edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Leary Ingrid; Dean JacquiINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Speaker. I have some sympathy for people at home who may be confused by the contributions coming from the National Party because on the one hand they're saying that there is no market failure and that the airlines and others have access to enough fuel because of the good behaviours and the responsible behaviours of the fuel companies and on the other hand they're supporting the bill and saying that fuel resilience is a good idea. So I'm not quite sure where they stand on it but what I can say that we have experienced situations where our fuel resilience has been tested and the previous member Barbara Kuriger just referred to it. Last month there were stories on Radio New Zealand about fuel potentially running out for airlines because there was contamination and there were people like Cath O'Brien from the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand who were saying that the Government needs to work with the industry to sit down and make some rules about fuel resilience so that there is a guaranteed backstop and we won't run out of fuel. Also in December I remember people were really worried that Christmas might be cancelled because the same thing happened. There was contaminated fuel and the travel association president Brent Thomas made similar noises: Please let's have a proper plan around fuel resilience."So people can't say that the fuel sector doesn't need to have that when either they need to or they don't. You either need resilience or you don't need it and in my view failing to plan is planning to fail.What this bill does is it basically provides a flexible plan which is responsive. It means that decisions can be made by the Commerce Commission that respond to what is happening in the environment and by the triggering events but that is also clear enough to know that there will be enough fuel available. So if the people listening are confused I think we need to know: do we need resilience? If we do then let's support the bill; if we don't then don't. I can't tell what the National Party wants to do because they've got a bob both ways. I commend this bill to the House. Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee."
Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora. It's my pleasure to take this split call on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. We pass a lot of legislation through this House but few things are as important as increasing the wellbeing of our tamariki and in particular lifting them out of poverty. And this bill does just that; it removes that discriminatory policy that withheld child support payments from parents receiving a sole parent rate of main benefit and their children. In practice this will mean that child support will be passed on to parents receiving the sole parent rate of main benefit and be treated as income against their benefit. You know child support pass on rates—it's going to benefit around 41550 sole parent families. They'll be better off as a result of this policy. It will raise the median weekly income about $20 per week after abatement of the benefit and other assistance and this will lift around about 14000 more children out of poverty.This bill continues this Government's work to create a fairer welfare system that upholds people's dignity. And that's what this Government is about; easing the cost of living and raising our tamariki out of poverty. The problem around you know beneficiaries is they're on that sole parent rate of benefit and they do not receive that child support which differs from other beneficiaries who do which is discriminatory—plain discriminatory. And this is why we need this bill. Passing on the child support was recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group back in 2009 and this change will build on earlier policy changes made in 2020 to remove the financial penalty for sole parent beneficiaries who do not name the other parent of their child and apply for child support which was also recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group back in 2019. So this is a good thing and it complements the other ranges of initiatives that this Government is doing. You know we're focused on the bread and butter issues and the things that matter most to New Zealanders like tackling the cost of living. And this change will also ensure that over 41000 sole parent families will have an average of $47 more in their pockets per week with a median gain of around about $20 per week after their abatement of income-tested and financial assistance. So it is extremely important that this legislation is passed. It adds to our overall efforts into easing the cost of living and for the people that are doing it tough out there.So as the Minister stated earlier this bill is about righting a wrong in our welfare system that for many years has seen vulnerable New Zealanders and their children worse off. And I want to finish by thanking the Social Services and Community Committee for their hard work and careful consideration of this bill and the submitters who took the time to give their views on this important bit of legislation. As mentioned earlier this bill is a complex one and the work of the committee has ensured that this bill is as robust as possible. So I commend this bill to the House.
