edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who will be happy to receive the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. I just want to acknowledge the comments made by the speaker on the opposite side of the House who just sat down Andrew Bayly. Thank you for your considered speech. A number of the policy issues that you raised in your comments are actually issues which this select committee needs to pay attention to and that is the purpose of the select committee: to actually make the bill workable or to make a bill more workable. You know who actually told me that comment? It was David Seymour. It was David Seymour during a select committee process for the Water Services Entities Bill. As we were sitting on a select committee in Auckland on the Water Services Entities Bill David Seymour actually said to me that the purpose of the select committee is to make a bill more workable and I absolutely agree with that statement.As we know this bill is around bringing in some economic regulations. When you have a market that is rare and is usually for an infrastructure such as gas airports and other measures such as fibre what you do is you bring in some economic regulation because it is such a unique market. So it's going to be really great to be able to receive some submissions hopefully from other markets such as airports and gas and fibre as to how it works in their industry in their market so that we can take those learnings like the previous speaker who just sat down and customise this bill for water services.I just want to pay attention to two parts of this particular bill which I'm hoping we will get submissions on. In Part 2 Subpart 3 Input methodologies": input methodologies are rules requirements and processes that underpin regulations which will regulate these particular water services. I'm hoping to see that we can get some more information around what are the types of frameworking regulations; what are sort of the boundaries we need to set in order to make these regulations work better for this market.The second part of the bill I will touch on briefly is in Schedule 2 which is the "Consumer dispute resolution service"—again another type of framework type of schedule within this bill. It is something that we need to look at as to whether we need to customise it for water services entities. So the rules which are set out in Schedule 2 clause 3 the "Rules of approved service"—there is a whole list within this bill of areas that we're hoping we will get submissions on. Does this work? Do the local authorities who do have shares in water service entities—would this work for them if they had to get into a position where they needed to dispute a particular part of the water services infrastructure?So as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I'm looking forward to having really constructive debates within our committee and I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move That the Water Services Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 25 May 2023.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. Ideological not significant trivial not important"—all wrapped up in disinformation. If the member even bothered to open up page 2 of this bill; it's only page 2 you only need to read the first and the second page—sorry that member needs to read the first and the second page he would see: "Water services are an essential building block for communities. Public health and well-being better environmental outcomes economic growth and job creation housing and urban development climate change resilience to natural hazards and the rights and interests of iwi and Māori all depend on better outcomes for those services." That is why this bill is important.Those members on the other side of the House who believe it's "ideological not significant trivial and not important": take the time over the summer to do some homework. Read the bill read the regulatory impact statement come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and debate and make this bill workable. In the absence of an actual constructive Opposition it will be left again to this Government to make those hard decisions to make this bill work for the communities that we stand for. I commend this bill to the House."
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. As we've heard in this House this bill follows the Water Services Entities Bill that we passed last week. It was well signalled that there was going to be a succession of bills and we're going to be talking about another one shortly.That last bill set up the four entities and this bill really colours in what it is that those entities can and can't do. Of course a lot of the powers and responsibilities referenced in other speeches already exist in some form or other in local government legislation so I think that is going to be really useful for the select committee to get good advice on how the powers in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Act 1974 and rating powers all interact with this piece of legislation. It's going to be a good job for the select committee to do. I'm hope I'm able to be a part of it. Thank you Madam Speaker.
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Speaker. This is a serious piece of legislation that we are going to be going through and I speak to it because what is gobsmacking is that the National Party has not even bothered to look at what's coming through in this bill. If they took the time to actually look at it there's a very very important piece coming through in here about subsidiaries and that is something that I think the councils as shareholders in this public entity—the four entities—will be very interested in. It's this type of information important information in here that we need to get to select committee and that's why I'm looking forward to seeing this through to the select committee. Thank you.
