edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. Question No. 2—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest economic overview from Westpac bank released yesterday reported that the economy is performing strongly with household spending remaining firm and businesses continuing to take on staff. Economic activity has also been reinforced by the return of overseas tourists. Looking ahead Westpac's economists are forecasting economic growth to moderate to levels lower than we've seen over the past few years as forecasts of lower global growth affect our prospects and domestic demand eases. New Zealand is in a strong position in what is a challenging international environment. Unemployment is at near record lows and wages are rising faster than inflation to help deal with cost of living pressures. Our exports goods and services are what the world wants and the Government's solid financial position—with debt levels among the lowest in the world—will help us through this time. It is a challenging time for New Zealand but we are well positioned to deal with it.Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the return of overseas tourists and their impact on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday Stats New Zealand reported that the number of overseas visitors rose to more than 151000 in September—an increase of 17 percent on the previous month. While Stats New Zealand said that this was below the numbers seen in September months prior to COVID the sharp increase in overseas visitors in recent months has provided a welcome boost to our hospitality and accommodation sectors after a tough couple of years and there is still the promise of a bumper summer to come.Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector rose in October with the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index at 57.4—up 1.5 points from September and above the long-term average of 53.6. Sales and new orders remained at healthy levels while employment in the sector experienced its highest level of activity since April 2021.Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context and its impact on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF has told G20 leaders at their current meeting that the global economic outlook is gloomier than it was a month ago when it had in turn revised its forecast down for growth in 2023. It said that nations faced a number of downside risks and that weakening economic indicators pointed to challenging times ahead. New Zealand is not immune to what happens globally but we are well positioned to respond. We will continue to support New Zealanders while investing in what matters to them—their health their education and housing—and addressing long-term issues like climate change while keeping a lid on debt. This takes a balanced and sustainable approach to spending and to target it where it is supported the most. It does mean tough choices are required as we face a volatile and uncertain future.
O'Connor GregHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The committee has considered the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Davis Kelvin; O'Connor GregHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): So if those children say for 15 years have been in a home for life they're in a home for life. It's not their welfare that this is about; this is about a subsequent child who is yet to be born as a baby. So if for 15 years that parent or parents have made those changes turned their lives around and have had the support and if Oranga Tamariki still have concerns in that house then I've got no problems with them going to the Family Court. But if Oranga Tamariki has been through the process been there on the journey and supported and then there's another baby on the way then I don't see the point in going to the Family Court. I know what you're saying. It is a tough decision. But I think if they've seen the support they've seen the changes that a parent has made in their life over a period of time then let's trust those professionals. Let's trust them. There is always the fall-back position if necessary. So it is about weighing things up—I take the member's point there—but I think that with the support and the care and the wrap-around with Oranga Tamariki working with that parent or those parents there's an opportunity there just to make sure that they can get on with their lives. It's not to say that the agencies disappear and just leave them to it; they're still there. They're still there involved and supportive when they need the support. But in terms of saying that if the first child is in a home for life then if they are there for 15 years I can't see them being impacted by this. It is another baby on the way or just being born that we're talking about here.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come to report progress on this bill.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thanks very much Mr Chair. I'd like to also return to the same topic of the subsequent child but outline it by providing the interesting data that I found when we were going through the select committee process and other readings which was that New Zealand ranked 35th out of 41 developed countries in terms of child wellbeing outcomes.Now that was a shocking statistic for us to read but when the Minister has explained his rationale for providing that opportunity for that mum sometime later after having gone through a process of intense support—which I completely support—what is the balance that the Minister is weighing up when he talks about having to go through the Family Court process to ensure that all of that work that has been done by all those social services and support networks have been completed and signed off that the Family Court will have the final say? Balancing that against what has happened to previous children who have not been the victim of murder manslaughter or infanticide which is the bit that's staying in the Act but those children who have been victims of abuse and some as Karen Chhour has pointed out intense physical and mental abuse who have been removed from that family situation and put in a home for life. So they're in a home for life for 15 years while that mum finds her way back to a position where she can care for children again. What is the Minister doing to weigh up the cost to those children who we believe on this side of the House should be paramount in the consideration in this legislation? Not whether it's inconvenient for the mum later to have to go through a court system to ensure that those social services those support networks are in place that she has a stable home that she has a stable income. We all wish that for her at the other end but Minister how are you weighing up the inconvenience of going through a Family Court process to ensure that is intact against the wellbeing of those children who have been in a home for life? Thank you.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. My question is to the Minister. I'm particularly interested in the discussion that we have had in the past about the process of how the subsequent child is removed from the parent and the process that occurs around that. So first and foremost if the Minister can talk to us how the status quo operates currently and then speak to us how this change assists or alters the way that things are done with particular reference and speaking to the Supplementary Order Paper—whether in fact the assessment for safety of children will still occur whether or not a subsequent child is present or not.
