edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
5. Emissions Trading Scheme—ChangesSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Climate Change IssuesEmissions Trading Scheme—Changes5. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What announcements has she made about changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Today I have announced a package of changes that the Government will make to the emissions trading scheme (ETS) to ensure it puts us in the best possible position to achieve our 2030 target. We are committed to the ETS being our key tool to reduce our emissions and that is why we have begun a review of the scheme in 2015 to ensure it is fit for purpose. The proposals announced today will provide businesses with the clarity they need about the future direction of the ETS.Stuart Smith: Can she elaborate on the specific changes being made?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can. The changes that are being made are to set up a more predictable and transparent process for ETS decision-making. We are going to introduce the auctioning of units to align the ETS to our climate change targets limit participants' use of international units when the ETS reopens to international carbon markets develop a different price ceiling to eventually replace the current $25 fixed-price option and coordinate decisions on the supply settings in the ETS over a rolling 5-year period.Dr Megan Woods: Why is she continuing to ignore 49 percent of emissions and the advice of the OECD by failing to set a date for the inclusion of agriculture in the ETS?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because we value the actual contribution both economically and internationally that our agricultural sets and they are trade exposed. They are some of the most efficient farmers in the world. Our country's population of 4.5 million people actually feeds about 40 million people around the world. We value that and as a consequence of it we will not be bringing them into the ETS at this time. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I need substantially less conversation between the two members.Stuart Smith: What reaction has there been to today's announcement?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have got to say that the businesses around New Zealand are very pleased about this announcement because what they have been calling for more than anything else is certainty and that is what today's measures give them and it gives them a lot of notice which is really important to them. So signalling these changes well in advance means that they can prepare for them and be part of how they are implemented.
Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I rise in opposition to the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I must say I have learnt something new. I did not know that the Tōtara" the big man himself Norman Kirk was responsible for rates rebates. He is a man who spent part of his time in my electorate of Kaiapoi—well it was his electorate at the time I suppose but he was living in Kaiapoi. It is great to see another strong member of the North Canterbury community. I must say potentially not agreeing with every point of view of his that you would have to respect his life.What I want to raise as a point in the short time I have for this bill is that we agree with the intent of the bill. That is why we supported it for the first reading. Unfortunately it was disappointing that we were not allowed further time to work through the complexity of this bill.When you look at one key issue—so I have got a new retirement village in my electorate. I will not say the name because there are a range of providers. But they offered lifetime service fees. So as you can imagine it sold out pretty much straight away. There are 350 residents. So there will be some residents in there for 10 15 or 25 years. Their service fee is capped.One of the issues that has come out through the select committee process—and that is exactly what we are discussing here today at the second reading: what the arguments were what we debated and what we learnt through that process—is that in fact a lot of retirement village residents are not or will not be paying their full rates because their service fee is capped. So then how do you go through the apportionment of what percentage of the rates they are paying and what they can receive back through the rebate?Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to make a final contribution on the title and commencement of this bill the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill which looks to codify the situation where tort claims span across jurisdictions. Of course it looks to abolish the rule of double actionability and codify the situation moving forward.I will just take the opportunity to answer Mr Bishop's question which he put to me earlier. He asked whether I was comfortable with the fact that we were moving to disestablish the rule of double actionability and looking to codify the situation where a civil wrong occurs and where perhaps two jurisdictions could possibly apply. The situation of course is that we are actually following suit. There are a number of other common law jurisdictions that have already made this change one of them being the United Kingdom to which we owe a lot of the development of our tortious law through common law. So I am quite confident that what we are doing here and what this bill will bring about has been well considered and will actually make claims in tort much easier when they do span across various jurisdictions.Of course my colleagues have noted correctly that clause 8 in this bill does still leave in place some discretion for the courts to consider various situations where it is perhaps not as clear-cut. It is important to build that discretion into the courts so that they have that room to manoeuvre.So I am very pleased to be bringing in this bill. I think it is a good little bill. It is a technical bill. It has been endorsed by the legal sector and I am sure that it is going to make things much simpler when bringing a claim in tort in a foreign jurisdiction or here in New Zealand. Thank you.Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill and the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill without amendment.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill — In Committee
