edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill at its first reading. It is a bill which we come to knowing that it is a response to an absolute tragedy and my thoughts are also with the family and friends of 19-year-old Mason Pendrous who tragically passed away and was not found for a number of weeks. That is a tragic circumstance which should never have happened and I am pleased that Parliament is coming here together today to make it clear that this is something which we do not want to see happen again by the passing of this legislation.I do just want to say that this is something which I think is a piece of legislation which makes sense. It's something which we in the National Party will be supporting through its first reading to the select committee to allow for this interim code of practice to be set up and then a new code of practice to be set up which will essentially mean that domestic students will be given the same opportunities and the same protections I guess as international students when they are living in a hostel or a student accommodation at a university or tertiary institution.The National Party does have a number of questions that we will be asking during the select committee stage around the costs that this will have. I do note the comments that have been made by the Minister of Education and by other members on the other side around the costs that this may have and how cost should not be an impediment and I do say that costs should not be an impediment when it comes to wellbeing but it is certainly something which as a select committee in this Parliament we do need to understand. I note that Treasury didn't have the time required prior to this legislation coming to the House to be able to assess those costs but the select committee will give us that opportunity to understand that so that we are able to ensure that students will be able to have the care that they need and any costs are able to be managed. I do acknowledge the Minister's very clear statement that he made to any tertiary institutions that this is something which should not be increasing costs and I do hope that that is something which is carried out.So look we in the National Party will be supporting this. I look forward to the submissions at that select committee and the quick progress that this will make so that students next year as they enter university—many for the first time—have the protections and that these hostels are taking responsibility for these young people at a very vulnerable stage in their life. Thank you very much Mr Speaker.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 30 March 2020.Motion agreed to.
New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading
Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much. I rise to speak to the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill at its first reading. As others have said we support this bill. The superannuation arrangements have been antiquated and needed tidying up. An omnibus bill of this kind pulls together quite a lot of the different threads that are anachronistic unfair and not fit for modern purpose—so it makes perfect sense to us to do that.I think the modernising is one thing; there are some issues that we have around non-qualified partners. The option is going to be closed as of 1 July next year if this bill passes—and I think it probably will. It'll essentially make the application for New Zealand super and the veterans pension as well a lot more straightforward and far easier really than it is currently.But at subsequent readings perhaps I'll talk further about the non-qualified partner and the link with international pensions which as every electorate MP knows is a thorny and vexed issue and one gets a lot of people coming into one's electorate office and talking about that.So there will be I think universal approval of the measures in this bill which is why I commend it to the House.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Faakalofa lahi atu e Te Mana Whakawā. It's absolutely a privilege to speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I just want to before I go on acknowledge the last two speakers on the other side. They do support this bill but obviously they are constantly negative towards the Government and have no new ideas and they have to bring something negative to contribute to this bill.But let me get on to this bill. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the veterans and all the pensioners out there and all the superannuitants. Thank you for your services to New Zealand. Recently I came back from overseas and I am proud to call this place home where we look after everybody. In terms of servicemen and servicewomen and seniors I just wanted to say thank you very much. And on that note I want to say to my mother who's 83 who attends the Tongan Methodist Church in Onehunga and all the senior people in the Onehunga church thank you for their comments to my hairdresser that I need to straighten my hair. Thank you for those comments. I have noted it but nothing will happen to my hair in terms of straightening.I just want to remind the House in terms of this bill what it does is that it amends the following legislation: it amends the New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Act of 2001 the Veterans' Support Act of 2014 the Income Tax Act 2007 and the Tax Administration Act 1994. As members and people who constantly watch us here on Parliament know the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act of 2001 sets up the criteria and entitlement for the superannuation and the veterans pension. I just want to end my contribution on missionary work and volunteer services abroad.I want to acknowledge the intelligence of the changes made by this bill and that it actually acknowledges volunteerism overseas the work of groups like the Volunteer Service Abroad—VSA New Zealand—and also the missionaries in terms of their faith-based work that their contributing to globally. On that note I commend this bill to the House. Malo.
