edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
3. Budget 2018—Capital and Operating PressuresPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of FinanceBudget 2018—Capital and Operating Pressures3. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Finance: What capital and operating pressures has he taken into account in Budget 2018?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Upon taking office we have found that we've inherited a number of significant capital and operating cost pressures. The operating pressures are seen in Government agencies that have had their baseline funding frozen or in areas like education where early childhood centres have seen their funding decline by 12 percent in real terms. In terms of capital Treasury's 2018 investment statement showed that the social portfolio—our schools and hospitals—faces challenges from ageing buildings and long-term under-investment including 19 percent of our district health board assets that are in poor or very poor condition.Paul Eagle: What specific examples of capital pressures has he seen?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen pressures across a number of portfolios but the one that stands out for me is health. In Budget 2017 total new initiative funding for capital in Vote Health was $150 million. This sum was inadequate to fund the need for capital expenditure but was a significant increase on the equivalent number in Budget 2016 which was zero and for Budget 2015 which was also zero. This is the reason for the current state of our hospitals: a legacy of neglect.Paul Eagle: How will the Government handle these capital and operating pressures?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In Budget 2018 we are prioritising critical public services in particular investing in health education and housing. We can afford to do this because we are repaying debt more slowly than the previous Government we are increasing revenue and we are prioritising spending in line with this Government's priorities. We acknowledge that we cannot correct everything in one Budget but we have a plan to make sure New Zealand is more inclusive more sustainable and more productive and I will be proud to present that plan on 17 May.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. There's another thing that's sad. It's that the previous Government didn't implement this when they had their nine years to do it. It's sort of like all of a sudden the National Party cares about disadvantage and all of a sudden now they care about children who are struggling.Anyway it's a pleasure to rise to talk about the Education (Social Investment Funding and Abolition of Decile System) Amendment Bill. As we know the bill amends the Education Act to abolish the decile system and replace it with a needs index. There is quite a bit that has been mentioned by the other side that I do agree with. There are challenges with the decile system. My colleague Jan Tinetti also alluded to that. Some of these issues are around a perceived sense that some schools are more worthy than others and at times that can affect things like house prices. People can get a false perception of the value of a school and that certainly is a reality. It's absolutely unfortunate and it's absolutely false. As we know there are excellent teachers working across schools all across our country in a range of different deciles.Just a couple of key things that this Government has focused on and that's creating an inclusive education system. There's an aspect of this bill that does worry me quite a bit and that's about how it's not inclusive for the students. By pegging the funding to the student you're basically singling out the students who are the ones who in this case would be the lower achievers—the ones who are struggling. I don't think that's fair on those students.Addressing the impact of socio-economic disadvantage on student outcomes and reducing the disparities between those from disadvantaged circumstances and other children is critical to achieving the aims of this Government which are around having an inclusive education system.There is no doubt that there are students who are having a tough time of it. My wife and I fostered a boy a few years ago. He was having challenges around education and in other aspects of his life. Sad to say he actually slept with a knife under his bed. He was only 12 years of age and he slept with a knife under his bed and that's in New Zealand.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I'm delighted to take a stand tonight to support the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill. I'd like to firstly congratulate the Hon Scott Simpson on having his bill drawn—congratulations for that and I look forward also to working with you on the Environment Committee as we draw out this small but important bill. I appreciate—Matt Doocey: Size isn't everything.