Simmonds Penny; O'Connor GregPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill in this its third reading. National will support this bill but it's very pragmatic support and it's certainly not without reservations. A number of those reservations have been expressed already by my colleagues but I do note that in particular this bill contains many aspects from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report that was released back on 3 May 2009—so that's just over four years ago. I note that one of the speakers from the Government side spoke absolutely passionately about how the reason for urgency behind this bill was it was going to lift 14000 children out of poverty. I would have thought that that would have been a very good reason to have been looking at this bill four years ago not under urgency now after a frustrating and truncated process. If there was genuine urgency to it surely four years ago would have been a good time to be exercising that urgency. Another contextual element of this bill was discussed by my colleague the Hon Louise Upston when she said that there had been a 21 percent increase in sole parent support since Labour had come into Government. When that reads as one in five children in a benefit-dependent home again we would have thought that maybe some urgency would also be given to ensuring that those on benefits were given that parallel support to get off benefits because we know that benefit dependency is not a successful outcome for these children. And so urgency four years ago might have been good—if indeed it is that urgent to contribute obviously to assisting 14000 children out of poverty—but equally some parallel action to assist people off benefit so that one in five children are not being raised in a benefit-dependent home. The Minister also talked about how necessary this was in this time of high inflation and cost of living crisis and that speaks of plugging holes and not treating the cause. Again we would have expected to see parallel action to stem inflation and to stem the cost of living crisis rather than having to constantly pour money into plugging holes. So it does feel like a lot of the reasons behind this legislation and the reasons behind the urgency have come about because of the situation this Government has found itself in in terms of the inflation and cost of living crisis it has brought about under its term. A number of speakers speak as if there is no financial impact for the taxpayer on this piece of legislation. In fact it is not insignificant: $354 million that the taxpayer will be picking up in terms of that support payment not being taken off the amount that the taxpayer contributes. So it's very much easier for us to be kind with other people's money and in fact that $354 million does come not from members of this House but from taxpayers in our country. So it would be very useful for us to remember things like that when—DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time is up.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of ACT to speak on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. I stand in support of this bill but with reservations as well. Past speakers have spoken about some of those reservations and ACT has a similar view when it comes to some of the issues that have been brought to the House today.So this is about making sure that children are getting the money that is paid by a liable parent and it goes directly to a sole parent in order to help with the costs of raising their child. We do believe that parents should be financially responsible for their children. This does not stop just because a relationship does. We have to make sure that the kids are getting looked after by the liable parent also not just the parent that has custody of the children at the time.But I too also have concerns around the speed that this bill went through the process under urgency where there were many questions that really I don't think were answered around the unsupported child's benefit—allowing the amount of submissions that I think we could have got if we had extended that time frame instead of doing this under urgency. Because there could have been ways that we may have changed this bill to enable us to also include the unsupported children while the process of Oranga Tamariki was going on in the meantime. But these are the children that are going to be missing out on something that the Government across the House has said is so vital to make sure that we are looking after children in need we are looking after children that are often the most vulnerable because of this fact and they're going to be missing out on this. I struggle with that because I know many grandparents sisters aunts and uncles who have taken on that responsibility are also under financial strain themselves. So that's the reason why I was really concerned at the speed at which this bill went through as we couldn't have proper consultation around that.I also have concerns around the fact that we are also extending greater assistance to liable parents who are on benefits to help them to pay their child support in a way that I feel may have added a little bit more extra pressure and burden on the taxpayer for the liable parent. I was kind of concerned about that. But at the end of the day if the money is getting to the children and is getting directed straight to those children who need food in their tummy and a roof over their head ACT will always support a process that helps kids that are in need.But really next time with the work that is in progress that we are talking about in the future of Oranga Tamariki can we have a robust process where we make sure we get this right so that there isn't a double system when it comes to some children get it and some children don't? I feel that is a reasonable request. So ACT will support this process but with reservations that there will be many children who are in need that should have been included in this bill that weren't. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Urgent Debates Declined — Hon Michael Wood—Auckland Airport Potential Conflict of Interest
Robertson Grant; Rurawhe AdrianAPPROPRIATION (2022/23 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLFirst ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Rurawhe AdrianURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDHon Michael Wood—Auckland Airport Potential Conflict of InterestSPEAKER: Members I've received a letter from the Hon Paul Goldsmith seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the management of a possible conflict of interest held by the Hon Michael Wood. Ministers are responsible for their management of conflicts of interest and where there is a potential conflict of interest with the Minister's portfolio interests then there is a legitimate ground for questioning—Speaker's ruling 165(3). There could well be questions both oral and in writing that can be asked and answered about any ministerial actions or decisions Minister Wood may have taken while owning shares in Auckland Airport. The current application does not point to any particular action or decision made by the Minister rather that there may have been such a decision or action made. It is not up to the Speaker to make the case for an urgent debate. I therefore decline the application.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK:Report of the Justice Committee on the Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Billreport of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Brian Webb: Require political parties to work together in national emergenciesreport of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Point-of-care Tests) Order Revocation Order 2023 (SL 2023/57).SPEAKER: The reports of the Justice Committee and the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Salesa JennyTUESDAY 6 JUNE 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant 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.
