edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I can't help myself. A couple of thoughts—one is that clubs are not the only type of licence. There are many communities where pubs are actually an important part of the community. But even those clubs that could theoretically open outside of licensed hours actually need a way to cover their costs to cover their staff. These are the kinds of practical realities that people who run businesses and run incorporated societies and clubs face. But apparently members of the Green Party do not. I think it's critical that we also bring in an element of choice. We've just heard from the Green members that a little bit of regulations are OK; it shouldn't be too onerous for for instance a club or pub to be asked to have a guest speaker at 11:30 at night to make an event full or to run a raffle in conjunction with the game or to put up lots of bunting and banners to make it a legitimate event—these are the things that people have been asked to do. I would appeal to the Green Party's better senses when it comes to choice and tolerance because I don't drink alcohol but I support this bill. With biology being what it is at the present time I will never have an abortion but I support choice there. I think it's unlikely that I will ever take advantage of marriage equality but I support that too. There are all sorts of things where it would be easy to say Oh well it's just a little bit more regulatory burden. What does it matter if we politicians make things a little bit harder for our fellow citizens?". We could use that argument to justify all sorts of Byzantine burdens on people who just want to get on with living and enjoying their lives but I hope this Parliament won't. I think it's important that—I speak as a former Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform no less—when this committee regulates we have regard for the freedoms and the convenience and the enjoyment of life that our fellow citizens wish to enjoy. If that means that you can have a pint while you watch the game slightly outside the normal licensing hours then I don't think that's too much to ask. I finally take issue with the repeated attacks on the All Blacks for being men. Since when was it acceptable for the Green Party to support a sports team because of their gender? I think that's outrageous and I hope that the Green Party will see the error of their ways and stop this terrible gender-based discrimination against the All Blacks simply because they are men. They can't help being men; they didn't choose to be men. They were to quote Lady Gaga "Born [that] way" and they do not deserve to be chastised belittled and attacked for being who they are by the Green Party of all parties. So I stand up for our All Blacks and their right to be men and not be attacked for being men by the Green Party—the party that says that they believe in kindness and inclusively. In conclusion I hope that pretty soon some sensible member of this committee will rise up to their feet and put a closure motion so we don't have to hear any more madness from the Greens."
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I had thought so. I couldn't understand why when what I was saying was so—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You have five minutes now to make up for it.JAN LOGIE: —compelling. I do just want to explore in terms of the content of this legislation and getting down to some of how I understand it in practice because a lot of what I'm hearing is people saying that one the legislation needs updating and that there's a broader issue. I think the Greens could be on board with that idea. Our concern is that we are again for the second time using the time of this House which is very very precious to make an exception to our standard processes of oversight of the sale of alcohol for a men's Rugby World Cup. I will say we haven't done that for any other sport which to me is a point for reflection around why it is only this code and this particular men's world cup that we are doing this for.But I also want to go through—so what my understanding is what I've heard is that in the law at the moment pubs and clubs can apply for this exemption but the Minister in the chair Andrew Little was saying there's an issue with the interpretation of the event that can be problematic in some areas which may mean that those pubs would have to put on more of an event to be able to feel confident of getting that exemption—doesn't seem too big a deal to me I've got to be honest. Like if we're saying this is a big event for us as a country then actually advertising for people to come together as an event rather than just a normal run-of-the-mill night at the pub watching the rugby seems to me consistent with the intent and is not a bad thing but that is what we are here changing.There is additionally an option for a suspension of the license—to be open but not to serve alcohol. Again to me if we're talking about this not inextricably linking alcohol and rugby then that option is available. I don't think that is being acknowledged by other people in the House. I also understand that clubs are explicitly exempt from section 255 so therefore have the option of opening outside of normal trading hours without alcohol. Therefore the argument that this is particularly relevant to clubs in their communities that they need exemption my understanding is that that is only true if it is to subvert the normal process of being able to open and have alcohol. But the view that it is not possible to open without alcohol is not accurate.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Very briefly as I understand it the issue is the interpretation by some district licensing committees of event" in relation to an application for a special licence that is an extension on a licence that already exists. Some district licensing committees are saying that just because it is as in this case the 2019 Rugby World Cup that is not an event on its own. There has to be an event at the venue that is more than just a broadcast of that event. There is a difference of view about that but nevertheless the district licensing committee takes that view. It is very difficult for a special licence applicant having got that decision to then seek to review that. Most of them don't have the means to do that.I just think on this occasion—I don't think when the special licence part of the existing legislation was passing through the House in 2012 that anybody contemplated that it would require dress-ups and costumes and guest speakers and quizzes and all the rest of it to constitute an event around something like broadcasting a series of events like a Rugby World Cup tournament. So that is a matter that I think for a more enduring solution this House can come to further down the track to examine the efficacy of the current legislation to see that its objectives are being met but in the meantime there is a widespread call to enable venues to host events around the 2019 Rugby World Cup and I think this House should facilitate that."