Hayes JoanneJO HAYES (National): Madam Speaker kia ora. I'm pleased to take a short call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. As you've heard National will be supporting this bill through to its first reading.I just want to make a brief comment around the area where it says that it will be simpler to apply for New Zealand super and veterans pension. I just want to make a comment that I'm pleased that this particular point is in the bill. I know when my father went on to superannuation he faced issues that we had to sit down and work with him through the process of actually applying for superannuation. So I'm pleased to see that particular point in the bill.A lot of the points in this bill have been already traversed today and really at the end of the day I just want to concur with my colleague Simon O'Connor around the rushing of the bill. We've had issues of other social service bills in here that have had to come back. I just hope that this doesn't happen with this bill and that it is robust enough to see the traverse of time as it is shepherded through the House. So without any further ado I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): That previous speaker Simon O'Connor found everything positive and he still managed to end on a low note—he still managed doom and gloom. With a name like O'Connor as someone who's been privileged to come and live in New Zealand—come from Ireland—he should be so much more positive about this wonderful land in which he lives. And just a continuation of the wonderful land we live in made more wonderful by having a Labour-led Government at the moment too. When I look at this legislation this Labour-led coalition Government—is it a coalition Government? Mr Mark and I will take a lesson later on.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Get to the bill.GREG O'CONNOR: But Madam Speaker can I just say looking at this bill that so much of the modern world we live in is encompassed in here. It's a modernisation. Much of what needs fixing is a reflection of the changes and the changing work is one of them. This is legislation that really was—the existing bill—around when you had one partner almost invariably the male who worked. The partner usually the wife didn't work and when the male retired the income or the pension was spread around the non-qualifying or qualifying partner. So again reflecting the change in that situation and certainly part of the change that it may well be that when you reach that stage now a new partner is involved anyway. Again part of the change in the demographic change in modern society.Another thing that this addresses too is overseas pensions. I'm of a generation that travelled overseas and worked overseas in their youth. In fact I have to say I was going through my personal property recently. I found my old Government superannuation number from the UK. I must go back and—my national security number. I wonder whether actually I'm entitled to any pension over there at some stage. I do seem to recall paying quite a bit of tax in my youth. But again a reflection of where there is likely to be some sort of income—in fact we've had a lot of immigration—coming from superannuation entitlements from other parts of the world. Also even this relating to the veterans: the fact that we're now down to 6800 veterans now just shows that with 6800 how much lower in that so much of our legislation did have to take into account the fact that we had so many returned servicemen and women.So I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending this to the House. It is a very modernising piece of legislation which reflects the new New Zealand in which we are privileged to live.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh thank you very much Madam Speaker. Look a good bill National supports it and I think it's important to get it into select committee. It'll be an opportunity—and I think particularly in this area—for the public both those with opinions and those who are expert and of course those who combine both to come in and tease this out.I think as colleagues have discussed there's some very good aspects here: be more individualised rather than worrying about someone's wider relationships will simplify the system. That's a positive. I think broadening the definition of those serving overseas is positive but I suppose the only thing I signal—and while I think it's positive obviously; in support—is that the select committee has the time to process this not because I think there's anything wrong but whenever you begin tweaking the likes of superannuation there are sometimes fishhooks that haven't been thought about. I've raised it before; we've unfortunately seen in this House in the last 18 or so months pretty much all the social services - related legislation has been rushed in some shape or form and has led to a series of problems. So it's just my hope that the committee will well work on this find out any of the fishhooks and find it in their heart to take that policy of superannuation from National and increase it to 67.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of this bill and to speak in support of our superannuation policy which I think has really demonstrated the benefits that there are to having universal policies that provide security of income to all New Zealanders over the age of 65. We have one of the lowest rates of elder poverty in the world and I do believe that is because of our universal superannuation policy.Although people are talking about the financial sustainability of it I think it is really important that we recognise that not all people in New Zealand are equally benefiting from being able to work longer in life and living longer in life. There are some groups that are more likely to die young and we need to change that; but because of that if we are to ensure that all New Zealanders benefit from this it actually is quite important that we retain the age that we have. The way that we finance that is when people continue working past the age of 65 if they have a lot of resources they continue to contribute to superannuation through progressive taxation. That is how you finance universal benefits that benefit everyone in New Zealand and reduce poverty. Someday I would like to see those sorts of universal policies extended to other New Zealanders especially children.These changes are all very sensible and fair. Many of the other speakers here in the House have referred to them: closing the non-qualified partner provision to new applicants—that makes sense. Removing the spousal deduction—that's only fair. I know it's been raised by quite a few people particularly women who unfairly have had their superannuation reduced because of a relationship with a partner who received superannuation from overseas. Just recognising that women and men are independent and so our superannuation benefits should probably be treated as such and that's really important for ensuring the financial independence of women continuing in their elder years.Increasing the rate of benefit of a non-qualified partner for those who are grandfathered when their qualifying partner enters residential care; treating people who work overseas for a secular charitable organisation equitably with missionaries when calculating the length of their residency and a variety of other changes which the Green Party absolutely supports. But especially in this House I think bringing it back to the big picture what New Zealand's superannuation policy demonstrates is that universal policies work and they are fair. They bring benefits to all New Zealanders and that is something that this Government absolutely champions.