Thursday 8 June 2023 - Volume 768
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 39New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
12. Question No. 12—Emergency ManagementJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Emergency ManagementQuestion No. 12—Emergency Management12. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Emergency Management: What recent announcements has he made on emergency management?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Yesterday the Government introduced legislation to modernise our emergency management system. It takes on the lessons from previous responses to natural disasters including the Christchurch and Kaikōura-Hurunui earthquakes and other emergencies. The Emergency Management Bill replaces the two decades of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. It is my hope that the select committee process will be able to incorporate any lessons that emerge from the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle.Jamie Strange: What are the key changes in the bill?Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The key changes include clarifying roles and responsibilities across the system at national regional and local levels; requiring civil defence emergency management group plans to identify and engage with communities that are disproportionately impacted by emergencies; recognising the important role Māori play in Aotearoa New Zealand's emergency management system; and enhancing Māori participation at all levels—national regional and local and across strategic planning and operational activity.Jamie Strange: Why is it important for emergency responses to continue to be locally led?Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The strength of our emergency management system is that it is locally led regionally coordinated and centrally supported. The changes in the bill build on this strength. Locals know their communities best. They know the risks and they are first on the ground when disaster strikes.
8. Question No. 8—PoliceHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 8—Police8. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so why?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement in the context of that time: "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1800 extra police." As the member is aware we have now delivered over 1800 extra police.Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is crime increasing?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There are a number of drivers of crime and the member is well aware from the Estimates this morning that the two main drivers of crime that increase demand to the police service are both family violence and mental health.Hon Mark Mitchell: How can New Zealanders feel safe when since the member has become Minister of Police gang numbers have grown by over 300?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I did not say that New Zealanders feel safer.Hon Mark Mitchell: So is she saying that New Zealanders shouldn't feel safer?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have always been clear that what my statement was is that New Zealanders feel safer with 1800 additional police than they did with fewer police. Those additional police on the front line mean that we have more services we are quicker to respond and we are able to provide more referrals into those key areas like family violence and mental health that are the underlying drivers of crime in New Zealand.SPEAKER: I just want to remind Government members not to interject while a question is being asked.Hon Mark Mitchell: So just to give the Minister the chance to really clear this matter up does she think that New Zealanders feel safer now in New Zealand—Hon David Parker: Point of order Mr Speaker. There was an inappropriate imputation at the start of that question that did not form part of the question.SPEAKER: Yeah and I would've preferred to hear the whole question. Since becoming the Speaker the way that I have run question time according to the will of the House—if that has changed then the House should let me know—I'll make a judgment at the end of it.Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you Mr Speaker. Does the Minister think that Kiwis feel safer today than they did five years ago?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I cannot speak on behalf of all New Zealanders but what I can say is that the police in New Zealand are far better resourced than they have ever been. This means we have more resources in our front line to respond to the pressing demands that are on police and it means we have better investment in those services in mental health and family violence through Te Aorerekura to get ahead of those problems that are driving crime within our communities."