Tisch LindsaySchedule 1The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question now is that schedule 1 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye—Jono Naylor: Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is no debate on this. We have already had the debate on the schedule. I am just putting the vote.Schedule 1 agreed to.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand tonight in the Committee stage of the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. At present we are discussing Part 2. Part 2 we have heard contains the general rule. In the discussion and debate in the Justice and Electoral Committee around these parts of this bill there were some changes made. One of those changes was to the use of the word jurisdiction" where "the applicable law is the law of the jurisdiction" was changed to differentiate between countries where they have state laws such as in Australia or the US. So we now talk about "the law of the country in which the events constituting the tort in question occur."This Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill is very similar to the UK Act and that Act was seen during the select committee stage to be a valuable resource in providing a body of case law which has accrued in the UK to help with the interpretation and the application of this legislation here in New Zealand.As my colleague Jono Naylor has talked about previously clause 7 "General rule" talks about personal injury and that does mean a physical or mental injury—even if the injury causes death. It also in this clause includes disease or infection so even now we are including things that may be communicable diseases. They also fit into this general rule of this choice of law in tort.The clarification around the countries where these general rules apply does have some examples that make it clear why these amendments and this bill are required here. Using the example of a New Zealand employee who is working overseas and is injured in his place of work in an unsafe workplace what law should govern his claim of negligence against his employer in that case? For instance is it the law of the country in which the event took place is it New Zealand law as he is a New Zealander or perhaps if the parent company is an Australian company would that also qualify as the place where this case would be heard? So this bill clarifies that. It becomes a bit of a nonsense in those situations where those arguments about the appropriateness of the country in which the cases will be heard actually consume probably more court time than actually getting on with the substance of the dispute would and so people are spending all their time in court determining those sorts of matters rather than the substance.So these provisions are displacing the general rule. An example of that would be where two people are travelling in New Zealand and something happens while they are here. It is best that that is dealt with in their home country and so there is an opportunity for the court to use its discretion and allow for that case to be heard in their home country.As we have also heard this bill has been around for quite some time. It is very reassuring to see it getting to the end of the debate on it in this Committee stage and I commend it. Thank you.Part 2 agreed to."
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much to the Hon David Parker for that contribution and those questions in relation to personal injury under the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. I also have to take the opportunity to thank Dr Maria Hook of the University of Otago who is one of the submitters who has taken a particular interest in this matter also—to thank her for her contribution and her consideration of clause 7 in respect of personal injury.There are a couple of considerations to look at first. The first is where a personal injury has been suffered in New Zealand and of course meets the definition under the Accident Compensation Act. In that case the statutory bar will apply. If the injury meets the standards in the definition under the Accident Compensation Act then the statutory bar will apply and the plaintiff will not be able to sue. The second consideration is where the personal injury suffered in New Zealand does not meet the definition of personal injury under the Accident Compensation Act or for some other reason is not covered. So in that case the statutory bar under the Accident Compensation Act will not apply and of course the plaintiff can look to tort law and sue.The next one is when personal injury has been suffered overseas and the plaintiff in some of those cases may have cover. The foreign law will govern wherever that injury did occur and the statutory bar will not apply. If the plaintiff has suffered a personal injury overseas but is also covered under the Accident Compensation Act then it gets somewhat a little bit more complicated. That situation is made possible because of section 22 of the Accident Compensation Act and it extends cover to injuries suffered by New Zealand residents overseas in certain circumstances. I have to again acknowledge Dr Maria Hook from Otago University who has given me an example of a New Zealander injured for example on a faulty bicycle provided say by a French tour operator in France—so somewhat straightforward in nature. In this situation French law would apply on the face of it—prima facie—but because the injury was suffered in France New Zealand law would be excluded and in those circumstances the statutory bar would apply only if it was a mandatory rule under the bill and that would override the choice of law in tort.So that sets out what we are considering there in the way that this bill is drafted and of course the definition of personal injury—the way that it is drafted—is deliberately wide. That is so that it covers various types of personal injuries that may occur that may not be included in the Accident Compensation Act. It can include mental injuries that are not associated with a physical injury for example. That is the reason why the committee has chosen that. It is also on the advice of officials. Hopefully that answers the question of the member.