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I too stand in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. As you have heard the National Party is supporting this legislation because it does tidy up and modernise the existing superannuation Act.There are a couple of items in there that I find of particular interest and one of those is about the places of residence. The list of places of residence is going to be expanded to include mobile homes. I note that at the end of next month once again the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association will be bringing a team to the West Coast and I know that some of those people have a motorhome as alternative living arrangements but so too do some make them their permanent homes. So those places of residence will be included as part of this package.The other item in this bill that is going to be of interest and probably received very well by members of the public is for those that are receiving overseas pensions where they have made both a mandatory and a voluntary contribution to their scheme offshore. Now this bill will make sure that the mandatory component of their overseas contribution will be deducted from New Zealand super but the voluntary contribution will not be. I'm sure that will come as good news for a lot of those people.Back in 2017 there was quite a conversation that the National Party had with New Zealand residents about the raising of New Zealand's super age and the proposal was 67 in 20 years. As we heard from the previous speaker Ginny Andersen some of the numbers associated with superannuation going forward are quite eye-watering. For instance as mentioned by the year 2037-38 we can expect super to increase—from today being $15 billion—to $43 billion. That is quite an eye-watering number. In fact in the last 12 months New Zealand super applications reached 60000. So we can see that in the future this is going to be a huge impost on the existing taxpayers in New Zealand.I'm on the select committee. I know there will be a lot of detail to work through during that process and I look forward to that and commend the bill to the House.
Hipkins ChrisTHURSDAY 17 OCTOBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): After oral questions on Tuesday 22 October there'll be a debate celebrating the centenary of women winning the right to stand for election to Parliament. Legislation to be considered next week will include the third readings of the Corrections Amendment Bill the Legislation Bill and the Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Bill; remaining stages of the three regulatory systems bills; and the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. On Thursday 24 October Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka or the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill will receive its third reading. Wednesday 23 October is a members' day when the committee stage of the End of Life Choice Bill will resume.
Wednesday 16 October 2019 - Volume 741
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 386 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 385 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 35 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 38A be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 42 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Corrections Amendment Bill with amendment the Legislation Bill with amendment and divided into two bills and the Statutes Amendment Bill with amendment.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Legislation Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 393 in the name of the Hon David Parker be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 9 Schedules 1 to 6 and Clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.The committee divided the bill into the Legislation Bill and the Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 394.Bills to be reported with amendment presently.
Corrections Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 in the name of the Hon Kelvin Davis to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 in the name of the Hon Kelvin Davis to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 in the name of the Hon Kelvin Davis and the following amendment in his name to Part 1 be agreed to:in clause 27 in proposed new clause 146 replace 92A(4)" with "92C(4)". Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to."
Corrections Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
12. Question No. 12—Pacific PeoplesANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific PeoplesQuestion No. 12—Pacific Peoples12. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What progress has been made regarding opportunities for Pacific people in the regions?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Last week I announced that four providers had been selected by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to deliver the Tupu Aotearoa programme in the Hawke's Bay Southland and Otago regions. The regional initiative of Tupu Aotearoa is about supporting Pacific peoples aged 15 to 39 years into employment education and training pathways so that they can build confidence for their future connect up with employers or educational providers support themselves and their families and reach their fullest potential in the regional communities they live in.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Which providers have been selected to deliver services in the Hawke's Bay Southland and Otago regions?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: This is more good news. In the Hawke's Bay region we have the SENZ Charitable Trust and the Kings Force Health Charitable Trust. For Otago we have the Oamaru Pacific Island Community Group and the Pacific Trust Otago; and finally the Pacific Trust Otago has been selected to deliver services in Southland.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What other regions in New Zealand are currently benefiting from the Tupu Aotearoa programme?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: In July this year I announced that seven providers had been selected to deliver the Tupu Aotearoa programme which covers the greater Waikato Manawatū Whanganui and Bay of Plenty regions. The new providers I announced last week complete the list of providers that will deliver the regional Tupu Aotearoa programme. This regional initiative wouldn't have been possible without the support of Minister Shane Jones First Citizen of the Regions" and the "Father of the Provincial Growth Fund"."