White HelenTUESDAY 13 DECEMBER 2022(continued on Wednesday 14 December 2022)WATER SERVICES LEGISLATION BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. Members when the House rose for the evening we were considering the first reading of the Water Services Legislation Bill. I call—HELEN WHITE (Labour): Helen White.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no; you just say—you just seek the call.HELEN WHITE: Oh thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Helen White.HELEN WHITE: I thought you had forgotten my name. Ha ha! Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm going to take a very short call on this matter because this is a second bill in a series of bills and what it is doing is really putting the infrastructure behind an infrastructure plan.There is a $31 billion deficit in infrastructure every year according to the Infrastructure Commission. There has been legislation brought in to really make sure that our water pipes and the infrastructure that supply water to all our communities is actually up to scratch. It hasn't been up to scratch for a very long time and we've had some tragedy as a result of that and we never want to see that repeated.We also have a situation in Auckland where we can't swim at a lot of our most beautiful beaches and that's because it rained in the weekend and so we just couldn't swim in those beaches any more. That's utterly unacceptable in a city as beautiful as Auckland.So this piece of legislation just focuses on what my friends called the nuts and bolts" last night. It's all the things that really just make things tick. It's about things like compliance. It's about infringement. It's about being able to go on site and actually check the water meters. It's about pricing and charging structures. It's about asset management plans infrastructure plans and pricing plans. That's a very necessary part of what we need to do in this to make it work and function. Our committee will be looking at the detail and making sure that it's fit for purpose. I commend this bill to the House."
Thursday 8 December 2022 - Volume 765
Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 agreed to.ScheduleA party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule agreed to.
Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to clause 23 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 84New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 28New Zealand National 28.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Karen Chhour's amendments to clauses 5 and 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 275 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Karen Chhour's amendments to clause 29 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill — In Committee
10. Question No. 10—YouthTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for YouthQuestion No. 10—Youth10. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Youth: What reports has she seen on young people's re-engagement through the Ākonga fund?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Youth): This Government remains committed to investing in our young people and supporting programmes that actually deliver results. Progress reports I have received indicate that as of the end of term 3 over 6200 ākonga had engaged with programmes funded through the Ākonga Youth Development Community Fund. This exceeds our original goal of 5500 ākonga engaged with a programme by the end of 2022 with even more expected to engage in term 4. These are young people who are at risk of disengaging from education or have already done so and are being supported to re-engage with education training or employment.Tāmati Coffey: What outcomes is this fund delivering for ākonga?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Ninety-five percent of ākonga who have engaged with a programme have established strong connections with their communities. This means that these young people are now connected to various individuals in organisations that they trust who can help them when needed; 83 percent have either gone back to school entered some form of training or found a job. Young people who have completed Ākonga-funded programmes tell us that these programmes have helped them develop social skills self-confidence a sense of purpose and tangible skills that lead them to job opportunities and give them hope for their future. This means that they discover better pathways that give them opportunities for a brighter future.Tāmati Coffey: What do providers attribute the success of these programmes to?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Providers have told us that there is no silver bullet and that one size doesn't fit all. The key to success is when ākonga are central to the programmes and when they help determine the goals they want to achieve. That means programmes are tailored to their needs and are community-driven. Providers tell us it's important they have strong connections to schools and other services so that they can provide wraparound support. There is also strong emphasis on bringing whānau on the journey with ākonga offering opportunities for parents and carers of ākonga to participate in programmes when possible.Tāmati Coffey: What actions has she taken to support ākonga going forward?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We recently announced that the Ākonga fund will be extended through to the end of 2023 which will mean support for up to 2750 additional young people and their whānau. We're proud to have helped thousands of at-risk young people into education training and employment. We know it's making a real difference to people's lives.