7. Question No. 7—Research Science and InnovationIBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 7—Research Science and Innovation7. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: What announcement has the Government recently made about investing in the science system?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): Budget 2023 positioned the New Zealand economy for a low-emissions high-wage future with a major investment in our science system. This includes the creation of three new multi-institution hubs to increase collaboration in research and science association with the multi-billion dollar Horizon Europe research programme and investing in our future research and science workforce.Ibrahim Omer: Why is the Government investing in multi-institution research hubs?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Through Budget 2023 we are creating three multi-institution research hubs to bring scientists closer together to increase collaboration ensure better use of expensive equipment and facilities and position New Zealand to meet complex challenges and seize economic opportunities. These hubs will place greater emphasis on innovation and create an environment that helps start-ups to grow and become significant contributors to the New Zealand economy through stronger coordination of innovation and commercialisation activities.Ibrahim Omer: How will the Government be supporting new talent in the science and research system?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This Government is committed to supporting new talent addressing key domestic skills gaps and improving career mobility. That is why through Budget 2023 we are investing $55.2 million in research fellowships and to train more PhD students. The fellowships will help retain and develop more than 260 future research science and innovation leaders over the next 10 years. An additional fund for PhD students will provide certainty for researchers and improve the impact in applied science that these students get to take up.Ibrahim Omer: How will Budget 2023 support New Zealand's research to be showcased on the world stage?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Through Budget 2023 we are investing $37.6 million over four years in New Zealand's association to Horizon Europe. New Zealand's research will be showcased to the world as Kiwi scientists work alongside world-leading researchers to solve global challenges under the multibillion-dollar research programme. We will be one of the first non-European countries to offer our researchers access to the European Union's largest ever research and innovation programme on equal terms with European scientists. This is new funding for New Zealand science and underlines our commitment to building a modern future-focused science and innovation system.
6. Question No. 6—HousingCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Associate Minister of HousingQuestion No. 6—Housing6. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Is she satisfied that the UN-recognised human right to adequate housing of the approximately 1.4 million renters in this country is being met? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Housing): The Government is committed to working towards everyone having adequate housing. The Government has undertaken a number of actions since 2017 to improve housing for renters including implementing the healthy homes standards which aim to make a significant improvement in the quality of Aotearoa rental homes; improving security of tenure by removing no-cause terminations; adding over 12000 public housing places since 1 November 2017 with around 10000 new builds; banning letting fees; banning landlords from setting rental bids; and limiting rent increases to once per year. The Government recognises that there is always more work to do in this space and we are working on it.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she believe that the exemptions for boarding houses and student accommodation in the Residential Tenancies Act are fit for purpose?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The Government's long-held position on access to housing is that the most important action that the Government can take is to keep increasing supply and keep up our focus on improving standards such as the healthy homes standards which do not apply to boarding houses.Chlöe Swarbrick: When can renters expect property managers to be regulated as consultation options were released by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development over a year ago?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I acknowledge the challenges for renters in the market. The landlord-tenant relationship is also regulated by the Residential Tenancies Act. The Government is committed to regulating residential property managers to protect both landlords and tenants and work continues on this.Chlöe Swarbrick: Is she aware that the United Kingdom is progressing a landlord registration scheme and if so is she concerned that the exclusion of approximately 60 percent of rental homes managed by private landlords in the proposed New Zealand regulations puts us behind even the Conservative UK Government?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: We are an evidence-driven Government and when we look to the evidence the best way to control rent is to bring on the supply of new housing. I acknowledge the challenges again for renters in the market. The Government is consistently considering what we can do to help people who are renting.Chlöe Swarbrick: How many renting New Zealanders will this winter contract preventable illnesses from substandard rental housing?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I do not have the answer to that specific question. If the member would like to put it in writing then I will try and respond to it.