11. Question No. 11—ImmigrationHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 11—Immigration11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his decision to grant residency to a person with six convictions for driving with excess breath alcohol and two convictions for driving without a licence?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: On behalf of the Minister of Immigration yes. Hon Mark Mitchell: Was the Minister required to grant a recidivist drunk-driver residency?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Minister considered the case on its merits. The individual concerned was already staying in New Zealand indefinitely. Hon Mark Mitchell: Was the Minister required to grant a recidivist drunk-driver residency? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It was an exercise of the Minister's discretion.Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it acceptable that his excuse for granting a recidivist drunk-driver residency was to save on paperwork?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think there are other advantages to it but I think that is a legitimate answer. The individual concerned was granted by the Hon Michael Woodhouse a three-year renewable on an ongoing basis work visa. In fact many of the complaints that the Opposition have made about the case—that the individual was given the keys to the kingdom—were in fact a reflection of when the person gained a protected status they gained access to the welfare system they gained access to the health system and to the education system. Those things happened not when the person was given residency but when they became a protected person. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was it not a fact that it was the National Party that gave this man access to this country in a way where he could never be sent out of this country again? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't actually have responsibility for decisions made by the previous Government. Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the National—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! I won't take questions off because I think the Leader of the Opposition's probably had not a good week from me this week but we'll just have a bit of quiet. Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the National Minister of Immigration grant residency to a recidivist drunk-driver? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member wasn't listening to my earlier answer. The previous National Minister of Immigration Michael Woodhouse gave a person a three-year work visa that had renewal rights effectively in perpetuity.
10. Question No. 10—PoliceBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 10—Police10. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Was the Prime Minister correct yesterday when she said her Government would make the 1800 target of new police this term and if so on current projections in what month is that likely to occur?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Of course the Prime Minister was correct. We're on track to deliver 1800 new police next month. Brett Hudson: What will the total number of recruits be that police need to train to ensure the 1800 target of new police is made in light of his answer to written questions which said the 1800 target accounts for attrition?Hon STUART NASH: We need about 1800 new recruits to meet a figure of 1800 new police.Brett Hudson: Did he give the Prime Minister information which led her to categorically claim yesterday that the Government would make the 1800 target of new police this term and if so what was that advice? Hon STUART NASH: The Prime Minister is well aware that we are going to meet the 1800 new police target next month.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister of Police confirm that what the Government in this coalition agreement promised was adding 1800 new police officers over three years—that means newly trained and that's the target we're going to meet very shortly?Hon STUART NASH: I can indeed confirm that and I will also confirm that we've done it in under three years—in fact just over two years.Brett Hudson: Does the Minister stand by his response to a written question which confirmed that the measurement of the 1800 new police includes attrition and is currently running at well under 900?Hon STUART NASH: Attrition is about 3.8 percent and Police is one of the lowest in the State sector.
