendment changing the title to the Land Transport Management (Twyford Tax) Amendment Bill is out of order as not being a serious amendment.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jami-Lee Ross to clause 1 be agreed to: Clause 1Replace Clause 1 with:Land Transport Management (Not Just Auckland but Other Regions Fuel Tax) Amendment BillA party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 55.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Simeon Brown's amendment changing the title to the Land Transport Management (Twyford and Goff) Amendment Bill" is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Simeon Brown's amendment changing the title to the "Land Transport Management (Let's Tax This) Amendment Bill" is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Judith Collins' amendment changing the title to the "Land Transport Management (Phil) Amendment Bill" is out of order as not being a serious amendment.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jami-Lee Ross be agreed to: New Clause 3(1)All of the sections of this Act fall out of force if at any time ta.The average fuel price in New Zealand reaches $3 a litre.b.The average fuel price in a region that has an active regional fuel tax scheme reaches $3 per litre of fuel.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 55.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently."
Williams PotoThe CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you and I thank the member Kieran McAnulty for his intervention. I'm not sure that it's entirely helpful given my previous ruling; however I will consider that. And as I said there are two options: whether we leave it to the will of the committee or whether I make a ruling. I am strongly suggesting that we don't continue to embark upon that journey. We are getting to the point where relevancy is being tested within this committee in terms of the titles that are being suggested. So I'm making a strong suggestion to members of the committee in that regard.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance specifically in relation to that previous speech and the proposal to change the title of the bill to make a political point. I refer you specifically to Speakers' ruling 115/1(3) and the rulings of Chairpersons Braybrooke and Hartley which give the example of the Tariff (Zero Duty Removal) Amendment Bill and changing that to make a political point. I put it to you that proposing to change the name of the title of this bill to one which is a clear reference to a political slogan from the last campaign would be in breach of that Speakers' ruling.
McAnulty Kieran; Williams PotoKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I purposely waited to the end of that speech although I'm starting to regret that. I'd like you to consider Speakers' rulings 114/6 and 115/1 in regard specifically to the motion that a Minister's name be included in the title of this bill I ask that you offer a ruling on whether these proposals are indeed in order.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member for his contribution. We have been considering that particular matter and as you would have guessed by my bringing the previous speaker Chris Penk back to relevancy I have been considering whether including the name of the honourable Minister within the title of the bill as proposed in the amendment by Jami-Lee Ross is actually frivolous. I could rule it out of order in that case or I could wait for the will of the committee to determine that at the end of the proceedings. In this case I am looking to members to continue to be relevant so in this case I am ruling that the will of the committee will prevail and we will allow the amendment.
Ross Jami-Lee; Mallard TrevorJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I seek leave for Mr Hudson's amendment to be voted on as a question under Part 2.Mr SPEAKER: Right and the clear implication of that is that it will be a vote and not a debate. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill — Speaker Recalled
Bennett David; Mallard TrevorHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'm just seeking clarification as well that you're basically saying that a Government member can at a later point revisit an earlier part of a bill and ask for it to be reconsidered.Mr SPEAKER: No no. The member will resume his seat. I am saying that any member now if they want to have a vote on Mr Hudson's amendment can seek leave. The House can do anything by leave. There's clearly an amendment there which would have been within scope if it had been addressed in the right way. It's clearly something which some members feel quite strongly about and all I'm suggesting is a way for the House to consider that by way of a vote if they so wish in order to have the House express an opinion on Mr Hudson's amendment. I don't know if—Jami-Lee Ross: But we do that in committee?Mr SPEAKER: I think it's probably proper to do it now to get it sorted because otherwise I think the Chair would be obligated to just proceed to report back again because there'd be nothing before the committee.
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I seek clarification. Firstly are you saying that Mr Hudson's amendment is otherwise out of order if for voting purposes it does not get included in Part 2?Mr SPEAKER: That's right.JAMI-LEE ROSS: And are you further saying we cannot debate the essence of Mr Hudson's new Part 3?Mr SPEAKER: That's right.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Can I have a further clarification from you. In the drafting of amendments we took extensive advice from the Clerk's Office—Mr SPEAKER: The member—stop right now. One of the very strong principles of this House is that members take responsibility for their own amendments and it is not the practice of good members to seek to put responsibility with other people for things which they've signed their name to. I say as a Minister I made a lot of errors that were as the result of advice but I always took responsibility for those and I'm not having my staff blamed for members' errors.