4. Question No. 4—HousingHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 4—Housing4. Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Housing: Does she have confidence in the operations of the Temporary Accommodation Service in Hawke's Bay following Cyclone Gabrielle?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. Through Budget 2023 the Government put in an additional $70 million through Vote Housing to deliver up to 400 relocatable cabins in four rohe including Hawke's Bay to temporarily house whānau displaced by the severe weather events. Government agencies are currently working through the contracts for these units including up to 100 units in Hawke's Bay with delivery through Ngāti Kahungunu or its hapū organisations. In terms of the Temporary Accommodation Service (TAS) appropriation I can also report that three Portacabins have arrived in Waiōhiki today. TAS has also reported good progress in relation to a project to place relocatable homes on Ōmahu Marae land in Hawke's Bay.Hon Meka Whaitiri: Has she heard of reports that in the last week the Temporary Accommodation Service has evicted whānau from accommodation in Hawke's Bay at extremely short notice including calling the police?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It would not be appropriate for me to speak on individual cases in the House but if the member would like to provide me with her concerns in writing I'm happy to work with her directly. But generally speaking what I can say is TAS does have an eligibility criteria and performs a needs assessment on all registered households to ensure that we can support the households who have found themselves displaced and in some cases lost everything following a natural disaster. Following a needs assessment it may become apparent that a household does not meet the criteria and another Government agency would be best placed to assist. TAS then works with that agency to ensure a household transitions smoothly from TAS to them.Hon Meka Whaitiri: What assurances if any can she give these whānau who have lost their homes from the cyclone that they will be guaranteed the accommodation they need particularly given that land categorisation in Hawke's Bay is still being consulted on?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What guarantees I can give are the answers that I gave in my primary question: that those households that are eligible for TAS assistance there is currently already plenty of supply in the area and more is coming that we've made the commitment and as I said to the member in the answer to the primary question only today three more cabins have arrived.Chris Penk: Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from me to the Minister for Cyclone Recovery dated 19 May highlighting issues of housing insecurity post - cyclone and flood issues and also the reply which came from the Minister of Housing in relation to the same issue.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
3. Question No. 3—AucklandHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for AucklandQuestion No. 3—Auckland3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Auckland: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Auckland): Yes. In their context I stand by my statements and actions as Minister for Auckland.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement yesterday that he stood by his statements to the Cabinet Office about his personal shareholdings in Auckland International Airport what exactly did he tell the Cabinet Office following their 6 and 27 March 2023 requests to dispose of the shares?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I would have to check the records fully but I do not believe I have provided a formal response to those emails.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was he arrogant enough to think he didn't need to follow the rules?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No but I have acknowledged and will acknowledge again that it was a serious error on my part not to be sufficiently focused on this matter. As of today I have taken action on that by selling the shares.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he contacted Jonathan Milne at Newsroom since February to correct the false statement he gave him two years ago that he had nothing more to declare beyond his pecuniary interest list—a list that did not include his Auckland International Airport shareholding?SPEAKER: I'll ask the member to rephrase the question. I'm mindful that there's an investigation on this very matter. It's entirely up to the member though. It does leave it open though for the Minister—whether or not that's his responsibility as the Minister of Auckland affairs. But if you want to ask it in a different way that may be in order.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Just a point of order Mr Speaker. I did say since February"—since he's been Minister for Auckland—and it's a duty of all Ministers to as Minister for Auckland he's responsible for international connectivity—SPEAKER: But his pecuniary interests are not.Hon Paul Goldsmith: No. No no—SPEAKER: That's right; that's what you said.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he contacted Jonathan Milne at Newsroom since February to correct the false statement he gave to him more than two years ago?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No and I reject the characterisation in the member's question.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well which part of the statement does he reject?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Firstly that was not a statement that I made as the Minister for Auckland. Secondly I have acknowledged that over this period of time I was not across all of the detail but I've never deliberately made a false statement.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did he say yesterday that he commenced the process of selling the shares in early 2022 when apparently he had made a commitment to the Cabinet Office to sell them from December 2020—more than a year earlier?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: At that earlier point I had commenced the process—that did not proceed as far as it should have. I more fulsomely began that process in early 2022. Again I regret that I did not complete that process. As of today I have undertaken the necessary action and sold those shares."