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I have pleasure in standing to discuss this Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill in its Committee stage here tonight. The bill is in the name of the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee Sarah Dowie. As we know the bill was first introduced by the now very honourable David Bennett.Tonight we are discussing Part 1 which covers the preliminary provisions of this bill. We are talking about clauses 3 3A 3B and 4(1) and (2). For clarification just to clarify it for those who may be confused about what we are even talking about a tort is a wrongful act that results in civil liability but it does not apply to breaches of contract. In common law jurisdictions it is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm that results in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.The transitional savings and related provisions are set out in schedule 1 and they of course have effect according to their terms. But I would like to just point out some of the confusion that arises with tort law and why this bill is necessary for clarifying the jurisdiction for the case. For instance if a couple is married overseas in an overseas country and they come to live in New Zealand and want to get divorced what is the country that the law applies to and where is that case able to be heard?The applicable law that is set out in clause 3B in the interpretation clause of this bill defines the law to be used for determining the issues relating to tort and the claims in tort. We have a very famous claim of tort law which I have used in other readings of this bill that sets out very clearly where the liability for certain cases lies. Of course that is further simplified here in New Zealand with our ACC legislation.As my colleague Jono Naylor has pointed out clause 4 of this bill does bind the Crown and we would expect that to be the case. There is nothing that affects the application of the Crown's ability to be prosecuted in cases of tort law that are brought against the Crown.This is a very technical bill and those of us not being of legal backgrounds have taken great advice from our legal advisers to the select committee. We certainly do look forward to further debate on this bill. At this point I will hand over to my colleagues. Thank you.Part 1 agreed to.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill which was originally brought in the name of the Hon David Bennett who then decided to pass it on to me. I often say that while I am not emotionally attached to this bill it has grown on me. We have heard in previous debates about small technical but very effective bills and this is in my opinion no different.In discussing Part 1 with regard to the preliminary provisions—clauses 3A 3B and 4—I note that clause 3B of course sets out the interpretation. It defines applicable law claim and country. This relates to the substance of the bill in that this is about tort law of course. Tort is a civil wrong. Tort has been established over many many years of common law and jurisprudence. It relates to those civil wrongs such as defamation negligence and of course personal injury. I note from the second reading speeches that I do have some questions to answer with regard to personal injury so I will get to that in the debate on Part 2 the more substantive provisions of this bill.We have dealt with a claim and the jurisprudence behind tort but what this bill does in respect of the interpretation clause clause 3B with the definition of country" is that we start talking about the jurisdiction of where a tort occurs and where a claim can be brought. So we are talking about a country in the sense of private international law and what this bill does in substance which relates back to that definition is that where a tort or an injury occurs overseas what is happening here is that the rule of double actionability is actually being disposed of. So if a tort occurs overseas at the moment a plaintiff would need to apply to the New Zealand court and they would be heard only if the jurisdiction where that injury or tort occurred had similar rules and then the plaintiff could actually bring the tort in New Zealand. The double actionability rule is being disposed of and in it its place we will be looking at the claim for the tort being brought in the country in which the tort occurred. So it is an important definition there under clause 3B and you can see that it relates very much to the substance of this bill.The term "applicable law" of course means the law to be used for determining issues relating to the tort and again that goes to the jurisdiction. We need these clauses going towards the interpretation of tort law so that we understand exactly where the tort occurs which jurisdiction applies and how that claim will be dealt with moving forward.The purpose of this bill of course as I have described is under clause 3: "to establish rules for choosing the law to be used for determining issues relating to tort." It is very important to do that. It has been confusing in the past when bringing tort claims across jurisdictions. This little bill while technical will make a real difference in respect of tort law moving forward. It is a pleasure to be the member in charge of this bill."