6. Question No. 6—EducationMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to reduce schooling costs to New Zealand families?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday Parliament passed the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill that supports the implementation of the school donations scheme to start at the beginning of next year. This means that for decile 1 to 7 schools who choose to take part in the scheme they will receive up to an extra $150 per student in funding if they do not ask parents directly for donations. This will take financial pressure off a large number of New Zealand families who'd like to give a donation to their school but struggle to do so. The scheme will also take pressure off schools themselves who ask parents and communities for donations but know that it will be difficult for them to pay.Marja Lubeck: What reports has he seen on the schools who have already decided to take up the funding so that they don't have to ask parents for donations?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen a recent report from one school who says that the funding is going to alleviate a lot of pressure for him and his staff for his kura of just over 100 students. He says that For us that's $15000 every year and that goes a long way in our neck of the woods … It will take a lot of financial pressure off the school off me to find funds to be able to do things that we want to do [for the] children." This is a scheme that's going to make a huge difference for many schools who were getting little in donations. It will give them opportunities to put more resources into their kids.Marja Lubeck: What other reports has he seen from principals who have taken up the $150 per student funding?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen a recent media comment from the principal of Hora Hora primary school Pat Newman who says that "he's grateful for the $60000 his school of 400 students will receive". He said that he's "not a person who always agrees with government decisions" but he said "a huge thank you to the Government for this [funding]".Marja Lubeck: Have the rules changed around payments by parents of students in State and State-integrated schools generally?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. In fact those rules have not changed and in fact I have a copy of the 2013 circular issued under the previous Government that restates that section 3 of the Education Act of 1989 provides for the free right to enrolment and free education. Donation payments are entirely voluntary. Boards of trustees can only demand payment for non-curriculum things where there has been a clear agreement to accept the good or service in question. Parents have always contributed to their schools and their school communities in various ways including the giving of their own time and through fund-raising activities. For people to say that this would suddenly end altogether including for those schools who don't want to go into the scheme is simply scaremongering negative and confusing for schools."
4. Question No. 4—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker fakaalofa lahi atu. Overnight the IMF released its latest World Economic Outlook showing New Zealand's economic growth outlook remains steady against the backdrop of further slowing global growth. New Zealand's economy is forecast to grow 2.5 percent in 2019 rising to 2.7 percent in 2020—well above other advanced economies. Unemployment is expected to remain close to its current level and below other countries such as Australia and Canada. Dr Duncan Webb: What does the IMF say about the global context for the New Zealand economy? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The IMF report shows a reduced global growth forecast over the next two years as issues like the US - China trade war and Brexit take hold. The IMF forecasts advanced economies to grow by 1.7 percent across both years which is down from six months ago. According to the IMF New Zealand is forecast to grow faster in 2019 and 2020 than Australia the UK Canada the US Japan the EU and the average across all advanced economies. It is always refreshing to see an international perspective on the New Zealand economy which can cut through some of the political negativity and see the solid fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the cost of living in the New Zealand economy? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This morning Statistics New Zealand released Consumers Price Index inflation data for the September quarter. It showed annual inflation of 1.5 percent down from 1.7 percent in June. This follows Statistics New Zealand figures showing average wages rising above 4 percent over the last year. This shows that working New Zealanders are taking home more pay in their back pockets and are benefiting from higher wage growth and low inflation under the coalition Government.Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware the IMF has also predicted that unemployment would increase in New Zealand next year and if so does he think that that means more New Zealanders will join the 13500 that have voted with their feet and left to go to Australia?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Unemployment in New Zealand is at an 11-year low. It is extraordinary just how low unemployment is in this country. That shows the dedication of a Government devoted to raising wages lowering unemployment and cleaning up the mess of years of economic neglect by that previous Government.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I stand too to speak to the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill in its third and final reading tonight. For me this is a very sad day and I'm going to use my short contribution to apologise to the thousands of people who go whitebaiting to the hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy eating whitebait. It seems that we have been given a transitional grace period of two years but after that I believe all bets are off and there will be a ban in rivers and especially on the West Coast adding to the 61 that are already closed over there.I am apologising also that we could not have the scientific evidence that we introduced into this debate considered. I'm sorry we could not get the Government to consider the quantitative data that we also introduced into this debate. I'm sorry to all the people who joined the West Coast Whitebaiters Association to add their voice in opposition to this bill because they believed that their experience and their local knowledge would've actually made a difference to this outcome. For instance there's been four days in the last month where you've been able to go whitebaiting because the weather is not suitable. I'm sorry some of our rural property owners are going to lose more of their private property rights and I'm sorry we couldn't get this Government to listen to reason. We could not get them to listen to the science and we could not get them to listen to the facts. One fact is that a Canterbury fish biologist who's been studying whitebait for 15 years said to us there is no clear evidence that whitebait are on the decline and it doesn't matter how much whitebait you catch; it will make no difference to the final population.This is a sad day and I'm sorry this bill is passing tonight.