9. Question No. 9—Broadcasting and MediaMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and MediaQuestion No. 9—Broadcasting and Media9. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all the Government's views and actions regarding Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media? Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): As I've said before we need to make the change to a new public media entity so that the New Zealand public media can work in the digital age serve all New Zealanders better and endure. These reforms are about valuing and protecting public media in New Zealand giving it the best possible chance of thriving and ensuring that all New Zealanders young and old can continue to access trusted news and information. So in summary yes. Melissa Lee: Does the Minister stand by his statement that The Prime Minister is 100 percent correct." when the Prime Minister twice told this House that TVNZ's revenue is "declining"? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again 100 percent yes. Melissa Lee: Can he confirm that TVNZ revenue has increased for each of the last three years and that the financial year 2022 is the third-highest revenue in the last 16 years for TVNZ? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can for the sake of that member opposite refer her to Television New Zealand's own statement of intent where in their own words they acknowledge declining revenue as a major risk. The undeniable fact is that linear advertising revenue has been declining for the last 10 years. Over the last decade the operating revenue has declined. In 2008 they made over $390 million; in 2020 they made $310 million; and in 2021 they made $341 million—still under the $390 million of 2008. So have a look at the accounts Melissa Lee. Melissa Lee: Does the Minister think that having the Strong Public Media programme spending $1.2 million on office leases to accommodate consultants and another $94000 in technology fit-outs for consultants in the last year is an acceptable use of taxpayer money during a cost of living crisis? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes. Melissa Lee: Wow! Supplementary—sorry. SPEAKER: You will risk losing questions. Melissa Lee: Sorry. Does he think it's acceptable for the Minister of broadcasting to criticise the TVNZ journalist for not helping to get Government policy passed? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I commented on that on Tuesday. As I've said I have a few regrets in terms of that interview and no I don't think it's appropriate."
8. Question No. 8—Broadcasting and MediaGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Broadcasting and MediaQuestion No. 8—Broadcasting and Media8. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting the New Zealand media sector?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): The way we consume news in Aotearoa is changing and it is critical that we support a viable and independent news media sector. I was pleased to announce last weekend that the Government will develop legislation to support our local media companies to be paid fairly for the use of their content online. This is about fairness. There is a power imbalance between local media and the big global players. We want to see fair negotiations and fair deals for New Zealand media companies especially our small regional rural Māori ethnic and Pacific media companies.Glen Bennett: Why is the Government stepping up to support New Zealand media companies in this way?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Online digital platforms make money through advertising and data collection and they benefit from the content on their platforms created by news media companies. The move online has contributed to the halving of the number of journalists in New Zealand which means that less public interest content is produced. This is especially the case for local news and investigative journalism. While some commercial agreements have been reached the progress has been slow and uneven. It is clear that the market isn't working and there is a role for Government to support fair negotiations.Glen Bennett: Why is it important for news companies to be paid for their content?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is about fairness and ensuring that New Zealand media companies have access to deals that are in line with what we are seeing globally. News content is expensive to make and it is unfair that other companies profit from the work of our local media without paying. The big multinational companies have used their market power to ignore the creators of the news content that they profit from and competition regulators around the world have acknowledged this bargaining imbalance.Glen Bennett: What impact is this expected to have for local news media entities?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We've had huge support for this and this is about some of the smaller players—the Northern Advocate the Whanganui Chronicle the Manukau Courier. It's about helping to ensure we can keep producing New Zealand news and stories. What we've seen is that the big multinational players won't come to the negotiating table. We anticipate this proposal could see an extra $30 million to $50 million annually for our news media companies based on overseas experiences. The News Publishers' Association which represents a good portion of the publishing sector has been negotiating with Google for more than 12 months and have not had an offer. The Commerce Commission has acknowledged these issues. So a regulatory backstop is needed to address the power imbalance and this Government is backing New Zealand media to get fair deals.
2. Question No. 2—ChildrenTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for ChildrenQuestion No. 2—Children2. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has the Government made about stopping children re-offending?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Earlier today Ministers Hipkins and Sepuloni joined me in announcing the Government introduction of a circuit-breaker response aimed at quickly addressing the repeat offending of a small group of children and young people. While the justice system can act as a circuit-breaker for young people aged 14 to 17 there is a small number of children aged 10 to 13 who continue to reoffend at a high rate.Terisa Ngobi: Why are these changes necessary?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: At the moment when police make an arrest children often end up placed back in the community with little support and few limitations on their behaviour until a more comprehensive plan is in place. This can lead to reoffending again before the process for the first offence even begins. By taking this approach fast tracking it and applying it to a small group of 10- to 13-year-olds who are serious and persistent offenders we can help address the recent spike in offending and continue to see the number of ram raids come down. Already we've seen a reduction of nearly 80 percent over the past three months. Terisa Ngobi: What impact will these changes have?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The new response will mean that when a child is identified or apprehended by police for offending behaviour that information will be shared with Oranga Tamariki within 24 hours with an agreed plan on how to deal with and support the young person confirmed in 48 hours. Approaches like this work. They are already used in various parts of the country sometimes led by the community organisations and often in partnership with police.Terisa Ngobi: What other actions is the Government taking to address youth offending?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We're also going to expand part of that package Kotahi te Whakaaro to include 14- to 17-year-olds in South and West Auckland. This programme alone is seeing promising results so far providing 104 children and 197 of their siblings with the support they need. In South Auckland of the young people referred after committing a ram raid or other vehicle offence just 14 percent have reoffended. We're also doubling down on our efforts and supporting locally led solutions in Te Tai Tokerau Tāmaki-makau-rau Bay of Plenty and Waikato. Support will be provided through regional Public Service leads to expand on or continue delivering services that are targeted at high-needs children and young people as well as those apprehended as a result of ram raids.