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: —here we go—the attempt around addressing Keep New Zealand Beautiful. I appreciate the sentiments. However what I think we do need to address is the wee elephant in the room around the infringement system. I think it's very important to note that in the last term of that Government there was $43 million worth of collected fines that were unpaid. So this may not be the only mechanism or may not be a useful or meaningful mechanism. Half of those fines were remitted so for half of them people were let off. So money is not necessarily a deterrent in this factor. In fact $400 as it currently is may in fact be a huge amount to some people. A thousand dollars again to some people is not very much. Is it something that is actually going to be a deterrent? It's part of the kete and we acknowledge that. That's part of the kete of us addressing littering.What we do need to address really is waste minimisation strategies across and we do need to look at landfill and that's an important aspect. However I wanted to give some examples from my local community about dumping or littering. The Western Bay of Plenty District Council reported that from 1 January 2017 to 18 February 2018 it received 362 service requests to collect dumped rubbish in the Western Bay of Plenty and recorded 10200 kilograms worth of waste illegally dumped. Now Mr Simpson you and I are neighbours. You're from the Coromandel and I'm from the Bay of Plenty. So I would suggest that it's somewhat similar in our communities. This is a disgrace. That's a lot of waste.I want to give you an example. As you know I ran a women's refuge and part of the thing that we had to do in order to survive because we were unfunded by Government—your Government—is run a second-hand shop. One of the difficulties of running a second-hand shop is people treat it like a dump site. So over the weekends they would bring their couches they would bring their bags of clothes they would bring all of their bits and pieces and they would leave them there. Then other people would come in and they'd sort through that stuff and they'd wreck it and then that would be left in this huge mess. So I would suggest that we would very likely have contributed to calling for that. We were also given some free dumping as well—a tonne a month. So that helped.So finally in conclusion I'd just like to say that it isn't just about littering; it is about a whole systematic process around improving our beliefs and values around our beautiful Earth. But I do commend the member for bringing this bill as little as it is as small as its contribution to the kete of resources is. Our select committee and our party look forward to debating this issue further. Thank you.
Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill at its first reading. I guess a bill like this is timely. I think that as we are a growing and developing multicultural society we do need as the previous speaker Aupito William Sio has indicated to assess the linguistic and the cultural differences that make us who we are today. I think that in that way and in that spirit and that wairua I would commend the member on this bill. I think that it is very important to recognise the diversity and the issues that come with the ability to speak your own language and to understand it as the previous speaker said.I guess our difficulties with it do lie in the parameters of it and you know going to a select committee—which is what it will do if it gets past this hurdle—might well iron out some of the concerns that we have on this side of the House around not just it affecting members of Parliament but the other issues and have they been well thought through or have they not. I guess defence personnel for example judges and justices of the peace would be others who would do via a citizenship ceremony something that is in their own language and then means something to them and they understand it and it resonates with them in a way that Te Reo does with all New Zealanders. In my former life as a broadcaster it felt to me at many times that this was a country that was very slow to catch up with its Te Reo and the heritage that was very much part of what makes us who we are and there was resistance at the start.Perhaps at a select committee level if it goes through there will be things that can bring it to a place where we can feel comfortable with it and that it won't open up the floodgates into things that might be a bit tricky to manage—you know how many languages are we allowed? At what point would they be translated? At what point are they officially recognised? Sign language took a long time to actually be recognised and I don't think it was officially acknowledged really until the 2000s but I think what it tells us about ourselves is something that we need to acknowledge and take hold of. For this language bill to get through the Oaths and Declaration (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill may be a step too far at this time but I think it is paving the way to a wider conversation.So while I do not support this bill in its current form I commend the member for wanting to have affirmations of allegiance in languages other than English and in Te Reo and in sign language but I think it is something that is very important: doing things in a way that is going through the due processes and bringing people with you. But you have with this bill I think begun a conversation which will cause us to examine things in a lot more detail. Therefore I commend the member but not this bill to the House.