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you. I do appreciate that because Hon Minister Little I do want to posit a question as to whether I am right and Mr Seymour is wrong that all clubs can open without serving alcohol under section 255 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act and that only some bars would not be able to open if it was outside the licence hours. The law it appears is working as intended and if licence holders can't get a special licence that means a district licensing committee has found that overall it is not consistent with the objectives of the Act—safe consumption of alcohol harm minimisation etc.—for them to be granted a licence.I acknowledge that the Minister has just referred to the inconsistencies of district licensing committees. However what about the alternative vision of proactively creating communal spaces including in rural areas where we can absolutely enjoy watching sports together socialising without the need for this sort of pop-up impromptu urgent legislation for the men's Rugby World Cup. I would appreciate the honourable Minister addressing that part in this the committee stage.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I warned the House during the second reading that the wowsers are never far away and lie in wait to take away our fun but little did I know they were so close that they were only a metre away in the Green Party.I want to clarify because this is the committee stage it's important the Green Party recognises that many of the kinds of clubs and community institutions RSAs sports clubs and cossie clubs up and down this country—especially in small communities—couldn't have opened without alcohol. Because of their licensing conditions they're either open serving alcohol or they're not open. So they actually had to do this in order for them to open at all. The open with no alcohol is not a legal option. That's why this bill was necessary at the very least.But I also want to take issue with the idea that people having a drink or two with their watching of the game is somehow indistinguishable from alcohol abuse. Ironically it's the Green Party who are saying that anyone being able to go to a place that serves alcohol is somehow bad and a problem. I would have thought they would be encouraging people who are able to go to a social place with other people—after all that's good for our mental health isn't it?—and actually enjoy alcohol responsibly.On the point of the law—because that's what the committee stage is about—not only is that desirable; it's required by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act that when the premises are open they require patrons to be not intoxicated to be responsible to be sociable and not to be antisocial. Those things will all be required under the laws that already exist. We're just changing the time that they do it. So the Green Party not only do I disagree with their wowserish attitude but they're completely wrong on the most basic facts of how the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act works.Now I hadn't intended to get quite so worked up in what should be a simple stage of passing this law. All I really intended to do was say to the Minister in the chair Andrew Little that I think he's done a fantastic job of drafting this legislation. I approve of the way it's drafted and I have to say for some reason it looked pretty darn familiar as well. That may be why I think it's such good legislation. I think he's done a wonderful job and I hope that we can move on and get this done so we can go and watch the ABs win the rugby.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That is a very sad speech from the Green Party. To have come in this afternoon on a simple process for the House—we shouldn't be spending all this time talking on it but I have to make a contribution because that was so distressing—that the Green Party could stand up and say that this bill is all about linking drinking to rugby. It is not. It is all about making sure that the widest number of New Zealanders who enjoy sport can have a look at it. The Government has gone out there failed to take games like this and declare them of national significance to make them easier to watch and of course in a commercial world Spark have gone out and bought the rights and are probably not going to be able to deliver the opportunity to watch those games live to the widest possible number of New Zealanders. So this is perfectly reasonable.I wonder if all of those who are going to turn up to bars to watch these games—there to watch the games not to get drunk or to drink—would be more acceptable in the Greens' eyes if they were having a couple of puffs on the old wacky backy and rather than looking at the screen just imagining what's going on. They can do that in the confines of their own home. Apparently there is no problem linking the enjoyment of sport to the consumption of marijuana though plenty when it comes to the possibility that they might have a quiet beer or a wine while they're watching a rugby game.All I want to say is: no wonder this is a party sliding away from 5 percent because there will be no doubt 5 percent of the population who actually do have a bit of a snitch on rugby and who don't like the idea that anyone might for one moment enjoy a drink of alcohol or an alcoholic drink when in fact they could be enjoying so much more if only they got themselves completely stoned on the illegal product—marijuana at the present time.So I want to commend the Green Party for being bold enough to actually say that that's where they're coming from but I want to say too it's pretty darn sad and I think it's a shame that on a simple bill like this that's about ensuring that the widest number of New Zealanders do get to watch games in the Rugby World Cup live if they want to—and we do it for other sports and I think we should—we're having to spend this time listening to that sort of drivel.