Tolley Anne; Hipkins ChrisThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank the members for their contributions. [Interruption] Could I just ask the clerks just to leave the Table for a minute just while we're dealing with this—thank you—so that I can see the Chamber. I am troubled by the point actually that the Hon David Bennett has made. The amendments were accepted by the Clerk's Office and tabled yesterday so the committee has had knowledge of those proposed amendments to the bill for quite some time and it doesn't seem right to me that just halfway through the debate we suddenly get a different piece of advice from the Clerk's Office. I am disturbed by that because the committee is already debating Part 3.I can't find anything to help me in Speakers' Rulings but it indicates that the House has accepted that there is a debate on Part 3. So to curtail that debate and say Well it should have been done in Part 2. We've finished Part 2 so we move on." seems to me to be out of order. So I'm going to rule that the two tabled amendments that we have for new Part 3 are acceptable—that they are relevant—and therefore then the further amendment to amend the new Part 3 is also in order.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): This does have significant precedent value. Therefore I move That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm happy to do that but I just refer the member to Speakers' rulings 74/1-3 particularly Speaker's ruling 74/2 that says "The Speaker may not interfere with the decision of the chairperson on a question of relevancy."Motion agreed to.House resumed."
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I'd just like to add to the comments made there that the member also had the opportunity in Part 2 to raise an issue like this if he felt that was an issue at that time. He did not do that and has passed that point now and so we're now into Part 3 and he's had that opportunity already.
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): There's a couple of points that I think are worthwhile considering when you decide on how to rule on this. The first point to consider is that the Government has taken a decision to put the House into urgency. We know that when urgency is accorded to a piece of legislation there is wider latitude for the Opposition to put forward amendments and we're exercising that prerogative right now.Secondly though if you were to rule as the Minister is asking that no amendments can come through as a new part if they amend another piece of legislation other than what is already contained in the bill or that any other amendments that come through as a proposed new part that amend an additional piece of legislation must be contained in Part 2 then you would in effect be ruling that if the Government continues to structure bills as they've done so here where there's only ever two parts—one amending a principal Act and a second part amending every other possible Act that is consequential to the proposal in the bill—then you would effectively be ruling out in entirety the ability ever for the House to consider new parts. If the Government changes the way they structure bills that would be different but should the Government continue structuring bills like this Madam Chair your ruling would be very broad and would have I believe quite a dangerous impact in the long term for this House.My third point in response is that we took some very careful advice from the Clerk in drafting these tabled amendments. The advice we received was that Part 2 was for amendments to other pieces of legislation that were related to how the regional fuel tax scheme would be implemented. These new proposed parts are not in relation to how the regional fuel tax would be implemented but rather are in relation to how it is subsequently reviewed or actions that could be taken—in this case by the Commerce Commission—in response to the regional fuel tax already being in place. So it's about subsequent decisions and subsequent issues arising after the fuel tax is in place. The amendments in Part 2 are around assisting the regional fuel tax to be implemented. Therefore Madam Chair I think you should rule these new parts should continue.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The members of the Opposition have now added a number of additional parts to the bill amending other Acts other than the primary Act being amended by the bill. The structure of the bill is such that amendments to other Acts were contained in Part 2. Therefore the amendments either should have been proposed during the debate on Part 2 or basically should be ruled out because the House has now debated and considered its desire to amend other Acts as a result of the changes made in Part 1 and has concluded its debate upon that. The ongoing nature of adding additional parts is alien to the structure of the bill which is very clear. There are two parts to the bill. There is a part that has the principal amendments proposed to the Land Transport Act and a second part which contains the consequential or other relevant amendments to other Acts and both of those debates have now concluded.