Tolley AnneOATHS AND DECLARATIONS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDEPUTY SPEAKER: Now before I call the member I understand that the Speaker has given permission for part of the speech to be delivered in Tongan and that the member will provide Hansard with an interpretation later.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Can I thank honourable members for their excellent contributions to this matter. It's great to see that there is a recognition across the House that even if this bill is not perfect and will need to be worked on by the Justice Committee the broad principles are accepted namely the importance of clarifying the law and ensuring that in a digital age everyone knows where he or she stands in relation to what can be done.I really appreciated the contribution of the Minister of Justice and I have to say on reflection he's absolutely right in what he said about the reference in schedule 2 Consequential amendments to other enactments" that refers to the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the categorisation of the Employment Court in replacement section 196 "(a) as if the court were the District Court;" because actually his analysis of the history is quite right: it is a court which is not part of the District Court system; it's the equivalent for industrial relations matters of the High Court. So that's the first piece of work the Justice Committee will need to do to make sure that the definition of court recognises the Employment Court as a distinct court and not treated as though it were part of the District Court.The second point that he made is a very important one and the select committee's going to have to spend some time having a good hard look at these provisions—clauses 26 and 27—about whether or not that is an excessive response to contempt involving a judge. Of course they are matters that there will be submissions on and hopefully there will be an opportunity to get the balance right because as I emphasised and emphasised again what I don't want to do is shut down criticism of judges but any criticism or any abuse that undermines the administration of justice and interferes with the rule of law.I want to thank all speakers for the comments they have made about the current inaccessibility of the law and the idea of putting all law relating to the law of contempt in one place so that people as I have said know what their responsibilities are—what they can and cannot do.It is a rather odd position I acknowledge for a Government to take over an Opposition member's bill. Technically I suppose one could say this is not quite an Opposition member's bill because I put it in the ballot—it's been done before but it does raise important constitutional questions and that's why I'm happy for the Government to take over the bill and work with them. I think that sounds a bit "Pollyanna-ish" because we are an adversarial place I suppose but on these sorts of issues—they're not really party political issues. It's important for the rule of law and the separation of powers that we get this stuff right and so I will be prepared to work with them as indeed the National Party will to make sure the legislation's final product is fit for purpose legislation that will serve the interest of justice.So once again I thank honourable members for their very very helpful and generous contributions and commend the bill to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Justice Committee."
Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill — First Reading
Maiden Statement — Nicola Willis
Mallard TrevorMAIDEN STATEMENTSSPEAKER: Sorry. I'm about to call Nicola Willis for her maiden statement but I'm taking a little bit of time over it because I know that there are some people who are coming in and we've gone slightly faster through question time than is normally the case. So I'm giving a bit more of a chance for people to enter so that they can hear the statement. If people don't mind I'm just going to stand here for about a minute. [Interruption] Order! If Mr Robertson would like to take a quick call I'm—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We could use up the minute by having Simon Bridges tell us all he knows.SPEAKER: I'm not sure that that was helpful.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the same vein we could take up about that amount of time for Mr Peters to tell us what he's forgotten.SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee I call on Nicola Willis to make her maiden statement.
Tuesday 1 May 2018 - Volume 729
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Commerce Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
Commerce Amendment Bill — First Reading
12. Research and Development—Tax CreditDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationResearch and Development—Tax CreditDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: why is her Government proposing to replace the—SPEAKER: Order! The National Party just lost a supplementary for Mr Bishop's interjection.12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: Why is her Government proposing to replace the Callaghan Innovation growth grants worth $232 million in 2016/17 with a research and development tax credit that would have been worth $219 million in the same financial year if there had been no behavioural or allocation change?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: On behalf of the Minister I reject the premise of that question. The figure raised in the question is based on the 2016 R & D survey which suggests total business sector spending on R & D was $1.602 billion. The Opposition have extrapolated this figure using a 14.5 percent growth grant equivalent tax rate to suggest growth grants were worth $232 million in 2016-17. In fact growth grants were worth much less than this. Annual estimates show that growth grants cost the National Government $144.2 million in the 2016-17 financial year.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: So what will be the cost of tax credits for the same year?Hon STUART NASH: There was no tax credit in the same year so it's hypothetical.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why is the Government pushing the financial risk of doing research and development on to business by not being willing to continue its support at the same level as is currently in place?Hon STUART NASH: That's an interesting way to spin this. We're not putting the financial risk on business at all. In fact what we are doing is empowering New Zealand businesses to actually undertake R & D in a way that hasn't happened for a long time. I don't think we've been successful at all. I think we're at about 1.23 percent of GDP when the OECD average is 2.38. Labour and New Zealand First know that we need to increase the R & D spend and that is why this is a very important part of our coalition agreement.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Supplementary.SPEAKER: No the Opposition's run out of questions.