Logie JanParts 1 and 2 Schedule and clauses 1 to 3JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and I will just take a very brief call on behalf of the Green Party to again state our position on this piece of legislation. I've heard quite a lot of speakers talk about rugby this afternoon and say that the All Blacks are our national team and this is the game that our country loves and this is part of our national identity.Hon Willie Jackson: That's true.JAN LOGIE: I'm hearing right from my left that that is true and that is the tone of the debate. I also hear the view from David Seymour speaking previously that there's a kind of a strain of people opposing this who are the wowsers who don't believe in having a good time and we're wowsers. In this case I'm going to sit with that. I'm OK with that in this situation because for me our national game—if we think about that and the place that we've given this game in our culture and for us to spend time in this House under urgency—Chris Bishop: It's not under urgency.JAN LOGIE: —for all of the parties in this House—well putting it forward on the Order Paper ahead of other things that really I think make a profound difference to our country—for the purpose of ensuring that people following our national game are able to have a drink to me is absolutely linking alcohol and our national game in a way that sends a message to New Zealanders that I and the Green Party do not believe is constructive when we have a culture of massive harm resulting from the misuse of alcohol in this country.If we are going to spend our time and put legislation through again and again we are sending New Zealanders the message that actually rugby and drinking are just inextricably linked. That is the subtext of this legislation. We are sending that message and that is not a message that the Greens support. We want us to develop a healthy drinking culture in this country and that is going to take an uncoupling of our drinking and sports culture. That's going to be uncomfortable at times. Why will it take an uncoupling of those things? Because actually we want people to realise you can engage in sports and watching sports without having a drink. We're sending people the message that actually this is part of how these things go—they go together—and that is what this legislation is doing.Actually the fact that pubs are able to open they're able to get special licences—Chris Bishop: It's difficult.JAN LOGIE: But it's difficult! They've had plenty of notice—I think like four years maybe—that this was coming up. Some of them may have been turned down because their local community—the representatives in those communities who have looked at their application—have said Actually we don't think this is in the best interests of our community and safe drinking practice in our community." That is my understanding of the grounds they get to turn down those applications. So they're turning it down and we are overriding that and saying actually we think having that drink is more important.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm spoilt for choice."
Little AndrewIn CommitteeHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Little AndrewSALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL (RUGBY WORLD CUP 2019 EXTENDED TRADING HOURS) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Visitors — Australia—Political Exchange Council delegation
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 28 AUGUST 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSAustralia—Political Exchange Council DelegationSPEAKER: I'm sure that members will wish to welcome the 13th Australian Political Exchange Council delegation to New Zealand led by Senator James Paterson who are present in the gallery.[Applause]
Tuesday 27 August 2019 - Volume 740
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Conservation Vote Environment and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 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.Votes agreed to.
Estimates Debate — Environment Sector
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Education Vote Education Review Office Vote Labour Market Vote Pike River Re-entry and Vote Tertiary Education 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.Votes agreed to.