O'Connor GregORANGA TAMARIKI AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.
Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Mr Speaker. A little bit of confusion there. I hope I'm in the right place at the right time. This debating chamber's been on fire this evening. It's been good. We've had robust debate. This brings us to talking tonight on climate change. As I look around the room a number of our Transport and Infrastructure Committee members are in the House. Of course a lot of work that we do is to reduce the emissions into our atmosphere. It's a very important part of what we are trying to achieve. I note today National's commitment—or U-turn should I say—to our piece of work in Government and I'm very very grateful for their support and I encourage them to keep on going further. To my colleague over there—Simeon Brown—I'm excited to continue the dialogue to look at how we might work together to achieve better outcomes in transport for our climate my friend.This bill the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill is a very good bill. Can I acknowledge the Minister responsible for this bill the Hon James Shaw who does some incredible work addressing our climate change challenges and coming up with great solutions for us moving forward as a country.This bill will extend the transition period provided for New Zealand emissions trading scheme participants with low-volume emissions liabilities related to forestry activity within which they must comply with the penalties and compliance regime introduced by the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act that was passed in 2020 I understand by this Government. At that time we were in Government with the Greens and I appreciate their support to achieve this. This extension will last until 1 January 2025. It will mitigate the risk of serious hardship to small forestry participants who would fail to surrender or repay units by the previous due date of 1 January in 2023. It's unbelievable that 2023 is just around the corner.So I just want to acknowledge that this is a good piece of legislation. To my colleagues Rachel Brooking and the Hon Eugenie Sage who leads out the Environment Committee: kia kaha tonu the work that you do on such legislation like this is about supporting key stakeholders in the area to achieve the same goal that we all aim to achieve. But also the common goal there is to reduce emissions and address our climate change agenda. So without further ado I would like to commend this bill to the House.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I'm delighted to rise to take a call on this small but mighty bill. I am reminded of that well-known children's story about the young lady called Millicent Margaret Amanda whose name was too long for her short stature so everyone changed it to Milly-Molly-Mandy. I suggest therefore that I will continue to refer to this bill as the Forestry (Low Volume) Amendment Bill" as a shortening. This is a very simple bill as has been said. For those watching at home and wondering what is going on here we have the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act of 2020. This puts a small change to that regime to mitigate the risk of hardship for small forestry participants as they get to grips with our climate change emissions programme. And as they come to the party it was interesting to see across the way our colleagues in National—the "grey men of politics"—struggle with Mr Court's bright tie and become distracted and frankly a little giggly. I can only urge our friends across the way to perhaps try to embrace the brighter side of Barkers. This admittedly is somewhat difficult for them but I'm sure if they try they can find a little diversity out there somewhere when it comes to colour. Otherwise I do commend Mr Court for at least embracing—alongside his diverse and colourful tie—the concept of climate change. It was nice to see a member of ACT affirm the possibility that we might need to protect orang-utans who apparently live in the Fijian mangroves but never mind. So a small but important bill which will help us to reduce the tide of water coming in on our beaches and assist to make it easier for small forestry owners to slip themselves into the emissions scene easily and continue to help us with our climate change response. And on that colourful note I commend this bill to the House."