11. GST—Collection from Offshore SuppliersDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of RevenueGST—Collection from Offshore Suppliers11. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Revenue: What recent announcements has he made about the collection of GST from offshore suppliers?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Today the Hon Meka Whaitiri and I announced the release of a discussion document that removes a current loophole for offshore suppliers who are not required to collect GST from low-value goods sold to New Zealand consumers. I actually think the issue we are addressing is best summed up in a quote from Greg Harford Retail New Zealand's general manager when he said and I quote For many years New Zealand retailers have been disadvantaged by the fact that they have to pay GST on sales in New Zealand while foreign websites in direct competition with Kiwi firms do not. This systematic competitive disadvantage has been caused entirely by Government tax policy and it is fantastic news that the new Government is moving to level the playing field."Dr Deborah Russell: Is this a new tax?Hon STUART NASH: Absolutely not. GST has always applied to imported goods since 1986 but we've never been able to collect it as the cost of collection at the border outweighed the revenue collected. The proposals in the document build on the GST on online services or the Netflix tax that National brought in in October 2016 as well as the work of previous Ministers. I do acknowledge the Rt Hon John Key Bill English Steven Joyce Judith Collins Nicky Wagner Tim Macindoe—in fact the whole of the last National Cabinet who signed off on this in July 2017.Dr Deborah Russell: What do other countries do?SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That's just far too broad; it's not—[Interruption] No no."
8. Regional Economic Development Minister—StatementsHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentRegional Economic Development Minister—Statements8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who are the phantom bureaucrats" he was referring to in this Radio New Zealand interview on 26 April?Hon SHANE JONES: The poor souls that were politicised by the last regime.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he allow his public officials to properly and rigorously analyse the applications for the provincial growth fund?Hon SHANE JONES: The process for any allocation out of the provincial fund of capital into the provinces will be adhered to and I refer the member to the Cabinet paper and I've got every confidence the level of responsiveness amongst the bureaucracy has increased in the last five days.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then why is he publicly criticising his officials when they are just doing their job?Hon SHANE JONES: The writ of being the provincial champion requires from time to time to isolate the importance of pace the necessary qualities of responsiveness and to ensure that the State sector is not dogged by the failures of the last nine years but is into a new MMP environment.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he believe he should be able to hand out $1 billion a year with minimal restraint?Hon SHANE JONES: Such a narrow and negative construction put upon that question. There is no hint whatsoever that Ministers Robertson Twyford Parker or myself are doing as he alleges. We are adhering to the tenets in the Cabinet paper and I accept there are some challenges given the last regime I recall were willing to spend $11 million. We're up for $1 billion."
7. Health Services—Budget 2018 FundingDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Budget 2018 Funding7. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How will Budget 2018 help DHBs to respond better to their capital needs?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Treasury advice to me shows that there is approximately $14 billion worth of capital investment needed in health over the next 10 years. Spending on health capital will be a priority for Budget 2018 and will be the first step in addressing nine years of neglect and underfunding of health by the previous Government.Dr Liz Craig: So why is this capital investment needed?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Capital investment is required because funding has been inadequate to date. The last Budget only set aside $37.5 million for new capital spending per year and spread over four years it represents only 1 percent of the investment required over the next 10 years. Dr Liz Craig: So how will this investment in health benefit patients?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Patients who turn up for treatment at health facilities shouldn't have to worry about the health of the facilities they are treated in. New Zealanders can be assured that providing a world-class public health service is a top priority for our Government. Budget announcements will be made in due course but what I can tell the House is that we will begin in this Budget to turn around nine years of neglect and underinvestment in health by the previous National Government.