Tinetti JanAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 11 to MinisterHon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I seek leave to correct an answer to oral question No. 11 today.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave for that purpose is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Hon JAN TINETTI: Mr Speaker when I said that the data was released on 23 February but that if I was wrong I would come back and correct it—I'd like to correct the date to 22 February.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I'm very humbled to rise and take the final call on the third reading of the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. I proudly stand here and honour the fact that we are delivering on manifesto commitments. We are making workplaces safer for our workers. We are not apologising for that; we are proud of that.We've heard a lot—it's really funny I kind of anticipated what the debate was going to be about—that this bill is unnecessary that we have these small businesses that have really strong healthy cultures where health and safety can be managed and looked after and attended to. Well great news: it isn't compulsory. In those firms where workers are already a part of a healthy health and safety environment they will not feel the need to require this of their employer. So rest assured.It is interesting that the limit has been set at 20 and that below 20: nothing to see here folks. But actually you are 57 percent more likely to suffer an injury if you're in a small firm of around 20 and you're 23 percent more likely to suffer a serious injury. So to give half a million workers access to the right to organise around health and safety is critical.It does improve productivity; when you invest—I keep hearing the word cost" and it really makes me upset—we're talking about investing in workers. When we invest in them they participate in health and safety they take responsibility for the things that they do they're engaged they own the health and safety environment and you are more likely to have retention of well-trained staff that are healthy and you are less likely to have days off work. Our whole economy is less likely to have people who cannot work. They are less likely to have people who are going to be under-employed. There will be lives saved. I'm really really proud to say that we are standing here today delivering another manifesto promise to our workers in New Zealand.I just need to say: we thank the officials and we thank everyone on the committee and everyone who has contributed—submitters workers and businesses alike. But I just need to take a moment to recognise the significant leadership and perseverance of our fabulous Minister the Hon Michael Wood who has led so much change for workers for our economy through this Government. I want to acknowledge that in the House today. It is his leadership that has seen this come to this moment. Thus I commend this bill to the House."
McAnulty KieranSTANDING ORDERSSessionalHon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Thank you Madam Speaker. I move That the following rules be adopted with effect from 12 June 2023: 1Sittings of the House(1)The House sits as follows:Tuesday and Wednesday: 2 pm to 6 pm and 7.30 pm to 10 pmThursday: 2 pm to 6 pm.(2)On a Tuesday and a Wednesday the sitting is suspended at 6 pm until 7.30 pm.(3)Standing Order 46 is suspended.2Effect of extended sitting hours and urgency(1)Whenever a sitting on a Thursday has been extended under Standing Order 56 the sitting is suspended from 6 pm to 7.30 pm is suspended at 10 pm and resumes at 9 am the following day.(2)Whenever urgency has been accorded and the Government has advised the Business Committee of the intention to move on a Thursday to accord urgency to business the sitting on that Thursday is suspended between 6 pm and 7.30 pm and between 10 pm and 9 am.(3)Standing Orders 56(4)(b) and 58(2)(b) are suspended.3Casting of party votes and proxy votes on Thursdays(1)On a Thursday from 5 pm until that sitting adjourns—(a)there is no limit on proxy votes that may be cast by a party(b)a party that consists of five or fewer members if not present in the Chamber may have votes cast on its behalf by the leader or whip of another party and(c)an Independent member if not present in the Chamber may have their vote cast on their behalf by the leader or whip of a party.(2)Standing Orders 144(5) and (6) and 146 are read accordingly.(3)This rule does not apply to a sitting that has been extended under Standing Order 56 or in respect of which urgency has been accorded.4Business Committee determinationsRules 1 to 3 do not affect the Business Committee's powers to determine hours or arrangements for sittings and to adjust or waive the limit on proxy votes.Motion agreed to.