1. Question No. 1—EducationCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of EducationORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Education1. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Has he received any reports on future options for Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori education in the past six months?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.Chris Baillie: Does the Minister agree with his officials who in an August briefing to him argued that the Government should progress towards package four" which means the Government would "establish an independent statutory entity to lead and steward the Māori-medium education and kaupapa Māori education system"?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Associate Minister and I have not yet taken our proposals to Cabinet based on that advice; although the Minister and I have both previously said that we do not support the establishment of an independent Māori education authority.Chris Baillie: Has the Minister requested any further policy work on developing package four such as preparing a paper based on package four to take to Cabinet?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my previous answer we are in the process of preparing further advice to Cabinet on the future of Māori education and the way we will administer that. We've not yet done so but of course that does involve preparing advice. But as I also indicated in my previous answer the establishment of a Māori education authority is not part of that.Chris Baillie: In light of that answer will the Minister rule out the current Government developing a separate statutory entity to manage Māori-medium education and kaupapa Māori education alongside the Ministry of Education?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well that was a waste of a question given I've just said that twice now.Rawiri Waititi: Why has the Minister ruled out the establishment of a Māori education authority?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because there are better ways of achieving the Government's objectives.Rawiri Waititi: What are those?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well as I've indicated we haven't made decisions yet and I'll let the member know as soon as we do.Chris Baillie: In light of that answer if the Government wants to give Māori a greater say over education of Māori students why doesn't he use an established successful idea that was supported by the Iwi Chairs Forum—partnership schools also known as charter schools?SPEAKER: There's an assertion to that.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well there's a huge assertion in that question. We don't believe that Māori should have to adopt a privatised model of education in order to have a greater say over the future of Māori students.Chris Baillie: Point of order Mr Speaker. I'd like to table a report from the Ministry of Education on Māori-medium kaupapa Māori education options for a new framework which was sent to the Hon Kelvin Davis Chris Hipkins and the Hon Jan Tinetti.SPEAKER: Is it publicly available?Chris Baillie: No.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."
Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill — In Committee
O'Connor Greg; Rurawhe AdrianProgress to be reported.House resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill and reports progress. I move That the reports be adopted.Motion agreed to.Reports adopted.SPEAKER: Members the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 13 December 2022. Kia ora mai tātou.The House adjourned at 4.57 p.m.
O'Connor GregHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): I thank the member for many of his questions. Look in terms of the governance arrangements I do want to discuss them but I'll first—just about RealMe. Some of the tools involved in RealMe will actually I guess be recycled into this framework some of the protection mechanisms that are enabled through the framework. So some of that technology will contribute to this.I think it's fair to say that that mechanism is not as contemporary as others out there. It is effective and it is secure. Today people share data online all the time using Facebook and social media and on various platforms out there. Having a secure mechanism for doing that in a modern way is what this is attempting to do and to ensure that the person whose data it is is in control of that sharing rather than it being permission between Government agencies or whatever; that the person whose data it is owns that data and gets to say who gets to use it and what parts of it—I think that's a really important principle for privacy reasons. It is something that is now possible because of the way that technologies have developed.In terms of where does this sit does this sit in a Government department and so on I think that's important to explain to the House. The Trust Framework Board is described in Part 4 of the bill. There are three bodies responsible for overseeing different aspects of the trust framework. This work has been driven out of the Department of Internal Affairs and I do want to acknowledge and thank the officials who've done the hard work first of bringing me up to speed on it when I was a new Minister in this portfolio—I thank them for their patience. I also acknowledge the expertise that sits there in the development of this framework.The Trust Framework Board develops the trust framework rules that service providers will need to comply with. There's a Māori Advisory Group established as well which will advise the board on Māori interests and knowledge on digital identity and the operation of the trust framework. So that's an advisory board that sits alongside.There's also the Trust Framework Authority which is responsible for accrediting organisations against the rules so it's a more operational if you like aspect of it; monitoring enforcing compliance of the rules and complaints and dispute resolution.So there's quite a structure around it; that's important. We want to get the thing right in principle. We want there to be a board that oversees governs this new mechanism we're putting in place and we also want some real operational muscle in there as well.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to report progress.