6. Transport Minister—Regional Fuel Tax IncreaseJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of TransportTransport Minister—Regional Fuel Tax Increase6. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions on fuel taxes?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes when described and reported accurately.Jami-Lee Ross: Will he rule out any increase to the rate of regional fuel taxes beyond 10c a litre or will he be supporting Phil Goff's call for more when he said this morning that the regional fuel tax was not as good as he wants."?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The law as contained in the legislation that's currently before the Parliament allows only for a 10c a litre increase.Jami-Lee Ross: Does he stand by that answer given that in the regional fuel tax legislation is a power for the Governor-General by Order in Council to increase the rate of regional fuel taxes beyond 10c a litre?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The member's statement is correct but this Government has no plans to increase the rate of the fuel tax.Jami-Lee Ross: If this Government has no plans to increase the rate of regional fuel tax past 10c a litre why has he put a piece of legislation to the House that grants a power to increase the rate of regional fuel taxes?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because the way the National Party is chopping and changing its policies at the moment it may well be that a future National Government—in say 20 years' time—may want to increase the rate.Jami-Lee Ross: If the Government has no plans to increase the rate of regional fuel tax past 10c a litre will he agree to have that section of the bill removed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No I certainly won't.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister with respect to fuel tax has he heard of the user-pays principle so often touted by a certain political party?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have heard of the user-pays principle so often touted by the members on the other side of the House. I also would point out that the former National Government increased the fuel tax—the fuel excise—by six times in nine years to a total of 17c a litre."
5. Health Services—Doctors' FeesHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Doctors' Fees5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Is it his intention to reduce GP fees for all New Zealanders by $10 per visit by 1 July 2018?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Last year more than half a million New Zealanders couldn't afford to visit the GP to get the care they needed. I'm not about to announce Budget details today but what I can say is that the Government is committed to increasing the number of people that can afford to visit the doctor in the upcoming Budget.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Largely thanks to the curtailment of the question it was very specific—it specified a reduction and a date—and I don't think the question was addressed.SPEAKER: And the question was addressed.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his comments that Labour having to prioritise coalition commitments with the New Zealand First and Green parties is the reason the policy cannot be implemented from 1 July?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Coalition priorities will be delivered and I'm not going to comment further on what will be announced on Budget day.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why then did he answer an oral question seeking assurance on Labour's GP fees policy on 16 November nearly a month after coalition agreements were signed That member refers to specific aspects of our policy as announced and we intend to deliver on it."?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We do intend to deliver more affordable care at the level of GP visits. Under the last Government GP visits went up 44 percent and there was underfunding in the health sector. We are determined to make access to primary care more affordable. Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he told Morning Report yesterday that the Government "needed to prioritise the things that had been promised." was he telling New Zealanders the Government saw free tertiary fees for rich families and winter heating payments for retired millionaires as a higher priority than reducing the financial burden of GP visits on low-income households?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well then in that case isn't the Minister really telling New Zealanders that despite the strong and improving economy the Government inherited he overpromised can't count and therefore can't deliver on the pledges he made in Opposition.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No."
Warren-Clark Angie; Williams PotoANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. This bill amends the principal Act the Crown Minerals Act of 1991. I applaud the Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Megan Woods—Dr Megan Woods; apologies—for introducing this bill to the House and for the careful consideration and speech by Minister Hipkins. This bill essentially sets out to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the permitting regime established by the principal Act. The Crown Minerals Act broadly speaking has a purpose to provide for (a) the efficient allocation of rights to prospect for explore for and mine Crown owned minerals; and (b) the effective management and regulation of [these] rights;".It is fair to say that this is not an earth-shattering bill. That's my one and only pun—sorry! We will be closing loopholes. Essentially this is a fix-it bill in the true sense of the word. The amendments create and allow for the legislation to operate as was intended. It is fair to say that this bill is a systematic clean-up of unintended flow-on consequences. However I thought I would give those in the House and those listening at home a few interesting facts about the principal Act to give some local context to the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. For example petroleum gold silver and uranium existing—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption the next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'm taking this call to support this bill. So it's a pleasure to take this call to support the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill in its first reading. But I have to say that the pleasure is just this much—really small—and I'll get into that a bit later. But I would like to first respond to a couple of comments that came from members from the Government side. We heard about certainty and we also heard that this Government likes to act and yes we have seen that they like to act to get rid of jobs. We also got lectured by a member on the other side that our contributions are shorter. What we are worried about is the Government not being able to bring any proper legislation before the House. So what we have seen is in the first six months they were just bringing