Estimates Debate — Education and Workforce Sector
Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first 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 first time.Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Venture Capital Fund Bill be reported to the House by Monday 2 December 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c). Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.
Venture Capital Fund Bill — First Reading
12. Question No. 12—JusticeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 12—Justice12. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied the overseas donation provisions in the Electoral Act 1993 sufficiently protect New Zealand from foreign interference; if not will he introduce legislation to ban foreign donations in time to ensure a ban is in place prior to the 2020 election?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): It will be apparent from the answer to an earlier question today that I do have some discomfort about the extent to which the current law in the Electoral Act provides protection against the misuse of foreign donations in our political process. To the second part of the question I am eagerly awaiting the conclusions by the Justice Committee on their examination of this issue as part of the inquiry into the 2017 general election and before I contemplate any legislation in this regard given that it is a matter that will be of acute interest to every political party in this Parliament and outside of it I would rather see their conclusions before looking at legislation.Jami-Lee Ross: Given he has previously expressed concerns about the Justice Committee's progress on the foreign interference inquiry why does he not start the legislative process now to avoid a situation where the committee's report comes too late to have any of the recommended changes implemented prior to the 2020 election?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think the member makes a very fair point and there will come a point at which I will need to consider whether the Government acts before the Justice Committee provides its report and its recommendations. It would not be my preference to do so before having the benefit of that committee's collective wisdom but I will closely watch the progress that the committee makes on its report on the inquiry into the 2017 general election.Jami-Lee Ross: If the spirit of the law is such that a foreigner should not be able to donate to political parties via a New Zealand company will the Government commit to tightening the law so that it can no longer happen?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I've said I accept that that member has consistently expressed concern about this issue and I admire him for doing so and—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! This is an issue which members think is important and I'd prefer to be able to hear the answer rather than have back and forth.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: And look I think this House does need to consider the issue seriously but because there is some complexity to it I do want to hear what members from different political parties have to say about it before the Government would move on it. But the member should be reassured that I regard it as a matter that does require some attention and examination which is why I referred it to the Justice Committee precisely for that reason.
11. Question No. 11—FinancePAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 11—Finance11. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What effect has the ban on foreign buyers of residential housing had on the number of residential properties purchased by persons who are not citizens or permanent residents?Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): I'm pleased to inform the House that the ban on foreign buyers of residential property has greatly reduced the number of homes being sold to foreign buyers. In the June 2018 quarter before the ban came into effect 1116 homes were sold to persons who weren't permanent residents or citizens of New Zealand. In the most recent quarter that number has dropped by 84 percent. Some had claimed that clamping down on foreign buyers couldn't be done consistently with our free-trade agreements or that it wouldn't work in practice. They were wrong: this Government did it. It's working and we're ensuring that the prices of housing in the New Zealand market are set by New Zealanders for New Zealanders.Paul Eagle: Where has the ban on foreign buyers had the greatest effect?Hon DAVID PARKER: The foreign buyer ban was always intended to have the greatest effect in housing markets that were the most overheated and that has been the result. In the first six months of 2018 546 homes in central Auckland were sold to foreigners. In the first half of this year this has fallen to under 100. Before the ban one in 10 homes in the Queenstown Lakes District which includes both Queenstown and Wānaka was sold to foreign buyers. This has now declined by more than two-thirds. It's no coincidence that these two areas were amongst the least affordable in New Zealand. This is where the foreign buyer ban has been most effective and where prices have settled. This also frees up construction effort for builders to concentrate on the affordable homes for New Zealanders who actually live there.Paul Eagle: What effect would repealing the foreign buyer ban have?Hon DAVID PARKER: There's no doubt that I think the ban has strong support amongst New Zealanders and this Government's committed to maintaining it. I believe it would be foolhardy for any Government to attempt to repeal the legislation because it would again allow foreigners to outbid New Zealanders both undermining the Kiwi Dream and making us tenants in our own land. If any political party does have an agenda to allow foreign buyers back in the housing market I'd expect that they tell the public about it in straight form before the election rather than after it and I'd also make the point that foreign donations shouldn't be the rule.