Tisch LindsayPRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (CHOICE OF LAW IN TORT) BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is debate on clauses 3 to 4 and schedule 1.
Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question—Maureen Pugh: Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh Maureen Pugh.MAUREEN PUGH (National): Yes Mr Chair I am.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry I should not be showing hilarity; I am slightly surprised.MAUREEN PUGH: I am a little bit surprised myself Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): And this is not a walk-out.MAUREEN PUGH: Was it something I said? I stand again tonight in this Committee stage to discuss and support the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill.This bill as we know is in the name of Chris Bishop. In terms of publications of this bill he is the hero of this story from the mighty Hutt. Clause 1 of this bill is of course the title clause and during the re-drafting of this bill there was an amendment as we have heard from the proposer to the title and it does better reflect the content of the bill and its purpose and it also shortens the name very slightly for efficiency.Clause 2 is the commencement clause and this states that it will come into force the day after it receives its Royal assent which is quite common for bills. The Royal assent comes from the Governor-General of course—in our case Dame Patsy Reddy. For clarification for the audience and for my own benefit too I did a little bit of research on what this actually means because in the past I have tended to gloss over the commencement date of bills. What I found was that it is quite a lengthy and detailed process: when the House of Representatives passes a bill's third reading it does not become an Act until it has received this Royal assent from the Governor-General. The Governor-General can only act on the advice of the Government in these constitutional matters and so there is an advice sheet prepared for the Governor-General which is signed by the Clerk of the House. And then the Clerk of the House advises the Governor-General that there are no reasons why the Royal assent should not be granted. Then that is also signed by the Attorney-General—in our case the Hon Chris Finlayson—and the Prime Minister who of course is the Rt Hon Bill English in this case.Two copies of these are certified by the Clerk of the House and they are sent with this advice sheet to the Governor-General and they are signed. At that point the bill becomes an Act. The commencement date of this bill will be the day after it receives that Royal assent. This is of course done on behalf of our sovereign Queen Elizabeth.Clause 3 of this bill is of course the principal Act. As we know it is amending the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act of 1993 and that is the principal Act that is being amended. We have heard already tonight that this is a very simple effective bill that fills a gap in the legislation and we are very happy to support it. Thank you.
Bishop ChrisClauses 1 to 3CHRIS BISHOP (National): There are three clauses in this part of the debate. We did have some debate at the Justice and Electoral Committee about the title of this bill which is in clause 1. We did have some debate—Kris Faafoi: Ha! You changed it.CHRIS BISHOP: Mr Faafoi says Well you changed it." and that is exactly right. We had a debate and then the committee recommended that it be changed as well. So the original title was the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill and we have changed it to the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. The reason we made that change is that we felt it better reflected the actual—I mean I accept it is a minor change; it is a small change not one that is worthy of much comment but I just draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we have made that change in order to better reflect the purpose of the bill. It has slightly shortened the title.We also had a bit of a debate about clause 2 which is the commencement clause which is when the bill should come into force. There was a bit of debate about whether or not there should be a 6-month lead-in period or whether or not it should be 12 months after the date of Royal assent. That is a classic commencement clause 12 months which allows people time to transition to the new phase of classification office decisions. We decided in the end that that was not appropriate in this case because such a minor change—and actually we are dealing with experts here and we actually received a submission from the Office of Film and Literature Classification and it said to us I think I am recalling it correctly when I say it said it broadly supported the changes that were recommended by the bill and that it could bring them into force straight away.This bill was introduced and received its first reading in December last year. It has been through the full select committee process and we are pretty confident that the powers that be—the authorities—have the appropriate wherewithal and the appropriate expertise to bring it into force straight away. Therefore we have decided that it will come into force on the day after it receives Royal assent which I hope will be in a couple of weeks' time."