previous Government—that is National Government—legislation before the House and now we have this legislation which is just tidying up bits and pieces in the Crown Minerals Act.Yes this tidying-up is required and that's why we are supporting this bill because with the changing commercial realities we have to make sure that this legislation is effective and is efficient and that permit regulation is maintained in an effective manner and that's why we heard that this bill actually clarifies various things. This bill clarifies permit classification; this bill clarifies the extension of duration—how the process is looked at. This bill also clarifies the process of revocation. This bill also clarifies access to schedule 4 land. So yes there are a lot of clarifications and these clarifications are required to reflect current commercial realities and that's why we are supporting this bill.And yes—more ministerial oversight; we support that too but what I have to say is that it's really important that the Government keeps in mind that the stakeholder consultation is important as this bill will be going through the select committee process and I really hope that they will take into consideration the feedback that will be received from stakeholders during the select committee process. So I support this bill. Thank you.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I also rise to support this Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Quite remarkable really as my colleague Mr Falloon said earlier that the purpose of this Act is to promote the prospecting for and extraction of Crown-owned minerals for the good of New Zealand when just a couple of weeks ago the Government that is now introducing this bill took steps to completely destroy the oil and gas industries in New Zealand and the 11500 jobs that are reliant either directly or indirectly on those industries—those industries undertaking the purpose that this Act is all about.Then this evening the speaker who immediately preceded me Gareth Hughes was talking about providing certainty in the nuclear-free moment of climate change and what have they actually done? Well that announcement to have no more exploration for oil and gas will make not one difference to one emission in the world at all because all that will happen is that instead of that oil or gas being extracted in New Zealand it will be extracted elsewhere. It's not going to reduce emissions at all. In fact there's a real chance that it may increase emissions in New Zealand itself because of course companies like Fonterra—which is a great example—which had announced a conversion programme on its dryers in the South Island from dirty coal to gas is now no longer really able to go through with that investment one would argue. So they talk about what they're doing for climate change they talk about a nuclear-free moment" and—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I am encouraging the member to come back to the bill.BRETT HUDSON: What they actually do is seek to undercut that and then introduce into the House this bill which is about supporting the activities that are still able to go on in Crown minerals extraction—a bill which has as its overarching purpose the prospecting and extraction of Crown-owned minerals for the good of New Zealand. Do one thing with one hand take with the other—this is a Government which is not only mired in crisis and doubt but quite inconsistent.The bill itself is non-controversial and just a series of technical changes. It is worthy of support in this House but it's worthy of more than that. It's actually worthy that the Government reflect on what this bill does and realise that what this bill does is worthwhile and it's worthwhile for the future of New Zealand not just a short duration under these changes. They should look to step back from the announcement they made a couple of weeks ago and to support the oil and gas industry along with the rest of the Crown minerals industries in New Zealand not only now but in the years to come. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Parmjeet Parmar. I understand this is a split call; you have five minutes."
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a brief call tonight on the first reading of the Commerce Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate Minister Faafoi on bringing to the House what is a very good piece of work that was brought over from the previous National Government but of course we will be opposing the bill for the very good reasons that my colleague Brett Hudson has already pointed out.The key aspect of the bill is allowing for the Commerce Commission to undertake market studies. That is a laudable goal and I think if the bill stuck to that that is something we could all agree with. Where we differ though is that our belief is that those market studies should be initiated by Government not by the Commerce Commission alone. That would allow for democratic oversight of those decisions rather than having them with the Commerce Commission and giving them an unfettered right to undertake those studies.There are two other aspects to the bill which I want to briefly touch on and I enjoyed Mr Eagle's comment just now about how he's got two airports in his electorate. I've actually been to the Chatham Islands and it's a wonderful place Paul but I've actually got three airports in my electorate. I've got the wonderful Timaru Airport; Ashburton Airport which is also very well-used; and the wonderful Rangitata Island Aerodrome. None of those airports are large enough unfortunately to be included in this bill but there are three airports that are large enough to be included in the scope of this legislation and they of course are Auckland Wellington and Christchurch.The bill's explanatory note states that it makes a change to enable negotiate/arbitrate regulation default/customised price-quality regulation or individual price-quality regulation to be imposed on specific airport services by Order in Council." Now if members opposite understood that they're probably doing better than I can but what I can say or what I have to ask is why? There's actually been a study into Part 4 of the Commerce Act by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and that review found that the legislation now is working and is effective. In fact it was shown to be working so well that two airports of the three have actually lowered their fees as a result.Finally there's the third aspect of the bill and that is around alternative enforcement. That's also an aspect that we support. It's a sensible addition to the Commerce Commission's I guess basket of goods that they can use. We do support it. I do look forward to the bill if it does pass going to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. It's a very hard-working committee led admirably by my friend and colleague Jonathan Young. If the bill does come to our select committee I look forward to working on that bill and making it better and perhaps putting it into a position where we can vote for the bill beyond first reading. Thank you."