9. Question No. 9—CorrectionsHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of CorrectionsQuestion No. 9—Corrections9. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement We have never had to manage a prisoner like this before" in relation to the alleged Christchurch gunman?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. Hon David Bennett: When the Minister said in written questions "I have asked questions concerning the management of this high-profile prisoner" what specific questions did he ask prior to 14 August? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I asked for assurances around the management of the alleged gunman. I received those assurances from the Department of Corrections that he was being managed in accordance with the Corrections Act and our international obligations. Hon David Bennett: When in response to written questions he said that corrections held regular meetings and updates on the management of this high-risk prisoner then in the meetings prior to 14 August did they update him on correspondence to and from that prisoner? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I was updated on the conditions that the alleged gunman is being held under and I was updated on a number of things to do with the way he is being incarcerated including his ability to send and receive mail. Hon David Bennett: So did the Minister know about this correspondence before it became public? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No I didn't know about the content of the correspondence that had been sent by the alleged gunman. Hon David Bennett: What were the specific assurances he sought from corrections around correspondence in regard to this high-profile prisoner and should he have asked for more assurances around correspondence around that prisoner? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well I asked for assurances that he is being managed under the Corrections Act and our international obligations. I received assurances that that was in fact the case and that he was being looked after in accordance to the way he should be: our international obligations and the Corrections Act."
6. Question No. 6—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 6—Transport6. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement from last week in relation to Auckland light rail We won't have spades in the ground in 2020" and what is the most recent estimated full cost of the City Centre to Māngere light rail project?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: In answer to the first part of the question yes in the context it was made. In answer to the second part of the question around $4 billion but the business case in the final design will provide more certainty on the final cost.Chris Bishop: Does he remember saying in relation to light rail to the airport "One of my first actions as minister will be to have officials advise on how quickly we can start and how soon we can get it built. I would expect Queen St to Mt Roskill within four years as a minimum." and is he embarrassed he will not meet that commitment?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question yes. In answer to the second part of the question no.Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments from Matt Lowrie of TransportBlog "Given light-rail was the Labour Party's flagship transport announcement ahead of the last election … I definitely expected better progress than what has played out over the last 18 months." and what responsibility does he take for the massive delays to this flagship project?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister the Government thinks it's important that we get this project right. I note that significant infrastructure projects can often take some time to get off the ground—for example the Pūhoi to Wellsford State Highway 1 upgrade which was announced in March 2009 and didn't actually get started until December 2016. The Christchurch motorway projects were promised and announced in March 2009 but didn't actually start until November 2016. It's more important to get the details of these things right.Chris Bishop: Has he discussed with New Zealand Transport Agency officials reallocating money from the rapid transit activity class to the State highway improvement activity class in light of the delays to the roll-out of light rail?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't have that information to be able to answer on behalf of the Minister. I'm not sure what particular conversations he may have had about that.Chris Bishop: Will he give a commitment in the House to discussing with the transport agency reallocating money from rapid transit activity to State highway improvements in light of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council warning that we are at an "infrastructure crisis point"?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not in a position to be able to give that commitment."