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank my good colleagues for some very good questions in relation to Part 2 of this bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member might be misleading the House but go on.CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! Mr Naylor asked about clause 8 amending section 107 of the principal Act—in particular the power of the inspector to seize publications—and he asked about subclauses (1) and (2) of that clause in the bill in Part 2. This is an interesting section of the Act. The term inspector" seems to have fallen out of favour a bit but the Act still talks about the inspector in relation to films videos and publications. Section 107(2)(b)(ii) talks about publications generally and it deals with the full ambit of publications and the difference between clauses 8(1) and 8(2) is that clause 8(2) which refers to section 107(3)(b) of the principal Act deals with film posters.Again it is a sort of curious—"oddity" is the wrong word—feature I suppose you would say of the principal Act that we have a specific section to do with film posters. And what it does of course is allows the inspector to seize posters that advertise publications—or film poster in relation to a film—that are in breach of an interim restriction order. So if there is an interim restriction order imposed then publicising a film poster in relation to that film would be a breach. So section 107 is a consequential amendment based on the fact that we are amending the section of the Act to do with interim restrictions more generally. And then of course clause 8(1) in this bill deals with wider publications to do with the seizure of publications. So that deals with that.Maureen Pugh's question was in relation to serial publication orders. Again this is something that is a curious part of the principal Act and it is a section that is not widely used. Basically without getting too into details it is a section of the Act to do with repeated publications that have been found to be objectionable—that the classification office can then issue a serial publication order in relation to. Again because of the changes we are making to do with interim restriction orders there are consequential amendments to do with the serial publication orders that can be issued by the classification office as well. They are not often used to my limited knowledge but it is a necessary amendment to that section of the Act because of the amendments we are making in Part 1 of the Act. I trust that that answers members' questions.Part 2 agreed to."
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I too will come back to the proposer of this bill Chris Bishop with a small question but I just want to draw some attention to the clauses in Part 2 in particular to clause 9 which is a replacement of section 133 of the original Act. That deals with the fines that are imposed on people who are liable for a conviction under this proposed new bill. So for the case of an individual a $3000 fine is in my opinion extremely deterring for someone who may be in contravention of this bill and certainly for a body corporate $10000 is a very appropriate sum. It is a very fair sum in protecting the public good.One of the issues that has been taxing me with the restrictions on publications—and perhaps the proposer of the bill could enlighten me—is how the restrictions will be displayed on any particular publication and how those restrictions will be monitored or policed. How do they come to the attention of the review board? So with that short contribution and that question I have finished.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to rise in respect of Part 2 of the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill talking about the consequential amendments to the principal Act as brought about by this small but technical and very useful bill. I am talking about and drawing attention to clause 8 in respect of amending section 107 Inspector may seize publications"—again drawing our attention to the fact that there need to be tools in the tool box so that once we bring about interim restrictions the monitors of this the people who will bring about compliance with this will have the tools in their tool box to be able to make sure that the interim orders are adhered to which is of course extremely important. So that consequential amendment has occurred in particular replacing the words "publication is being publicly displayed in contravention of [certain sections]" with "public display of the publication constitutes an offence …". So it is just tidying that one up to make sure again that that tool box is full and complete.Moving on to clause 9 "Section 133 replaced …" in the "Consequential amendments to the principal Act" in Part 2 which talks in subsection (2) about "A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine … (a) in the case of an individual $3000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate [company] $10000." So again it is drawing our attention to the fact that if there is a breach there needs to be consequences. While some people may see this as a limited scope in fines I think it is still very much a deterrent when you are a person or a retailer selling publications or somebody who is teaching certain literature exploring certain literature and not complying with an interim order. It is important to have those offences there to maintain the balance between of course freedom of speech and the public good to make sure that certain classes of people are of course protected if there is something that is seen as offensive within the publication.So I think that Part 2 is obviously of course needed. When you start amending a principal Act there are always consequential amendments that require tidying up and with the bringing in of this new regime—a more flexible regime of interim orders—there are of course consequential amendments that are required to make sure that the offences provisions make sense and that the interim restriction provisions make sense.The way that the officials have worked on the structure of this bill has been exceptional—interestingly bringing the parts into a more logical order. I think at one stage there were several parts so we could have been debating this for much much longer. They have brought it about and tidied it up so there are only two parts and then of course the title. So we thank the officials and I thank the work and the debate that the Justice and Electoral Committee had on this fine technical but small bill."