Special Debates — Debate on Local Issues
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Thank you. I want to speak on a matter that's very dear to my heart and that is the disastrous impact of centralisation and the creation of the mega-merger of the polytechnics and Industry Training Organisations Te Pūkenga on the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) in my electorate Invercargill. I want to talk about four things that are impacting on them particularly the zero-fees scheme which was put in place in 2001 and is in jeopardy through Te Pūkenga the impact on international students on accommodation and also on the community of SIT.So firstly the zero-fees scheme was brought in in 2001. It is under jeopardy because of Te Pūkenga's decision making around this—so not Southland not Invercargill not SIT making this decision but rather Te Pūkenga making a decision. In 2000 $7.25 million of community funding was put into SIT to enable the zero-fees scheme; that came from philanthropic entities from the local authorities and from businesses and families in Invercargill to enable the zero-fees scheme to be put in place. It took the size of SIT from just around 1400 fulltime-equivalent students up to over 4000 fulltime-equivalent domestic students. The impact on Invercargill the businesses in Invercargill and the community of Invercargill was significant and the financial impact of that was also significant in terms of the millions of dollars that were then circulating in the Southland community.The second point is the impact of Te Pūkenga on international students and that has been a diminishing of the number of international students that SIT is able to attract because Te Pūkenga is making decisions about what fees will have to be charged so that they are uniform right across the country. So SIT cannot take advantage of a lower cost of living in Southland and SIT cannot promote itself with any cheaper fees; it must have the same fees as throughout the country. That is meaning reduced numbers of international students and that is impacting on our domestic students who are not getting exposed to students from across the world and preparing them much better for a global economy when they graduate. It's also hurting our community in terms of those students were out working in our healthcare facilities: they were out working in our retail outlets and so our whole community is suffering from that.We at SIT were about to build 33 apartments just when the change or the mega-merger occurred. SIT had the funding the consents the land the plans the specifications all the money there to spend $23 million on building these apartments and that was stopped by Te Pūkenga. So they added to the shortage of rental accommodation in Southland.Our community has suffered: our Stags our Steel our Sharks were all sponsored by SIT; Te Pūkenga has not allowed that sponsorship to continue again hurting our community. Te Pūkenga has damaged our community. It is a centralisation that does not help Southland.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. Despite what anyone says Nelson is the sunniest place in New Zealand. It's got the best beaches skiing is an hour away and there are rivers to kayak in. We've got apples kiwifruit but most importantly we've got hops that grow abundantly and help this country's economy tick along.Those industries have done it tough over the last five years. Like small businesses they've had to deal with unprecedented increased costs and have found employing workers more and more difficult. It's sad to see so many retail and hospitality businesses close despite huge efforts from their owners. They need to know that we tried to provide some sanity and we're as frustrated as them. We also have a council that increased rates on some commercial businesses up to 52 percent in the middle of a pandemic—just no idea. But Nelson business owners are tough and I'm sure the vibrant city I grew up in will return.Like all of New Zealand crime is rising in Nelson. Police do a fantastic job keeping it under control in difficult and increasingly difficult circumstances but there is an ever-growing underbelly that threatens to disrupt the idyllic and traditionally safe lifestyle of Nelsonians. In April 2017 there were 56 gang members in the Tasman region. Police knew who they were and generally what they got up to. Now there are 196. That's a 250 percent increase in gang members in the Tasman District in the last six years while police numbers have increased 12 percent. At the last count there were eight differing gangs in Nelson and we're seeing them more and more riding the streets like they own the place. Why? Because they can.I was a general duties constable when community stations started to be shut down when police hierarchy consulted with front-line officers who told them it could only end badly. The police's definition of consultation is to fairly inform" which is the same definition that the current Government uses. I worked out of Stoke community station a suburb five kilometres out of Nelson. We knew the bad guys whatever their age their tags on walls the school they went to the cars they drove and who made up their family. Any new crime wave burglaries or cars stolen the first thing we would ask is "Who is new in town?" All offences were dealt with; no matter how small there were consequences for that offending. Offenders were held accountable. Police numbers are important but police knowledge is more important and experienced members are not appreciated enough—and the public felt safe.I'd like to talk about Nelson's fantastic schools or the great mighty Tasman Mako. But I'll just end with: Nelson is the best little city in New Zealand and we need to keep it that way by voting ACT on 14 October."