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to stand to take a call on this bill—a much-anticipated call. I am going to actually read out the name—the full 17 words—of this bill the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. It's a very short and discrete bill. It actually doesn't cover Simon Court's views on climate change leading up to his member's bill on a totally different subject matter you may be surprised to know. In fact it only has as I can see three active parts one of which is there for consistency with the main change which is simply a change of date from 1 January 2023 to 1 January 2025. So essentially changing the implementation date from one date that is coming up soon to a date in two years. So quite a simple change that does make sense within the scheme that the Government's put in place with the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act and the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act.This Government is committed to a just transition in climate change and I think this is what this bill represents. There's an acknowledgment that for small forestry participants it's going to be difficult for them—due to the size of penalty that they would have otherwise had to pay and the size of the assets that they hold—to actually have this Act come into force at the original intended date. I think it is both pragmatic and fair and I think that was probably reflected in the fact that we seem to have support from around the House for this very sensible bill.I don't sit on the Environment Committee but I do commend them for their work and their collegiality and the fact that they have agreed I think by majority that this bill should go ahead in order to as I said just ensure that there is fairness when we do implement these emission trading reforms and that there is pragmatism. I think all those people who are looking to the Government's climate change initiatives should see this as a very positive move because it shows that there will be times when we need to take a step back and just allow that time for education and information to be provided to people that the emissions trading scheme affects and that this is the perfect example of that. So I commend it to the House.
Penk Chris; O'Connor GregCHRIS PENK (Senior Whip—National): Point of order Mr Speaker. I'd just like to point out that the reason National Party members had difficulty hearing each other is that Simon Court is wearing a tie that is very loud! I just want you to reflect on that.Simon Court: Responding to the point of order—DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I don't know what's been happening in the House tonight but members should just sit down and let it wash over themselves and I'll call Camilla Belich.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I'm pleased to take a call on the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. There were various comments in the Environment Committee—and I thank the previous speaker Lemauga Lydia Sosene for her comments about the collegiality of the committee—about the title of this bill. It is a mouthful but it is what it says on the tin.It is a very short bill as other speakers have canvassed—and I will be brief—about ensuring that our emissions trading scheme (ETS) which is one of the few in the world which includes forestry actually works for smaller participants who have got forestry on about 30 hectares and have liabilities of around 25000 units annually. It ensures that they are not liable for these what could be for them quite burdensome penalties at the moment. There was consultation in August by the Ministry for Primary Industries Te Uru Rākau and that highlighted the support for what the bill does which is extending the transition period until the Government has been able to work out what is a suitable penalty for the smaller forestry units.So the bill was unusual in the fact that we had a very short submission period. There was only one submission. It was out of scope. But there were some 25 submissions on that consultation exercise that Te Uru Rākau had done from across the forestry sector. So the committee was reassured by that earlier consultation and we didn't recommend any amendments because none had come through the submission process.So it's a small bill. It does benefit those small forestry owners. It does help the ETS to work better. The Green Party is happy to support the bill.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Talofa lava. Thank you for the privilege to take a short call and to speak to the bill tonight in the second reading. The Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill before the House advises the applying of a necessary approach to extend the time line of the original legislation. Can I begin by acknowledging and thanking Minister James Shaw and officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for the Environment for their hard work valuable contributions and also to acknowledge the one submitter through the public consultation process.This Government bill will change the New Zealand emissions trading scheme by amending the Climate Change Response Act 2002. The penalty was strengthened in 2020 but there were concerns that it may significantly impact small forestry participants causing serious financial hardship in some cases and those concerns persisted. The bill seeks to extend the transitional engagement period from the end of 2022 to the end of 2024 allowing more time for a new more proportionate penalty to be developed and in particular participants to be educated on the new penalty before it's implemented in 2025.This afternoon we heard in the debating chamber about the economy that was debated in the general debate session across the House with our Government Ministers Dr Megan Woods and Minister Nanaia Mahuta highlighting the Labour Government's commitment in achieving a low-carbon future for Aotearoa. Aotearoa cannot be left behind with our future exporting industries our economy and the environment. The Government has strong climate change priorities in the carbon reduction scheme and continues the credible plan to reduce our emissions in order to meet climate change targets. The Government released the first emissions reduction plan in May 2022 when I was sworn into the House as a representative and it is the road map to reduce emissions in Aotearoa for the next 15 years.This bill would amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 otherwise known as the Act to extend a transitional arrangement by the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act 2020. The transitional arrangement that is being extended allows small forestry participants from being subject to a repayment otherwise known as the three to one penalty as part of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. The extension of time will ensure that enough time is given to educate affected parties before the new penalty regime takes place on 1 January 2025.Finally I want to acknowledge the chair Eugenie Sage and members of the Environment Committee that I have had the privilege of joining this year. I thank them for their professionalism the collegiality of their work and their valuable contribution on that particular select committee. I commend this bill to the House.