Bishop ChrisPart 2 Consequential amendments to principal ActCHRIS BISHOP (National): We have dealt with the really chunky meaty—insert synonym here—section of the—Kris Faafoi: It wasn't that chunky.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh no that is unfair—come on. That is unfair. It was chunky in the context of the bill which is a small bill. Part 2 just deals with the various consequential amendments to the principal Act and a couple of remedial things I suppose. There is an amendment to section 29 and an amendment to section 107 which just essentially inserts the two new sections that we inserted in Part 1—so amended section 133 and then new section 133A as well. Also clause 10 just slightly amends the section of the Act around the Attorney-General's consent being required for private prosecutions of certain publications—that is of course the two sections we have just inserted.It is a funny old power the power for the Attorney-General to order—well not order prosecutions but to consent prosecutions. It is a strange old power but it is a necessary one in many ways to I suppose prevent vexatious litigants and one that is meant to be a bit of a check on vexatious behaviour. Sometimes maybe it is not. Maybe it could be used a touch more throughout our statute book. But it is an appropriate one when it comes to what we talking about here for the various reasons that I have canvassed previously.There is not a huge amount more to add in relation to this part. As I say it is the consequential amendments to the principal Act and they should be supported.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I too stand tonight in support of this the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill in its Committee stage tonight. We are speaking about the meat of this bill which is in clause 4 where it inserts new section 49. That provides a solution for the inflexibility that there is with the current law and it does give a simple amendment—simple but effective—and it allows for the Film and Literature Board of Review to apply interim restrictions while a publication is under appeal.We found that with the book Into the River by Ted Dawe this was a completely inflexible system that we were operating under so this new section 49 provides for some very practical tools to apply these classifications—for instance M in this classification would be restricted to mature audiences or a specific age group. In granting these applications there is an opportunity to apply these restrictions across a variety of age groups or types and also to decline the application if that is deemed appropriate.The other part of this Part 1 is that it relates to interim restriction orders where the High Court or the judge must apply the same consideration to these restrictions on publications. The High Court or the judge also has the ability to apply the various restrictions to age groups or types as in mature" or an age bracket or to decline the application.As we have heard tonight there is also the ability to impose sanctions for contravening these restriction orders and apply quite considerable fines to people who do intend to breach these rules—up to $3000 for an individual and up to $10000 for a corporate body. It is very clear that this was a gap in the law. It has been ably filled by these small amendments in the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill and I commend it to the House.Part 1 agreed to."
Urgent Debates Declined — Primary Industries—Discovery of Mycoplasma Bovis in South Canterbury
Speaker's Ruling — Written Questions—Use of Interim Answers
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDPrimary Industries—Discovery of Mycoplasma Bovis in South CanterburyMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Damien O'Connor seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the discovery of the cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis in South Canterbury. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and there is ministerial responsibility for the response to the disease by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The risk to our primary sector from animal disease is an important matter. This outbreak has been responded to by MPI and is limited in its scope at present. I am not convinced that this matter is urgent enough to warrant setting aside the business of the House today; therefore the application is declined.
Carter DavidWEDNESDAY 26 JULY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.SPEAKER'S RULINGSWritten Questions—Interim AnswersMr SPEAKER: Honourable members yesterday Chris Hipkins asked that I consider the use of interim answers to written parliamentary questions. He was concerned that Ministers are giving interim answers to a wide range of written parliamentary questions and potentially deferring the obligation to provide an answer until after the Parliament is dissolved.Interim replies should be used only in exceptional cases. Every endeavour must be made to provide a full reply within the period specified in the Standing Orders. They are not to be used as a matter of course or just because a Minister has a large volume of questions to answer. Answering questions is a duty of office for Ministers and if they give an interim reply they are under an obligation to follow up with a full reply as soon as possible. A question is not regarded as being answered until the final response is receive—Speakers' rulings 201/3-5. If an interim response is to be provided the Minister should not routinely wait until the due date to provide it. Usually it will be apparent to the Minister's office when it receives a question whether an interim reply will be required.I would be concerned if Ministers ever used interim replies to avoid providing answers to questions. There is now only a short amount of time left to lodge written questions since they may be only lodged up until the time the Parliament is dissolved. It is my expectation that written questions lodged 6 or more working days before the dissolution of this Parliament will receive a substantive reply unless doing so requires an exceptional amount of collation and research. If members feel that they have received an interim reply when it is not justified they should raise it with the Minister immediately and if still not satisfied bring it to my attention.I intend to circulate a copy of this ruling to all Ministers.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 93New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 26Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.
Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 60New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
12. Broadband Ultra-fast and Rural—ProgressBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for CommunicationsBroadband Ultra-fast and Rural—Progress12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Communications: What progress can he report on the roll-out of the Ultrafast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiatives?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Today I have released the latest quarterly broadband update which shows that deployment for phase one of the ultra-fast broadband (UFB) programme is close to 80 percent complete and phase one of the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) is complete. This means that almost 1.2 million New Zealand households and businesses now have access to ultra-fast and rural broadband nationwide. Today's update also shows that the UFB build is now fully completed in 22 cities and towns across New Zealand and as the roll-out gathers pace many more Kiwis will soon have access to this world-class fibre.Brett Hudson: How are the broadband programmes tracking against the Government's targets?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are fast approaching our target which is for 1.5 million households and businesses to be able to connect to UFB by 2019 and for 85 percent of New Zealanders to be able to connect by 2024. The update also shows New Zealanders' strong demand for UFB with the number of households businesses schools and hospitals connected to UFB increasing by 12 percent in the past 3 months alone. The first phase of RBI delivered faster broadband to over 300000 rural households businesses schools and hospitals outside of UFB areas. I look forward to making announcements soon about the areas that will receive coverage under the second phase of RBI and the Mobile Black Spot Fund.
10. Horticulture Industry—Economic Contribution and ReportsANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesHorticulture Industry—Economic Contribution and Reports10. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on horticulture's contribution to New Zealand's economic and social well-being?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I have received a report showing that horticulture is a significant contributor to New Zealand's economic and social well-being. It is a $5.6 billion industry; 5500 commercial fruit and vegetable growers farm about 127000 hectares and provide 60000 jobs. Successful intergenerational family businesses provide safe healthy food for everybody. They use sustainable production practices that look after the land for future generations. Andrew Bayly: What is the outlook for vegetable growers in the Franklin area of the Hunua electorate and what potential challenges do they face? Hon NATHAN GUY: A good proportion of our vegetable sector is located on the fertile soils around Franklin. Much of this sector supplies New Zealand's domestic market with both fresh and processed products and is valued at approximately $2 billion. Onions in particular have grown to be worth around $112 million. However today I have received a report that shows that a charge of 10c per litre could double the price of onions. This would have a massive implication for consumers up and down the country. Maureen Pugh: What is the outlook for growers in the West Coast-Tasman electorate and what potential challenges do they face?Hon NATHAN GUY: The outlook for growers in this electorate is very strong under a National-led Government. The wine industry for example is on track to reach $2 billion of exports by 2020. Arable horticulture and viticulture account for around a quarter of all land that is irrigated in New Zealand. Of course 1 litre of wine requires about 900 litres of water to produce on average. A charge of 10c per litre of water would mean $75 per bottle extra on average. A water tax is basically a tax on food and on consumers.