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm taking a short call to oppose the Commerce Amendment Bill. It was really interesting to hear the speakers who contributed before from the Government side. One thing that came out from the previous speech was that the member Gareth Hughes was really surprised to see that we are not supporting this bill. We also heard that it should be common sense to support this bill and that is only because the member was unable to differentiate between what is common sense and what is not making sense in this bill. So let me get into that.As we heard before this bill is to amend the Commerce Act 1986. There are three main components in this bill. To bring that common sense in terms of why we are opposing this bill I would like to touch on two components of this bill. The first component is that this bill will enable not only the Minister in charge—that is the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—but also the Commerce Commission to carry out competition studies. This is purely to prepare competition reports to get insight into the market and this is not to see any breaches of the Act. We fully understand the competition studies and we support healthy competition. We want to see competitive markets in New Zealand. We want to see that consumers are getting value for their dollar.But what we don't want is that power to be extended to the Commerce Commission. When National was in Government we did work on this review. We reviewed the Act and at that time we recommended that this power should be given only to the Minister. Ministerial oversight is important in carrying out competition studies. But yes Labour has picked up the work that was done by the previous National Government which is great. But what they have done is they have extended that ability to the Commerce Commission as well which we do not support.The second point I want to touch on very quickly is that the bill will actually strengthen the regulatory regime under Part 4 of the Act and that is about the airports. This Part 4 regulates three international airports—Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. So yes—three airports. These three international airports are subject to Part 4 of the Commerce Act 1986. What we have seen is that the current information disclosure regulation is working fine. So the main interest is to see that the consumers are looked after that their interests are taken care of. Even the review by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment says that the current information disclosure regulation is working fine in taking care of long-term customer interests.So why do we need to bring another layer of regulation here? We don't see any evidence that the current information disclosure regulation is not working so we feel that this is totally unnecessary. For these reasons we do not support this bill. Thank you.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It was an interesting speech from the last speaker Kiritapu Allan who took the Green call but I'd just like to acknowledge Kris Faafoi the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs who's a very good Minister but in this case has been led astray by his officials and by the Labour Party. In this case we do not need to give the Commerce Commission any more power than they already have. If there's one body in New Zealand that does not need any more power it's the Commerce Commission. It's had a history of making mistakes over 30 or 40 years in regard to mergers and acquisitions. It should not have any more power than it does at the moment and to even curtail its powers would be a good move—not to give it more power as this Government is intending to do.If ever you want an example of how bad the Commerce Commission can be in its decision making look at the dairy industry for example. The dairy reforms supplemented by the Commerce Commission's role in undertaking that role—they have no idea what they're talking about when they do a dairy reform. They have people there that do not understand the industry. They make judgments around the industry that are completely incomprehensible to those in the industry and yet we want to give them more power and yet we want to give them the ability to make their own decisions about what they want to investigate and do market reports on.If anything we should be limiting their ability to make reports and to investigate. They do not know what they're doing often and they have stopped so many mergers and acquisitions in this country's history that would have actually been good for our economy. To give them more powers at this time is something that would be difficult to see that it should be taken on board.There was good legislation in this area that was going to be promoted by the previous Government. The current Government has taken it much wider and given a lot more power to the Commerce Commission an organisation that should really look at itself go back and reflect on its poor judgment over many years and actually look at having better judgment going forward; not give them more powers and not give them the ability to make more and more market reports which I'm sure will not be in the best interests of New Zealand. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Madam Deputy Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Commerce Amendment Bill. National believes in a competitive market and we believe in ensuring consumers get the best choices and best value for money. This bill would give the Commerce Commission an unconstrained power that we simply cannot agree with. It would allow them to undertake market studies and improve enforcement actions without effective ministerial oversight which I don't think the original bill was ever actually intended to do. Only the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—the person with the direct accountability to the people of this country—should have this power. It is far too damaging to commercial interests to give an unchecked authority such as this to the Commerce Commission—and the Minister laughs.Checks and balances are in fact needed particularly for a Government that is actually claiming to be the most open and transparent in New Zealand's history and to allow this variance in the legislation would open up unneeded bureaucratic authority that was never actually intended by the former National Government when this bill was originally drafted. We believe in proactive legislation for the commerce sector and for the Minister to carefully determine areas where a wrong may need to be righted; not reactive areas where unelected public servants and officials could effectively make an expensive unnecessary and potentially harmful determination.This is actually not a criticism of the Commerce Commission. I think they are a thoroughly professional group of people and they do an amazing job. They are very good at what they do. My colleague Brett Hudson the spokesperson for commerce has actually spoken about this particular bill and the reasons why National is opposed to this bill. National's record with the commerce sector is incredible. Through important steps such as improved financial reporting requirements tightened financial advice regimes and better relationships across the Tasman with our mutual regulatory agencies National worked to deliver more for this sector and Kiwi businesses. Earlier my colleague Andrew Bayly spoke about the particular section in the bill that actually deals with the changes to the airport regulations. I will not actually go into that because I don't really understand it so I won't actually speak about it.But when National has worked with the New Zealand Commerce Commission it was work to provide protection that does not stifle business but promotes better buying better investment and better businesses. I do not believe that this bill actually does that and because of that I cannot support it.
Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill — Second Reading (continued)
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak and take a short call on the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill a bill that as we've heard is anchored and underpinned by the Arms Trade Treaty 2014 which arose as a US-led development against the background of the Syrian conflict. As we've heard also we are and have ratified this treaty but it's also interesting to look at those countries that haven't ratified the treaty: Rwanda Uganda Congo Angola Namibia Philippines—none of them has ratified the Arms Trade Treaty. If we look at some of their histories which are relevant as you discuss and look at those parties that may indeed be brokering weapons we can look at Rwanda which has a very sad history unfortunately. In the three years from October 1990 Rwanda one of the poorest countries in the world became the third-largest importer of weapons in Africa—estimated spending of US$112 million. Weapons came from Egypt France and South Africa.Uganda also has troubles. In 1991 they first came to international attention in the arms trade brokering environment when they had a plane with illegal arms grounded in Yugoslavia. I've mentioned Congo—they were actually under a UN arms embargo from 2003 to 2008 for exactly the sort of things this bill is looking to address. Their brokering relationships came from Malaysia and also from Bulgaria. Angola: Angolagate" it was called was a scandal in 1999 that rocked the French political world and effectively involved a very large sum of money—US$790 million—with brokers around the world. Again the risk that we put ourselves at without this sort of bill: France Russia Slovakia and Bulgaria. I could go through some of the others: Namibia also has a chequered history and the Philippines. I'll come back to those countries in just a moment.We've heard of the nine submissions that were made to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. They were very thoughtful submitters including the New Zealand Law Society the Public Health Association Privacy Commissioner Amnesty International and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. Their concerns were wide ranging: that the bill should adopt more stringent standards and that maybe the scope was too narrow—so some saying it needed to be widened and some saying it needed to be narrowed and that there was a need for greater consistency with export import and domestic weapons legislation.I want to conclude and just come back to those countries that I mentioned: Rwanda Uganda Congo Angola Namibia and Philippines—I've heard those names before. I've heard them before in this House quite recently. Oh that's right; they've all got waka jumping legislation. Could it possibly be—could it possibly be—that if you have waka jumping legislation that maybe your Government is undemocratic that maybe your Government is unstable and more inclined to be brokering illegal weapons like this bill is trying to counter? I just wanted to seed that thought. We'll be supporting this bill. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."