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): I've got a very short contribution to make. We oppose this bill. We oppose this bill and we oppose this bill on a number of reasons. But let's talk about whitebait—let's talk about whitebait.The Greens in their ideology they're against recreational fishers eelers and hunters. That's pretty obvious. But in principle I've got to say I oppose any bill that gives Minister Eugenie Sage the ability to ban. I oppose that in principle. I've got to oppose it. She loves banning it—she loves banning. I don't want to give her in any bill power to ban something. But in that case it gives her the ability to ban. But you know what? Wait a few weeks and a Labour Minister will overturn it. So there you go.Very little consultation. The previous speaker Jo Luxton spoke about the right to take it to a judicial review. That costs money so we'd rather that the right to appeal the right to consult is written into the bill. So we took these Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) forward and got opposed. New Zealand First could have supported our sensible SOPs but they toed the line got in behind the coalition Government and went along with the Green Party line.There are more sensible ways to protect our fisheries. Accordingly we don't support the bill.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill.I do want to begin by acknowledging the Government backbenders—backbenchers. Slow down Matthew slow down say the right things: the Government backbenchers. In fairness they came into Parliament to make a difference and they came into Parliament to pass law. I feel for them: their first term they want to pass law make a difference and they've been told to take their time filibuster their own bills because their executive has run out of ideas. What's worse over the last two months or three months they weren't even allowed to filibuster because what we experienced was a gaggle of Ministers in here all taking up the opportunity to seize the Government backbenchers' calls to filibuster. But now the executive has run out of steam and they're not even bothering to turn up themselves to filibuster and they've thrown a few bones to the Government backbenchers.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There's a fair bit of that going on. And after 60 seconds at least say whitebait".MATT DOOCEY: Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Go on.MATT DOOCEY: I would like to help. I would like to extend an offer of support to the Government in helping pass this bill by resuming my seat very promptly. I'd encourage them to do the same.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Jo Luxton."
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm very happy to take a call on the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill at third reading. I would just like to start by pointing out it's always interesting to listen to Minister Sage especially tonight when in her contribution she spoke about the National Party scaremongering about whitebaiting and in her famous last words said Trust us we'll consult before we act." It would have been nice if she had actually taken that advice in this case because here was the perfect opportunity for her to in fact consult—because part of the process that really fell down right at the beginning was the consultation process. We ended up with a bill that has taken a year. It's a minor technical fix-up bill that has taken a good part of a year to get to third reading and if that Minister had consulted at the very beginning that process would have taken a lot longer. We spent a huge amount of time in the Environment Committee toing and froing and listening to submissions when if in fact consultation had been done right at the first instance we wouldn't have been put in that position. In fact Fish & Game would have been able to have had their say right at the beginning and the huge process that we went through toing and froing over one particular clause that we ended up taking out after months and months of debate would have been avoided. So if Eugenie Sage had only taken her own advice—"Trust us we'll consult."—this process wouldn't have been so fraught. It has been well traversed—this bill is about introducing enhanced tools so that fisheries for our freshwater fish can be more greatly protected. There are a lot of freshwater fish that are endangered; 75 percent were at risk of extinction and that was in 2013 and 50 percent of them are found nowhere else in the world. That is due to a loss of habitat and degradation of habitat and we are all in agreement that something needs to be done about that. But the reason that we are not supporting this bill is because we do not believe that it strikes a good balance in a number of cases.Now it's been well traversed already about the whitebait argument so I'm not going to go into that. I am going to talk however about the property rights that we have a problem with and that we do not feel there has been a good balance struck between. Now Mr Duncan Webb did talk about the fact that there is the possibility of court action but "At what expense?" is the question that we put up. We actually put up an amendment to say there actually needs to be greater consultation with landowners when it comes to identifying spawning sites. That was voted down very unfortunately and that means that in this instance we are unable to vote for the bill because it doesn't strike a good balance between protecting our indigenous fish and looking after the landowner's rights and so we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well