6. Freshwater Management—National Policy Statement ChangesBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for the EnvironmentFreshwater Management—National Policy Statement Changes6. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for the Environment: How will the Government's changes to the national policy statement on fresh water to be gazetted today improve the recreational and ecological health of our lakes rivers and aquifers?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): For the first time in New Zealand we have a requirement on councils to improve river and lake water quality for swimming and a requirement for councils to set regional targets and to report to their communities on progress so that we can achieve that 90 percent goal by 2040. Secondly the new national policy statement (NPS) strengthens the requirement on councils to control nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus and specifically how they must set limits to prevent harmful algae. Thirdly the NPS introduces new ecological health requirements with councils being required to take specific actions if the macroinvertebrate community index drops below 80.Barbara Kuriger: What parallel measures is the Government introducing alongside the NPS to help councils achieve improved fresh water quality?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government's national regulations on issues like stock exclusion and forestry will help contribute to the national policy requirements for better water quality. The stock exclusion regulations will require 56000 kilometres of fencing and will progressively apply to dairy pig beef and deer farms depending on their topography but will also ensure that it is practical so that we are not making farmers fence in areas where it is impractical. The new forestry regulations that were gazetted this week support better environmental management of the 1.7 million hectares of plantation forestry and cover activities like ground preparation thinning earthworks and river crossings. The Government is also supporting councils with these targets by investing a further $44 million in river and lake clean-ups this week.Barbara Kuriger: What is the estimated cost of meeting the 90 percent by 2040 swimming targets and on whom will this cost fall?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The target is going to require that a thousand kilometres of waterway be improved to a higher recreational grade each year. Our clean-up projects that we have done to date indicate a cost of about $70000 per kilometre. That means that this policy will cost $2 billion over 23 years. The cost will fall on farmers councils as well as the Government. The stock exclusion regulations are estimated to cost a bit over $300 million. The requirement on councils to upgrade their waste-water treatment systems will also contribute. The Government to date has committed over $400 million to support councils and communities in this work.
Bond RiaRIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and my fine colleague Fletcher Tabuteau and take a call in the third reading of the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to say that New Zealand First supported this bill at its first reading in this House and going to the select committee stage. The Commerce Committee—a very fine-working select committee—worked really hard on ensuring that we made good amendments to this bill to strengthen the bill in order for it to be fit for purpose. I do not want to take too much time and go over what previous speakers before me have said but what I do want to say is that when the Minister came through with a Supplementary Order Paper and dumped it on this bill it actually made this bill become toothless. It actually reacted like I guess a grenade on this bill and actually ruined it. So on that basis and the fact that this bill is not fit for purpose and is not going to be providing the very protection from cartels that it should be New Zealand First will not be supporting it. Thank you.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in this its third reading. It certainly does appear that this bill is likely to pass into law. It is a good thing and well-looked forward to. Unlike the promise from the member across the way Dr David Clark about being relentlessly positive this party this Government has been relentlessly positive and relentlessly ambitious for New Zealanders for the best part of 9 years and we will be working hard to secure their confidence for another 3.But on to this bill—the bill is about supporting deepening and broadening capital markets for New Zealand. It is a simple reality that New Zealanders do not necessarily look to put their personal capital into areas that help to diversify and particularly grow new parts of our economy. New Zealand does have a reliance on foreign capital and it is important that our capital markets and our capital functions give confidence to domestic and international investors and indeed encourage them to look to New Zealand as a place for investing their money and achieving the returns that they seek with that. If we can encourage more investment—both domestic and particularly foreign—then we will get the opportunity to broaden and deepen our capital markets. Importantly we will give the necessary to new parts of our economy to continue their growth.I could give an example from the sector that I come from for instance the technology sector particularly in information and communications technology which is an area where we have seen some stunning companies and stunning products and services. That is a huge contributor now to our diversified economy but one that still suffers from shall we say a level of under-investment. We could do with more and it is important that we permit structures that will encourage investors to participate particularly where we are enabling pro-competitive collaboration which this bill will do. I was particularly impressed to see—just before I wrap up because no one needs to take too long on this bill—that there was an element of international shipping where New Zealand is somewhat of an outlier in our regulation of that. This bill will bring it into the purview of the Commerce Act and will improve regulatory oversight and transparency in that area. This is a bill worthy of Parliament's support as well as the consideration it has had. It will improve investment into New Zealand businesses and it will improve our economy. I commend it to the House.
Clark DavidDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The Labour Party will run a relentlessly positive campaign to restore the Kiwi Dream. This bill is a bit watered down. The amendments to section 36 of the principal Act that Clayton Cosgrove put forward should have been amended. But the Parliament has dragged its feet for too long so we are just going to support this bill and I recommend it to the House.