Brooking Rachel; O'Connor GregRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on this bill with the very long name—as the last speaker Ian McKelvie said—the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. I would like to agree with a lot of what Ian McKelvie just said in terms of it being a fairly unusual select committee process—that is we did not hear from any submitters. We did of course hear from officials and I thank them for their time but there was no hearing and it was a very short turn-round. The first reading was on 18 October a great day and we have as a select committee made no changes to the bill. As the previous speakers have said it is in fact a very simple bill; so I'll just quickly cover what it is about.It is about the small forestry participants that we've heard about and that is how they fit into the Climate Change Response Act 2002 which of course provides for the emissions trading scheme—the ETS—which covers forestry. We've just had some explanation of that from the previous speaker. The obligations of the ETS include surrender of a credit for every tonne emitted and if you don't surrender penalties apply. So these forestry obligations are very complex; some of that was just touched on. The change in the last Parliament amended the penalty provisions and provided a deferral for the small forestry participants until 1 January 2023. You may have noticed that 1 January 2023 is fast approaching and a new penalty of sufficient proportionality for these small forestry participants has not yet been worked out. The current provisions in the Act do not seem to be appropriate for those small forestry participants so all that this bill does is extend that deferral for another two years—so that is until 1 January 2025—to give officials an opportunity to work out what the right penalty is for these small forestry participants.As Ian McKelvie mentioned just before one of the reasons why the select committee didn't receive submissions apart from one that was out of order was because of the previous consultation that happened and importantly in that previous consultation that the officials undertook there was no objection to an extension of this deferral. So with that I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call—I'm just having a mental blank—Hon Members: Andrew Bayly.DEPUTY SPEAKER: —Andrew Bayly. It's just that it was the quietest I've ever heard you stand up Mr Bayly—perhaps was the problem.
Webb Duncan; Salesa JennyDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora te Mana Whakawā. It's a real pleasure to take this call on the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill. I just want to recognise how important it is and what the Māori electoral option does. I know that my friend and colleague Willow-Jean Prime talked about people switching rolls to the Māori roll and vice versa particularly. But what it is about is about electors being able to choose how they participate in democracy whether that be switching to the Māori roll or from the Māori roll. That's at heart what this is—it's about choice when people want to make it; not in some discrete window every five years.I want to bring it home and pretty much literally because there's a constituent who lives in Rutland Street around the corner from me. In July they sent me a letter via text message. The letter reads something like this: Dear elector thank you for your recent enrolment application form. When you last had the option of registering as an elector in a Māori or general electorate you chose a Māori electorate. For the time being you must stay enrolled in that electorate as the Electoral Act only allows changes to be made during a Māori electoral option. The next Māori electoral option is scheduled to be held in 2024." So that's the letter you get. So Shar Sullivan-Todd of Rutland Street sent me that and she said "This is bullshit!!! Spence"—her son—"is stuck on the Māori electorate yet again until 2024. What the"—I mean—"WTF?" That is basically what people think of the law as it stands. So I'm very happy and my response was: "Hello how are you going? We have legislation coming to change that." attaching the press release. She said "Jeez Louise!"—she's of that age—"Spencer will be relieved." Do you know what? Spencer come 2023 31 March get out there and reenrol in the electorate that you want to be enrolled in because that's when this bill comes into force. This is an ordinary person around the corner from me who can now change rolls from—I think he wants to change from the Māori roll to the Christchurch Central electoral roll—and I'm very happy about that. So Spencer get out there do it. Every elector in the country who's on the Māori roll or Māori on a general roll now has the choice to choose how to participate. That's a great thing. It is strengthening our democracy. It's great to see cross-party consensus on this. I absolutely commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I go on may I just remind our members to—I know that the member was quoting from a response from one of his constituents but can we just use respectful language in the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time."
Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill — Third Reading
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I'm delighted to rise as a member of the Justice Committee and take a short call in support of this bill. I want to thank the Minister of Justice as she has thanked her predecessor Mr Faafoi for finally bringing to fruition something which has been long sought in successive electoral inquiries: the ability for people to switch between the Māori and general rolls according to their consciences and not to have to tolerate a wait of four to six years and a very short window of opportunity when it was open.It seems to me that in the protection of our democracy the encouragement and the inclusivity of the voting process is absolutely crucial and thus this is important. It is important to assure tangata whenua that they have that ability to vote as they see their identity. So I am very proud to support it. I'm also very proud that in an electoral change we are doing this by consensus—that is extremely important when it comes to electoral law reform.Finally I want to give a shout-out to my colleague Minister Allan because I think that's the first time I have ever heard anyone thank the officials by name who have worked on a difficult and important piece of legislation. Long may that sort of inclusivity collegiality and democratic approach to discussion continue. I commend this bill to the House.
Speaker's Ruling
Rurawhe AdrianSPEAKER'S RULINGSApplication of Sub Judice Rule—Ministerial ResponsibilitySPEAKER: Members yesterday in question time I committed to reviewing the exchange during question No. 7 to the Minister of Police regarding a reference to an alleged offence that I understand is currently before the courts and to come back to the House on the intersection of the sub judice rule and the responsibility of Ministers to answer questions.I have now had time to review the Hansard and can confirm that there is no change to the longstanding application of the sub judice rule in this House. References or analysis of the facts or seeking opinions in respect of specific cases of alleged wrongdoing that are before the courts should be avoided. I will continue to be vigilant to ensure the House doesn't embark on questioning or debating those matters—Speaker's ruling 32/3. It may well be that members and the Speaker do not know that a certain issue is before the courts when they ask their question; in some cases the Minister will know and may decide to refuse to answer questions about specific cases on that basis. Further a Minister may refuse to answer if they feel it is not in the public interest to do so but if that is the reason they should say so.In the case of question No. 7 yesterday I do not consider that the question would fall under the sub judice rule as it only tangentially refers to victims of an alleged offence as individual business owners like the business referred to. It did not ask about a specific alleged offence. The question was in respect of general Government policy on access to a programme or businesses that had been victimised once or multiple times. In fact the Minister did answer the question when it was reworded immediately following despite the member again referring to the victim of the alleged offence. I am ruling that the Minister did have responsibility to answer the question about accessing the programme when it was first asked but also that members especially after they have been informed of a case before the courts should take care when addressing broad policy issues and to do so without referring to those specific individual cases.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. DEPUTY CLERK: Petition of Niru Wijesundara requesting that the House allow bona fide competitive shooters from gun clubs to own banned semi-automatic rifles for competition.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.DEPUTY CLERK:Ministry for Pacific Peoples' annual report 2022Government response to the report of the Education and Workforce Committee on its inquiry into migrant exploitation.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.DEPUTY CLERK: Legal Services Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
O'Connor GregWEDNESDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 15 November 2022 (continued on Wednesday 16 November 2022) - Volume 764
Plant Variety Rights Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Plant Variety Rights Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 97New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33.Noes 22Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 86New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Tuesday 15 November 2022 - Volume 764
Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 4
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 274 and the tabled amendment be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Schedule 4 agreed to.Schedule 5 agreed to.Schedule 6 agreed to.Schedule 7 agreed to.Schedule 8 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment replacing Schedule 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 274 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 9 as amended agreed to.
Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.
Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 280 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Rawiri Waititi's amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 282 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper number 280 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Rawiri Waititi's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 281 and 282 are out of order as being outside the scope of this bill.Part 1 excluding clause 5 as amended agreed to.Clause 5 agreed to.
Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Environment Committee.Instruction to Environment CommitteeHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I move That the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill be reported to the House by 27 April 2023.Motion agreed to.
11. Question No. 11—ImmigrationIBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 11—Immigration11. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made regarding migrant families?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Last month I announced that we are reopening the parent visa category which was closed in 2016. Further to this I announced yesterday that Immigration New Zealand has resumed selections of expressions of interest (EOI) for parent category visas. The first round of selections was made yesterday and the EOIs will continue to be selected on a quarterly basis in date order with the oldest EOI selected first. Up to 2000 visas per year will be granted from existing expressions of interest on-hand and this has been warmly welcomed within New Zealand's migrant communities.Ibrahim Omer: How has the Government reduced barriers to accessing the parent category visa?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Not only have we resumed selections of parent category EOIs but we've also taken the chance to improve the scheme. This includes lowering the income threshold to sponsors and an additional 500 visas to be granted under a new ballot system from August of 2023 meaning that from that point up to 2500 parent category visas per year will be granted in total.Ibrahim Omer: Why is reopening this visa so important for migrant families?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Since coming into this portfolio in the middle of the year one of the most frequently heard issues that I have heard from our migrant community has been their concern about this category having been closed in 2016 and a lack of a pathway for their parents to be able to join them here in New Zealand. I'm confident that the resumption of the EOI selections and the improvements that we've made to the parent category visa will see New Zealand become an even more attractive destination for high-skilled migrants looking to settle here long term knowing that they can do so with their families.Ibrahim Omer: How does this complement the other changes made by the Government to attract skilled migrants?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Under our settings across the skilled migrant category the Green List and resident visa 2021 which has now provided residence to over 110000 people our Government is providing more and more streamlined ways for skilled migrants to settle in New Zealand than has ever been the case before. Resuming the parent category selection also continues my focus on ensuring that we treat migrants in New Zealand with respect and enable them to settle well in our country where they contribute so much.
10. Question No. 10—PoliceHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 10—Police10. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with AM Show host Ryan Bridge's comments about retail crime that There is a growing sense that nothing is being done about these things the Government isn't being hard enough on them there aren't enough consequences and they keep happening as they do so people are taking matters into their own hands" and how many businesses have had security systems installed through the Small Retailer Crime Prevention Fund?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): While I sympathise with those business owners who are the subject of these crimes being committed I don't agree with the assertion that nothing is being done. To the contrary police have made hundreds of arrests and laid thousands of charges for offending at retail businesses in Auckland and the Waikato in recent months. As I mentioned earlier of the 521 stores that have been identified as the victims of a ram raid police have successfully contacted 209 businesses. Of these 132 have had a formal assessment completed by police 93 stores have been reviewed by a contractor and 83 stores have had installations booked under way or partially or fully completed by external suppliers.Hon Mark Mitchell: How many of those 83 businesses that are booked under way or completed have actually been completed?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't have an update on the seven completed that was previously reported. I do understand that a number of businesses have had at least part of the work partially completed but I don't have numbers for that.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does it concern him that four of the five alleged perpetrators of the crime we saw in Ellerslie were 18 or under and if so would tougher policies prevent youth feeling emboldened to terrorise the public like we saw yesterday?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question: absolutely yes.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he agree that the just 11 percent of youth retail-offenders being well engaged in school has fuelled the sharp increase in ram raids and what is he doing about it?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do agree that there is a correlation—there's a question of which comes before the other. What we know is that these young people are coming from backgrounds where they're not just disengaged from education but they have a whole lot of other things going on their lives as well including the fact that analysis by the Social Wellbeing Agency suggests that around 90 percent of them could be living in a household with someone who's involved in the corrections system. If people believe that harsher penalties and more custodial sentences for these young people is going to break that cycle I think they're wrong."