Watts Simon; O'Connor GregSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Minister for the feedback in regards to questions previously. Two further questions if I may.The bill includes changes of removing the commissioner's discretion discount levies payable to the commission by private insurers and my question in regards to that aspect is around the implication or removal of that commissioner discretion and what is likely to be the implication potentially in regards to that aspect. Because obviously the ability for the commissioner to have some scope in terms of making such assessments I think is deemed appropriate—but a little bit of context around that.The last aspect is—because obviously conscious of time and we're getting near to the end of my list—the introduction of the new offence for insurers who fail to comply with their obligations to pay a levy to the commission is a new implication within the bill.Obviously while there is a recognition in regards to an offence regime I'm wanting to get some assurance from the Minister in regards to making sure that that new ability to be able to in effect apply an offence is going to be appropriately measured in the context that we're going to be aware that there may be people that are going to try and push the limits a little bit. But again how do we get those checks and balances to make sure that that new offence is fair and reasonable in the context of what will be applied? Thank you.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I'll answer the first of the member's questions. I'm not sure—he might need to point me to the part in the bill in respect of the second.But the discretion to discount levies that commissioner discretion is an unusual thing—it doesn't exist in other sectors; it's an unusual practice. Obviously there'll be greater information-sharing over time; I think there'll be appropriate arrangements in place.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Natural Hazards Insurance Bill — In Committee
SpeechDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister just a technical point on page 15 for the advisers: do you think this definition of mixed-use building" is overly complicated? Secondly obtaining this information would be extremely hard and is there a simpler formula to be applied to this type of mixed-use building?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I would just comment that it's as complicated as it would need to be."
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Just one brief question. I've been reading through some of the notes provided to analyse the bill. There's a line that sort of talks about the insurer's contractual obligation in the case of a full reinstatement and it is only to rebuild to a former state without mitigation measures. Now I can understand if that meant putting in a bund or putting in some sort of other protection—that would be fair enough. But does it mean that under this bill the requirement for a reinstatement to be reinstated at today's building codes is still in place or has it been set aside? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Can I just get the member to clarify: is the question—could I get the member to repeat the question please? Sorry. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Yes. So currently as I understand it if someone makes a claim for natural hazard damage and it requires a dwelling for example—well in the case of the Earthquake Commission it will always be a dwelling—to be fully reinstated or in other words it's written off it's going to be demolished and it's going to be replaced and the insurers had covered the balance of the $300000 through their replacement policy or their sum insured does it mean that if the insurer is taking over that job the new house has to be built to current code or simply to the code that existed at the time that the original property was built? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Sorry I apologise. I didn't quite understand the member's question originally. Yes—to the current code.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Now in the select committee consideration there was a mention made of hailstorm damage in Sydney earlier in the century where uninsured people ended up getting higher payments for their damage than those who were insured because they got their claim or their costs settled through some kind of benevolent fund or mayoral fund or some other such. It raised the issue of the moral hazard of under-insurance. And if you look at the situation of AMI and Ansvar—two sizable sort of insurers particularly AMI; 40 percent of the market in Canterbury—it failed. It failed because it didn't have sufficient funds in its retention fund to meet initial costs and it didn't have sufficient reinsurance to cover the cost of the policies that had actually been sold.So that raises the question of the role of the insurance regulator and there's nothing actually in this bill that deals with that. I'm wondering if the Minister can indicate whether or not outside of this bill there might be some work being done to consider or reconsider or to boot up the role of the insurance regulator. Because I think as much as we require certain capital ratios for banks there is a case to be said that if you want to offer insurance—whether such a huge contribution potentially from the State and ultimately a liability being accepted by the State where there is failure—then there should be some pretty clear ratios of cover available relative to the potential costs of all of those claims coming home to roost at one time.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): That's obviously outside of the scope of this bill but a very valid question. My understanding—and I've just checked that with officials—is that the Reserve Bank capital requirements are now a one-in-1000-year event. So that is a change that's happened. It's important that those companies do have sufficient capital behind them and obviously the Financial Markets Authority has another role as well in overseeing those markets.
SpeechDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Minister I thought we'd lost you there. It's good that you're back in the chair. Obviously we'll get to the Supplementary Order Paper but I just wanted to make sure that you're taking it through Cabinet and the Prime Minister read it and it was all kosher.Hon Andrew Little: Now now Damien.DAMIEN SMITH: That's a fair question after this week.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We are looking for a relevant point and question Mr Smith.DAMIEN SMITH: Yeah it's related.One of the things that really kind of follows on from Mr Brownlee's contribution—it is good to see that the Minister will have that conversation—is that between the Minister and his advisers this is a hugely important bill. We wanted to make sure that you're confident that everything's been done by yourself to ensure stakeholders are happy with the bill and there won't be any significant unintended consequences because it's a very complex bill. Some of the legalese in here is probably more parliamentarian than insurance-based. So there have been concerns throughout this process and I just wanted to seek the Minister's assurance that he feels this is the best that can come out.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I won't repeat the kind of 10-minute introduction I made to this this committee stage late at night because I will assume that members have worked through that. But I'll repeat some of the assurances out of it because I think it's worth the committee hearing that this bill has come out of a process led by Dame Silvia Cartwright—an inquiry that made 70 recommendations. Most of those recommendations or a good chunk of them are being put into play through passing this bill through the Parliament. The other significant thing that's changing as well in response to those recommendations are the fundamental changes to the Earthquake Commission's operating model through the development of that natural disaster response model that Mr Brownlee and I have been discussing. So those are the two big areas where we see the workings of those 70 recommendations coming into effect.I'm very confident in the thorough work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who went through this. I think they did make some useful suggestions on the way through. It's been a good process; it's been quite a long process. It's not a process that sought to do a first-principles review. We've accepted that the broad foundations of the original legislation were right—the direction was right—but they needed clarity in a number of places as Dame Silvia highlighted. Even in the drafting more challenges came to light or the need desire and—what's the word?—desirability of cementing in current practice to make sure that what has been established through convention now has a legal footing because it's the sensible way of dealing with things. So I am confident that we're passing a very good bill through this committee and I want to thank members across the Chamber for their contributions to making it so.
SpeechHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I thank the member for that question. I think the question is a valuable and good one. Essentially what we have is a social insurance scheme of a sort and when the Earthquake Commission scheme itself was originally founded the $100000 that was covered was roughly the cost of building a whole new house. We haven't gone quite that far in terms of rebalancing but we have gone a good deal further than where we were.Obviously the costs of building these days are more expensive and by setting that new cap around $300000—obviously this has already been implemented but this putting through into law is kind of cementing that on the law books and the process how it will be funded from here.Look I think the reality is that people from Christchurch and Canterbury and Kaikōura and surrounds will know that we don't always know earthquakes are going to strike so there is real merit in having a social insurance scheme that covers more broadly the country. We are on the Shaky Isles and we know that in those circumstances where we have unexpected events the Government can end up picking up the tab—as we saw with AMI.I'm looking forward to Mr Brownlee's contribution—he's got a good deal of experience in this area—but I do want to put on the record my thanks for the bipartisan way in which this bill has been approached the constructive debate on the select committee. There were improvements that came through to this House which I commented on in my initial contributions. It is appreciated.