5. Question No. 5—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 5—Health5. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to address the long-term challenge of unmet need for mental health services in New Zealand?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This Government is committed to action on improving mental health and addiction services. Budget 2019 included a record $1.9 billion investment in mental health across a range of portfolios. In health this includes creating a new front-line workforce to deliver free services to all New Zealanders with mild to moderate needs—the people described in the report of the inquiry into mental health and addiction as the missing middle". Good progress is being made building on existing services where they have already been piloted and developing wider services with input at every stage from local communities iwi and people with lived experience. I expect to make announcements about several newly contracted services in coming weeks.Dr Liz Craig: What other mental health initiatives is the Government progressing?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Too many to list them all in one answer but I will pick a few. In our first year we rolled out mental health support to primary and intermediate schools in Canterbury and Kaikōura through Mana Ake. We're delivering free mental health support for 18- to 24-year-olds in Wellington and Wairarapa with the Piki programme and I thank the Green Party for their support in that area. We're investing $40 million into suicide prevention including counselling for bereaved families. We're putting $42 million into improved specialist alcohol and drug services. We're expanding digital and telehealth supports so people can easily reach out when they need help and finally we've also put aside $200 million for investment in mental health and addiction facilities over the next two years.Dr Liz Craig: What work is the Government doing to ensure we have enough trained mental health workers and peer support people?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's clear we need to build and upskill our mental health workforce so that we can deliver the services that people need and deserve. It's estimated that we'll need 1600 fulltime-equivalent staff for our primary mental health initiative alone. This is a long-term challenge. For example it takes seven years to become a practising clinical psychologist. This is why in Budget 2019 we invested $80 million into developing our mental health workforce. This workforce expansion will include nurses GPs peer support workers health coaches and other health professionals."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government announced to improve New Zealand's productivity?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government has introduced a range of measures to improve productivity including the R & D tax credit and other significant investments in innovation boosting skills training and more new infrastructure investment. But I want to reinforce the Prime Minister's earlier answer about the importance of the bill that Parliament will debate tonight to establish the $300 million venture capital fund which will help fill the capital gap and keep more of our innovative companies in New Zealand. The issue for many of our companies is that once they access seed funding to get off the ground they struggle to get the further support they need and often have to look offshore for that. This contribution puts skin in the game from the Government and I'd like to thank Minister David Parker for his hard work on this initiative.Tamati Coffey: What other measures has the Government announced to boost productivity?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In addition to the measures that I highlighted in my primary answer we have made significant investments in areas which people may not traditionally associate with productivity. In the May Budget the Government announced a $1.9 billion mental health package. We heard repeatedly during the last election campaign that New Zealanders wanted us to fix up the mental health system because it is such an important social issue for New Zealand. But beyond its importance as a social issue it was estimated that in 2014 the economic cost of serious mental illness alone was $12 billion—or at the time 5 percent of GDP. For every dollar that we spend on treating depression $2.50 is gained in productivity and $1 of physical healthcare cost is saved. This Government is taking action to address mental health challenges in New Zealand which are serious for social reasons but also have an impact on productivity.Tamati Coffey: Has he seen any other reports about productivity?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes I have. Advice from Treasury shows that the long-term average output per hour worked in New Zealand has risen 1.1 percent since 1996. I do note that under Labour Governments that figure is 1.3 percent; and under National 0.9 percent. In fact in the final year of the last Government the figure was minus 2 percent. This Government has new programmes to lift productivity. The document that I saw yesterday is exactly the same strategy that left productivity in decline.
SpeechExternal SectorCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members we come now to the votes in the external sector B.5 Volume 4. The question is that Vote Customs Vote Defence Vote Defence Force Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade and Vote Official Development Assistance stand part of the Schedules.I understand the chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Simon O'Connor is not with us but that Paulo Garcia is going to speak for that committee.
SpeechEnvironment SectorCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members we come now to the votes in the environment sector B.5 Volume 3. The question is that Vote Conservation Vote Environment and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stand part of the Schedules.
SpeechESTIMATES DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 20 August.Education and Workforce Sector (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There are 8 hours and 55 minutes remaining in the debate. When we were last considering the bill the committee was debating the education and workforce sector. The question is that Vote Education Vote Education Review Office Vote Labour Market Vote Pike River Re-entry and Vote Tertiary Education stand part of the Schedules. The Hon Iain Lees-Galloway moved that progress be reported and the call is now available to him.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I move That the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) be reported back to the House by 17 February 2020.Motion agreed to.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Madam Speaker thank you very much. It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this bill. I was going to rebut all of the arguments of the member opposite but I actually didn't hear any. They were entirely incoherent. But this is a fantastic piece of legislation. Once again our fantastic Minister Damien O'Connor has struck the perfect balance. Notwithstanding the lobbying he's getting from every quarter to absolutely gut this industry he's taken a balanced approach to build a sustainable dairy industry into the future. I'm very pleased to see that Fonterra will now be able to take into account the environmental performance of farmers when they make decisions around milk supply. That's a great leap forward. So I don't need to say any more. The speakers on this side of the House have made it very clear—a very good piece of legislation moving Fonterra and the New Zealand dairy industry forward together. I commend this bill to the House.Andrew Bayly: Why don't you speak for a decent period of time?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think the discretion that the Speaker indicated could be now applied to the use of you" might be quite limited Mr Bayly."