9. Question No. 9—PoliceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 9—Police9. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made on investments to emergency services to keep the public safe?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Last week I announced that a new digital communications network for emergency service workers will roll out from next year marking the most significant advance in New Zealand's public safety communications in decades. New Zealand's emergency services have done an incredible job in often very challenging circumstances. This new network will give them a modern network to replace a critical communication system that doesn't currently meet the needs of our emergency services in terms of data security and resilience—the sorts of tools they need to serve New Zealand.Ginny Andersen: What services will benefit from these upgrades?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Initially the new systems will be used by Police Fire and Emergency New Zealand St John's and Wellington Free Ambulance. New Zealand's emergency services are made up of approximately 35000 staff and volunteers who attend over 5 million calls for help every year. They need to be able to respond at any time and in any part of New Zealand and for that they need accurate and timely information.Ginny Andersen: What changes will these investments make?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The new network will have two key components: a digital land mobile radio network which will allow emergency services to reliably communicate with each other and prioritised cellular services and roaming which will increase connectedness to mobile broadband for first responders especially at times when mobile networks are congested or degraded.Ginny Andersen: Why are these services necessary?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Emergency services are using and needing more real-time information as they are out and about doing their jobs. Better information for them means better outcomes for the public. We also know firsthand the significant challenges posed by earthquake and climate-related emergencies. This infrastructure investment will support our emergency services to work together more efficiently in what can be a very challenging environment.
Edmonds Barbara; Dean JacquiBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Civil Aviation Bill. It's a bill that brings and updates our civil aviation laws into the 21st century. It also strengthens our aviation laws and security rules to keep New Zealanders safe while they're in the air and on the ground. Of particular note is the strengthening of the management of the risk of drug and alcohol impairment which is something we should all support. So therefore I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Wednesday)
White Helen; Dean JacquiHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. I was the on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for this bill and it's a piece of work which really is all about the overarching reboot of an aviation law that suits our new time.One of those pieces of work was about just culture" which has been talked about by another member and that was one that really impressed me because I'd worked in the industry as a lawyer and I had seen the introduction of "just culture" at Air New Zealand and it had been a really effective tool but a gnarly one—quite difficult. We came across the same problem in this bill of the words of the bill not quite matching what we were intending. We got it right I think. That was really with the help of submitters—we had some fantastic submitters on this bill. We had submitters who told us about "just culture". We had submitters who told us about things like helicopters—and I definitely reject the idea that those people are just grasping or are worried about envy they are worried obviously about their own communities. Some of those things fitted within the scheme of the bill; some will need to be pursued outside of it.Another one that came up was fatigue. It was not within the scope of the bill but it is something that I will definitely take away from the process and consider in this industry. But what we did do was fix a lot of problems that were national problems. We have a really beautiful piece of work here and I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Nicola Grigg—five minutes."
Ngobi TerisaTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. As a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee it's a pleasure to take just a short call to make a contribution to the Civil Aviation Bill in its second reading. Can I also lend my voice and say thank you to those who submitted to us—really informative presentations—and as well to the officials who guided us through. I also agree with Mr Brown who spoke earlier around this being a really collegial and constructive select committee process.As others have said in essence this bill brings our civil aviation laws into the 21st century. It's about simplifying and modernising civil aviation law and about enhancing our safety our security and as others have said the economic regulation of the civil aviation system.This bill replaces the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and also the Airport Authorities Act 1966 and brings these together to have just one modernised civil aviation system.As my colleagues have also said this bill will also set out the responsibilities for the operation of new and emerging technologies. It also provides new intervention powers specifically regarding the misuse of remotely piloted aircrafts. It gives the Minister of Transport the ability to make rules where national security considerations may apply. It also empowers the commercial aviation sector when managing the risk of drug and alcohol impairment which is really critical. This makes clear the powers protections and tools available to aviation security officers. It clarifies our just culture and also ensures that we are meeting the obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organisation Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for international aviation. These changes are part of the bigger plan Labour has to reconnect Aotearoa New Zealand with the rest of the world and it supports the aviation sector and for that reason I commend this bill to the House.