Tolley AnneNew Part 3 Commerce Commission Fuel Market StudyThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I remind the committee that this is quite a narrow debate on a Commerce Commission fuel market study.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to respond to a query that's been raised a couple of times by the member Tim Macindoe about the use of the words carried on" in the bill. There's some cause I think for the member to have concern about the words "carried on" and I quote the Cambridge online dictionary which refers to a number of meanings for "carried on". It can mean "to behave in an uncontrolled excited or anxious way". It can refer to "an old-fashioned informal reference to have a sexual relationship". It can also mean "behaviour that shows you are annoyed worried not satisfied or excited"—usually more than the situation deserves.But I have sought advice from the Parliamentary Counsel Office about the drafting that led to the use of these words in the bill and I'm informed they've checked and the phrase "taxable activity carried on" is used 29 times in existing legislation. The phrase "taxable activity carried out" which I think was the alternative that the member referenced is not used at all. There's no record of it being used in existing legislation. So these words are in fact standard IRD drafting and I hope that answers the member's query."
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. It's deeply moving to hear a member of this committee like Andrew Bayly obviously moved to a great degree by the cost-benefit analysis. I'm very pleased to see this new adherence and commitment to sturdy cost-benefit analysis from a party who during the last Government committed about $13 billion worth of motorway expenditure without a cost-benefit analysis being done at all.I want to reassure Andrew Bayly that the transport projects that will be funded by this regional fuel tax will all—any significant expenditure will be dealt with with a cost-benefit analysis because that's the way the New Zealand Transport Agency does its work. So there's no need to require mandatory cost-benefit reporting as part of this regional fuel tax bill because virtually every significant item is subject to the cost-benefit analysis.I also want to respond to the member Chris Penk who has proposed by way of an amendment that there be mandatory reporting to local boards but this is a kind of—if I can suggest—random nit-picking imposition of added consultation. Just for argument's sake imagine the fourth term of the Ardern-Peters Government a long time in the future. Some other regional council around New Zealand may be considered for a regional fuel tax and that regional council may not have local boards because most regional councils do not have local boards in their areas. Some have community boards. There's nothing about community boards in this amendment. Many regional councils don't have local boards or community boards. They have neither. If the member knew much about the extensive consultation requirements that are already placed on councils and their community boards and local boards he would know that this kind of random imposition of more bureaucracy is simply not needed.
Tolley AnneThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK if I just take a moment and I will notify the committee of the amendments I am ruling out of order. Before I do that I just remind speakers that they're starting to get quite repetitive and that means that that could bring the debate to a close.So I am ruling out of order Lawrence Yule's amendment inserting new clause 10 as outside the scope of the bill. Denise Lee's amendment inserting new clause 12 amending the Charities Act is outside the scope of the bill. Denise Lee's amendment inserting new clause 12 amending the Education Act 1989 is out of order because the subject of the rebate to which it relates has been dealt with already under Part 1. Chris Penk's amendment inserting new clause 12 amending the Local Government Act 2002 is outside the scope of this bill. Hamish Walker's amendment inserting new clause 12 amending road-user charges is outside the scope of the bill. Jami-Lee Ross's amendment inserting new clause 12 is out of order as benefit and other similar payments are outside the scope of the bill. Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi's amendment amending the Veterans' Support Act is also outside the scope of the bill. Dr Parmjeet Parmar's amendment inserting new clause 12 amending the Road User Charges Act is outside the scope of the bill.
Macindoe Tim; Tolley AnneIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 2 Amendments to other Acts (continued)Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You will be aware of the ruling that the Speaker gave immediately prior to putting the House into committee. As you can see almost every member of the Opposition is here and I am advised that a large number of members of the Opposition have tabled amendments. We are now in a position where the vast majority of us do not know whether the amendments or maybe many amendments in our names will be debated and I wonder whether before you call you're able to indicate to some of us whether our amendments have been deemed to be out of scope and are unable to be debated because knowing whether or not we're preparing to speak on our own tabled amendments or perhaps in support of those of our colleagues is going to make a significant difference to the way in which we approach this debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank the member for that. I understand the dilemma. What I suggest we do while we organise this is that someone take the call and then I will make sure that we are able to inform those whose amendments are out of order.