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I just have to place on the record my ongoing admiration for my colleague Chris Penk and his ability to get up and speak incomparably well on a bill that I suspect he may not have even heard of or read until such time as right now!CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That's called giving your mate up Ms Grigg.NICOLA GRIGG: Look to the Minister thank you. It will be good to flesh this out. I think we've made it clear that we do support this bill. I more than anyone having lived through the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 am all for anything that will streamline and reduce inconsistencies within this kind of insurance law.We do agree that the Earthquake Commission (EQC) needs to be updated and upgraded and to take into consideration the public inquiry and I would also add to that the various commissions of inquiry that occurred after those quakes particularly in regard to the response.I've seen firsthand as a journalist actually working in Canterbury at the time the divisions that were created particularly with respect to people who would have been deeply impacted by the long arm of Government reaching into their lives. I would acknowledge those that lived in what we now know as the red zone—out in the eastern parts of Christchurch—who were deeply impacted by the sheer complexity and stress of the nature of making insurance claims particularly through having to deal with both EQC and with private insurers at the same time on shared driveways and in multiple complexes and multi-dwelling complexes and bodies corporate etc. etc. etc. So we do support a bill that looks to streamline that.But there are just a couple of questions that we have Minister where we did have some concern—and I can't even find them at the moment; they're so few and far between. We do think that there are some unintended consequences some unintended equities because of the nature of the insurance market and the tools that the industry uses to assess risk and we're talking about highly prone areas those that are highly prone to earthquakes—for example Canterbury; for example parts of the West Coast anywhere in and around the Southern Alps and the Alpine Fault. That group of people who live in those sorts of areas are obviously at the most risk and therefore will result in higher excesses and just the disparity to those living in areas where they are less likely to be affected by a natural disaster somewhere possibly like Auckland and as a result of that the offset of the premiums could mean that some people who are less likely to be affected could be paying up to $200 a household more for a scheme that they may not necessarily ever have to use or cash in. So I just wondered if the Minister's put any thought to that and is there any way that can be mitigated in future?
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. This call seems to be unexpected by various of us but we're now on board. I hope I've got something worth turning on the microphone for but we'll soon see!Obviously at the committee stage going through in some detail in terms of the different provisions it seems to me though helpful in the usual way for initial contributions to set the scene a little bit albeit within the context of the parts that we're examining first of all obviously starting with Part 1 and moving forward from there. So perhaps in the absence of the Minister having done so—or not the absence" of the Minister; without the Minister having done so—I might make a couple of reflections in reasonably broad terms to set the scene for the debate that will no doubt continue this afternoon for at least a little while.It's worth noting of course such an important context to these changes and obviously "natural hazards" is a pretty innocuous-sounding phenomenon—obviously we shouldn't characterise this situation lightly at all bearing in mind of course that we're talking about no less a situation than earthquakes. In this country we are sadly all too well aware of the damage that they can cause and therefore the regime that's needed to ensure that properties are properly insured obviously is of great importance. So the extent to which we are retaining the current arrangements—the EQC or Earthquake Commission—obviously represents a certain amount of continuity but of course proposals are being made and of course it's in the nature of the amendments that this bill is making that we need to consider the extent to which these will help meet the objectives of the Government.National has made its position clear that we support not only the intent but also the bill itself. No doubt as we go through this committee stage there will be opportunity to discuss the particular aspects that we think are most favourable to improving the regime and obviously any on which there are perhaps some questions—and obviously questions designed to just test the Government's thinking about the way that the regime is put together. I think nevertheless it's helpful if we have in this House as much as possible a considered view that is going to represent good continuity for the system going forward. I don't imagine anyone would regard it as helpful to have as a political football arrangements that are designed by their very nature to provide certainty in uncertain situations. What could be less certain of course than a "seismic event"? And of course that very phrase indicates in our lexicon generally something unexpected but of considerable magnitude which we face from time to time in these the Shaky Isles.So with that we'll see whether other colleagues have particular points that are more specific than that to make otherwise I'll get to my feet gladly and do so myself."
Salesa JennyNATURAL HAZARDS INSURANCE BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 6 December.Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. Members when we were last debating this bill we were debating Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2. The question is that Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Salesa JennyClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3—title commencement and the principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
Salesa JennyPart 2 Amendments to Schedule 1AA of principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 44 and the Schedule—amendments to Schedule 1AA of the principal Act. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): I move That the question be now put.