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand up and talk about local issues; it's been a while since I last spoke to this issue. At the time the issue was around chip seal on roads and that seemed to be one of the biggest issues in my area. But unfortunately when I'm going around the streets now talking to people in the shops and in public meetings the number one concern when I ask What would you like us to be speaking about to make sure that we're actually representing what's on your mind?" is crime. Crime is on the minds of the people in Upper Harbour on the North Shore side of Auckland.We've had lots of incidents at the moment where people are actually telling me they're scared to walk the streets at night; they're not sure if they're going to be safe. I'm hearing from parents that are scared to send their kids to their after-school jobs in the supermarkets in concern about whether they're going to come home having been assaulted or whether they're going to come home having been verbally assaulted to the point where they're actually in tears not wanting to go to work the next day. This is all in the beautiful area of North Shore. I've heard stories even in my backyard about cars getting stolen tools getting stolen to the point where fathers are waking up at the littlest sound because they can't get to sleep at night. They're scared for their families and their mental health is deteriorating. These are the stories I'm hearing in my local area.Probably the biggest crime is around ram raids on the North Shore and the fear this is causing for the staff and even for people visiting these areas. We've had Albany mall with a daytime ram raid we've had Glenfield Mall with a daytime ram raid and we've had ram raids in Takapuna just down the road from a local police station. People are saying "Why is this happening? Why are we not safe in our streets on the North Shore of Auckland at the moment?" I've also heard stories from staff where they're scared to actually confront the issues in a retail space. And these are young people and they shouldn't have to be dealing with this and they're talking about working at the front end of a retail store. They may have someone that comes in and decides to shoplift or comes in and decides to verbally abuse them. When they do stand up to this kind of behaviour one staff member told me that the person came back and sought revenge and actually followed one of the staff members into a bathroom and beat them up—actually sought revenge for a staff member just doing their job.This is what's happening on the North Shore in Auckland and it's actually really sad. I'd like to see us go back to the place where we just feel safe and feel like we're all looking after one another."
Rurawhe AdrianSPECIAL DEBATESLocal IssuesSPEAKER: Members we now come to the debate about local issues arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80. Can I just let members know that there's no particular order but times have been allocated per party.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK:Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:Inland Revenue Department Long-Term Insights Briefing 2022Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement May 2023 andWater Services Legislation Billreports of the Health Committee on the:2021/22 Annual reviews of the Health Promotion Agency the Taranaki District Health Board and the Whanganui District Health Board andPetition of Millie Grant: Place a purchase limit on pharmaceuticals such as paracetamol in supermarketsreport of the Justice Committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Billreport of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Patricia Fabish and the Sensible Sentencing Group Trust: Stop editing Victim Impact Statements in New Zealand and thereport of the Regulations Review Committee on the second interim report Complaint about the E-Scooters (Declaration not to be motor vehicles) Notice 2018.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The Long-Term Insights Briefing Monetary Policy Statement and interim report on the complaint are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—UK Branch Delegation
McAnulty Kieran; Woodhouse MichaelBUSINESS STATEMENTHon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 20 June. In that week legislation to be considered will include the first readings of the Emergency Management Bill the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill; the committee stages of the Business Payment Practices Bill the Charities Amendment Bill the Deposit Takers Bill the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill and the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill; and the remaining stages of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the acting leader of the House for that update. I'm sure he'll agree that given the way select committees and report-backs are going it's going to be an extremely busy July and August in the lead-up to the adjournment of this Parliament. While I know it's the Business Committee's prerogative can I encourage the acting leader to ensure that where there are plans for urgency and extended sittings they are signalled well in advance in order that they can be planned for?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): Yes the member is well within his rights to encourage me to do that but we will as we always do wherever possible give as much notice as possible.
Rurawhe AdrianVISITORSCommonwealth Parliamentary Association—UK Branch DelegationSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome the Rt Hon Dame Maria Miller MP Chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch and her accompanying delegation who are present in the gallery.
O'Connor GregTHURSDAY 8 JUNE 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Deputy 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.
Thursday 1 June 2023 - Volume 768