thank you Mr Speaker. It's deeply ironic to have the chair of the Environment Committee floundering around talking about banning whitebait. He was trying to fill his 10 minutes as adroitly as he could but actually he was really beginning to stretch credibility when he talks about a Minister the Minister of Conservation who has brought to the House a bill that she refers to as being minor and technical which as became so immediately obvious and apparent at select committee there was nothing minor or technical about. It was a piece of legislation that was designed initially wrapped up in some kind of conservation camouflage to be protecting our indigenous fish species when actually all it was about in reality was a none-too-subtle attempt to ban whitebaiting and that became very clear as we worked our way through the bill. My colleagues in the National Party team on the Environment Committee put forward a number of I thought really good sensible practical solutions that the Government could have adopted if they had wanted to if they been of a mood to it but no such is the ideological drive of Minister Sage—and we've seen her humiliated actually in recent weeks because of her stubborn relentless determination to stick to ideological political positions on matters relating to her other portfolios—that it doesn't come as a surprise that the same thing should happen with this bill. And so it's been a slippery little bill from the very beginning and it's a bill that we've found—initially we tried to find a way to support it but upon closer inspection and trying very hard to work our way through it we found a Government that was stubborn obstinate and not willing to compromise at all. We oppose this bill.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. I would like to start by echoing as some other members have congratulations for those successful candidates in the recent local body elections in particular the three mayors whose districts cover part of my Waikato electorate: Allan Sanson Mayor for Waikato re-elected; Jim Mylchreest Mayor for Waipā re-elected unopposed; and the new mayor for the Matamata-Piako district Ash Tanner. I'd also just like to take a moment to thank Mayor Jan Barnes for her service to Matamata-Piako as well.Look in relation to this bill—this was a National bill that was put forward had its first reading went to select committee had its second reading in the previous Government but we've seen now a significant Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) put forward by the current Minister which has changed this bill drastically. Now the previous bill provided greater flexibility and as Mr Yule pointed out as well it actually gave the ability for the Local Government Commission to influence change to assist where necessary. I think the previous member's comments around the constant threat of amalgamation hanging over and being a constraint on the ability to conduct business for councils was a somewhat exaggerated position. I don't suspect that's actually the case that these organisations are constantly concerned that one day they will receive a phone call that amalgamation is happening imminently.However though the reality was that it was about trying to provide greater flexibility allowing or facilitating change through that Local Government Commission. So instead of a new bill being put forward as this Government seems to be developing a trend of doing they are putting forward a significant SOP at the committee of the whole House stage bypassing that select committee process altogether and actually just assuming they know best and will ram it through without consultation. We've seen that on a number of pieces of legislation under this Government actually which is a worrying concern.Jan Logie: Ha ha!TIM VAN DE MOLEN: And we hear laughter from members of the Government as they realise that this is a process that isn't quite appropriate but they're still using it anyway. Regardless of that it is disappointing to see some of these changes that have been made to what was a good bill that we did support at the first and second reading but are now unable to support any more.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Speaker. This is of course a bill that this side of the House started back in June 2016. Its second reading was in June 2017 and here we are tonight debating one rather large Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 323 from the new Government. Whereas in our day we were seeking to give local authorities flexibility in how they looked at and combined resources and infrastructure networks across regions and towns making sure that it was a flexible arrangement giving greater use of the possibility of council-controlled organisations to councils and so on what we've got here now is a change at the committee stage by this Government—and we're on to our last and final reading here tonight—reversing some of those changes.I'd like to back up the eloquent words of my colleague Lawrence Yule around what it does to the Local Government Commission. Now many of us who've had a track record in local government would know quite well the role of the Local Government Commission and the ways and the means in which it has been around to assist people sometimes to assist local authorities with what I'll call loosely healthy tension. When there has been tension when there has been roles that are not clarified or issues that need a little bit of mediation the Local Government Commission has had a very distinct role and what we have here tonight is the Government unpacking it—I think you used the word my colleague Lawrence Yule gutting" what the Local Government Commission does and is. So down from three commissioners to one—goodness knows what that one person's going to do because it's actually not clear. If the Government is going to do this what is the next role for the Local Government Commission? It is unclear. What is going to be the replacement? We would like to know on this side of the House and I think that local government land in New Zealand and New Zealanders would like to know as well. If you're taking away the proactive role of the Local Government Commission then what is it that you want to do next? What's the future reform? There is a vacuum. We don't think that's good leadership. It's not good governance and the local government sector is crying out for good governance.We oppose this bill for very practical reasons even though the genesis started with us. Thank you."