Hipkins ChrisBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Apologies for interrupting the debate momentarily. Following discussions at the Business Committee today I seek leave for the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill to be set down as Government order of the day No. 1 tomorrow on Wednesday 28 August and that following the first reading it be set down for second reading committee stage and third reading forthwith.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? It is agreed. Leave is granted.
Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading
SpeechALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Well wasn't that an interesting contribution from a man who stood up because he felt he needed to defend Minister Parker—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And I'm going to say the same thing to you: this is a narrow debate on the shortened report-back period and you should address that. ALASTAIR SCOTT: The report-back period sir is far too short. I was interested to listen to Mr Parker's initial comments before you closed them down. He was talking about private equity which is not too much different from venture capital in the ability to access that being relatively easy. Now the problem with this report-back period is that the Minister started off by suggesting that he even thought about urgency—he even thought about bringing this through an urgency debate. That was his starting point? The starting point should surely be the Standing Orders which is what David Carter was discussing. So for me that's where the starting point should have been and the reasons to bring it to a shorter period were totally unconvincing. I'm not convinced at all that because of some cloudy storm out there on the horizon some global issue that might arise we should be investing. In fact that's a reason not to invest. If you really think that the economy is going to deteriorate and assets are going to shrink then you wouldn't want to invest your money today because you would expect the value of those things to diminish sooner rather than later. So that's just a fallacious argument. That makes no sense at all. I think there should be a proper process which allows people to contribute to the select committee process around even just the one issue of governance and political interference is just one area that we could debate in select committee and have other people contribute on. Minister Robertson suggested that the only people that really needed to be consulted were the guardians of the Superannuation Fund. Well that's just nonsense. There are a whole lot of other issues that need to be discussed here. There are international participants. Minister Parker quite rightly discussed the idea of international participation—you know entities moving offshore. That's OK. Offshore guys investing internally—that's OK. So surely those people would want to contribute to the process as well. So again there is no reason to shorten the process. In fact you'll be excluding some of those people because of the shortened time period. So no real reason to shorten it up—totally unconvincing. It needed two Ministers to try and convince us and with that I'll let it rest.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I just want to make a brief contribution to reinforce the comments made by the Hon David Parker. The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation and others have been consulted with at some length about this proposal despite what David Carter the member who has just resumed his seat might have to say. They are in fact engaging very constructively. They're very pleased to be a part of this. They're even more pleased that someone is finally putting money into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That's not actually the motion on the Table. We're talking about the shortened report-back period and so you need to address that. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The point I'm making is that the shorter report-back period is a completely acceptable path for us to be going down because the negotiations have taken place with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. This shortened report-back period will enable us to get on with making the investments that New Zealand needs to see.
SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to speak to this Venture Capital Fund Bill. As the House has already been advised the National Party will be supporting it to the first reading. But as we consider this bill and after hearing some of the recent contributions particularly from the co-leader of the Green Party I do wish to restore a dose of reality into the House.Earlier this year I was fortunate to be invited to two dinners in my electorate. Both dinners had two venture capitalists at the dinners—American venture capitalists who were actually spending time in Hawke's Bay because it's a lovely part of New Zealand. But we had in-depth conversations about venture capital how it's used and—Greg O'Connor: Making it to the National Party.LAWRENCE YULE: No I never got any money from them. However we did talk about the risks involved. I remember a departing thought that came from one of them who said to me About one in 10 of my investments actually do really well and the rest either lose money or break even."Hon Grant Robertson: Some of yours have been terrible Lawrence.LAWRENCE YULE: Here we are—Minister of Finance you should be worried about this because here we are investing $240 million of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund putting it into something that the private sector won't do and that we want to support businesses in New Zealand. Now I accept the very genuine argument that there is a gap in the market somehow to be filled. But let's not kid ourselves that this is going to be the panacea and somehow the Government or even the New Zealand Superannuation Fund officials know how to do this better than the private sector. This is a risky business. We are effectively investing New Zealand super funds to take a risk in uncharted territory.If you go and do a Google search as I've done today and you go and look at what happened in the UK.Fletcher Tabuteau: Well done!LAWRENCE YULE: Yeah nah I learnt how to use Google! What happened in the UK in 2009 is they had a significant fund. At the end of that they found it made no meaningful contribution to the ability of businesses to scale up as was desired.Todd Muller: This is real.LAWRENCE YULE: This is real. So what I'm saying is while we're happy on this side of the House to support this bill to first reading we have concerns about effectively a directive to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. We have concerns about the level of risk because ultimately these funds that are being put at risk are New Zealand super funds and we need to be really careful about that. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill — Third Reading
SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's my pleasure to speak in this third reading of the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill. I congratulate the Minister Minister Faafoi on bringing it to the House. For me it's quite a simple piece of legislation. What it really means is that we are able to operate within international laws and we as a nation and our banking institutions are able to operate with the best codes around the world. I agree with the previous speaker Greg O'Connor that a lot was learnt in the global financial crisis. A lot was learnt with derivatives subprime mortgages and all sorts of things called swaptions and all those other types of things that for most New Zealanders wouldn't make a lot of sense. But effectively they are a risk management tool. As the last speaker said usually in a risk management tool one side of the risk wins and the other side loses. What this piece of legislation really does is bring us into line with international best practice and a global recognition of a series of regulations that we need.This side of the House is prepared to support this has been happy to support it and in fact started much of the work on this. It's my pleasure to commend it to the House at this third reading.
SpeechANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a great pleasure to take a call this afternoon on the third reading of the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill. I'm unfortunately not a typical member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee but I was fortunate to sit in on some of the considerations deliberations of this bill. It was very well chaired by Mr Michael Wood at the time but I'd also like to acknowledge the contribution that Mr Andrew Bayly has made the member for Hunua because—as has been pointed out I think by a number of speakers now—he's probably uniquely qualified to speak on this bill as he has very very in-depth knowledge of the subject and showed exactly why this afternoon. As has been said quite a lot actually this bill is needed primarily for keeping access to capital by banks. It's been said a number of times. What hasn't been said so much is that although this bill was introduced in February this year—and I want to thank Minister Faafoi for doing so—the need for this bill has actually been noted for at least a couple of years. That's no criticism of the Government; indeed it was the previous Government that was considering this just before the last election. So the only reason I say that is it is a long time coming. This bill is needed by the industry. The banks have been asking for this for a very long time. I'm very very happy to be supporting it this afternoon. I would like to see it passed this afternoon and that's why I'll happily commend it to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This next call is a split call.
Urgent Debates Declined — Government Review of ICT Projects—Data Safety
Visitors — Portugal—President of the Assembly
Obituaries — Rewiti Pomare Kingi (Pita) Paraone MNZM
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDGovernment Review of ICT Projects—Data SafetySPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Nicky Wagner seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Prime Minister's announcement that the Government will review present and planned ICT projects to ensure that data is safe. This matter is one of several data security breaches that have come to light in the past five years which involve Government responsibility. These cases have not generally resulted in an urgent debate being held. I am not convinced that this case warrants a setting aside of the business of the House. The member will have the opportunity to debate the matter in the finance and government administration sector of the Estimates debate later today. The application is therefore declined.
Mallard TrevorVISITORSPortugal—President of the Assembly of the RepublicSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome His Excellency Eduardo Ferro Rodrigues President of the Assembly of the Republic of Portugal who is seated to my left with the Deputy Speaker and his delegation who are present in the gallery.[Applause]