edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I'd like to thank the Minister for the information he has provided the House and on behalf of the National Party recognise the tragedy of the fire at the SkyCity convention centre. I also want to recognise the very brave men and women of the New Zealand fire and emergency services as well as other responders who have continued to work tirelessly to put this fire out. Along with the Leader of the Opposition Simon Bridges I too visited the construction site a short time ago. The people we met the construction workers showed great pride in their work achievement. This is a significant project for New Zealand. Our thoughts are with the hundreds and hundreds of people who have worked on this project since its conception. For many of them this was a lifetime of work and they along with others will be feeling a profound sense of loss at this time. APEC 2021 is of considerable significance for New Zealand and a SkyCity convention centre is to play a very large part in the way New Zealand will host this international event. The Opposition the National Party pledges to work as closely as we can with the Government because although we now must wait to see exactly the degree to which damage has occurred it is not conceivable as we stand here having watched photographs on our televisions that the SkyCity Convention Centre can play much if any part in the hosting of APEC. We must give those on the ground at SkyCity and Fletcher and others time along with their insurance companies to work through the significant magnitude of this fire but we also must ensure that New Zealand is able to meet its obligations in its hosting of the APEC event and many others.Today it's fair to say that this project has not always enjoyed cross-party support in this House. However it is equally important that all of Parliament puts aside those differences in support of the men and women on the ground of SkyCity and Fletcher who are feeling that loss today and that the residents of Auckland Central know that all of the Parliament will continue to support them.
Twyford PhilWEDNESDAY 23 OCTOBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MINISTERIAL STATEMENTSFire Auckland—New Zealand International Convention Centre SkyCityHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): The Government is closely monitoring the situation with the fire at the New Zealand International Convention Centre and is thankful that everyone is now safe. Firefighters are doing an incredible job managing the fire and bringing it under control and are working long hours to fight the blaze. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the firefighters police paramedics and other first responders. All New Zealanders are incredibly grateful for your efforts. At this stage we do not know the cause or the extent of the damage; the priority is still making sure that the fire is contained and that our first responders and members of the public are kept safe. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the pride that the construction workers had shown when he visited the site. I also visited the construction site a couple of weeks ago and I came away with the same impression. We all will understand their disappointment and hope that the damage to the project is not too great. I also want to take the opportunity to thank Aucklanders for the patience and grace they have shown dealing with the disruption in traffic. It's heartening to hear that the hospitality and hotel industry has reached out and offered support to SkyCity offering to accommodate their guests and provide other support. It speaks to who we are as a country—always willing to lend a hand to show kindness and to help each other out. The Government is monitoring the situation closely. It's too early to say what the impact is going to be on the construction timelines for the convention centre and the flow on effects to tourism and businesses in the area. Once SkyCity and Fletchers are able to get onsite and assess the situation we expect to be advised of any delays or the impact on the build project. The convention centre entails significant investment and its impending completion was shortly to have delivered significant economic development in Auckland attracting thousands of visitors and stimulating the local economy. It's too early to know the impact that the fire will have on the hosting of major events but the important thing for now is that we support the workers on site the first responders and everyone else who is affected. The thoughts of the whole Parliament are I'm sure with the firefighters continuing to fight the blaze in intense heat and in thick clouds of smoke.
Tuesday 22 October 2019 - Volume 742
Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57 New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Bill read a second time.
Corrections Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
11. Question No. 11—PoliceBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement we're on track to deliver 1800 new police next month" and if so by how much will the headcount of sworn officers have increased since he took office to meet that target?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes and around 10 percent.Brett Hudson: Does he stand by his answer to parliamentary written question No. 29951 where he said that the headcount of sworn officers on 1 November 2017 was 9016?Hon STUART NASH: It was a long time ago. One thing I will say is that we're delivering nearly 1000 more police than would have been delivered under that Government and I suspect that that member is the only constituent in Ōhāriu that's complaining.Brett Hudson: Was the Prime Minister correct last week when she said that there are now 9723 sworn officers?Hon STUART NASH: The Prime Minister was correct—of course she was correct—but she was also correct in saying we're going to meet our obligation in just over two years.Brett Hudson: Can he confirm that the difference between those two numbers is 707 meaning that there are only 707 additional sworn police officers in New Zealand today?Hon STUART NASH: No what I can tell you is as of today there are 1685 new recruits which is a headcount of 893. If you ask me this question on Thursday afternoon there'd be 1744 new police which would equal 952—yet another graduation this Thursday.Brett Hudson: Is 707 or even perhaps 850 greater or less than 1800?Hon STUART NASH: I can tell you what 893 is; it's more than 880. We've delivered that in under two years and that Government promised that in four years."
9. Question No. 9—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 9—Transport9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and policies?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes in the context they were made or given.Chris Bishop: Who is right about the cost projections for light rail: he who said yesterday to Newshub that there is no cost blowout; or Winston Peters who said that The costings seem to have changed … in a way that is demanding serious investigation as to whether those forward projections are factual or not."?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I repeat what I said yesterday: there is no cost blowout because the twin track procurement process includes fundamental design and engineering decisions so a final cost has not been settled on for either option yet.Chris Bishop: What was the New Zealand Transport Agency's (NZTA) assessment of NZ Infra's light rail proposal using standard Treasury methodology?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The New Zealand Transport Agency didn't complete an assessment of it and that's why Cabinet mandated Treasury and the Ministry of Transport to run a new assessment process that includes a consideration of the public-public proposal (PPP) being put forward by the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and their Canadian partners alongside the NZTA-led option which would include a PPP option or a design and build.Chris Bishop: Is it correct that the relationship between the New Zealand Transport Agency and NZ Infra is so broken that NZ Infra had to use the Official Information Act to get information from the New Zealand Transport Agency causing months of delays to the light rail project?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the assertion in the first part of the member's question but I would note that Sir Brian Roche the new chair of the board of the transport agency said on radio this morning that NZTA had dropped the ball and that's why Cabinet mandated Treasury and the Ministry of Transport to undertake a new assessment process of both options. The Government's doing that because we believe that it's extremely important that we invest in a 21st century transit system for our country's biggest city which is grinding to a halt because of the failure of the last Government to invest in rapid transit and public transport.Chris Bishop: Does he stand by his statement that no one on the New Zealand Transport Agency board asked to stay on?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes I do."
6. Question No. 6—HousingHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 6—Housing6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: How many houses has the Government purchased under the KiwiBuild programme?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Government has purchased 100 houses since the beginning of the KiwiBuild programme. Fifty-two of those houses have subsequently been sold and settled; a further seven have unconditional sales contracts. Of the 100 houses 22 were purchased via the underwrite for a value of $9.9 million and 78 were purchased by outright purchase agreements for a value of $35 million.Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe it is an effective use of taxpayer money if $43 million has been spent purchasing houses for KiwiBuild when only a third of those houses have been onsold?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of the homes purchased—as I said 100 have been purchased—52 have been sold. $45202229 has been spent; and returned recycled to the Crown—as the KiwiBuild programme was always designed to work—has been $24163758.Hon Judith Collins: What are the overheads that have been incurred in order to bring about that recycling?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The holding costs of those properties is $162000. I can break that down for the member: $130000 in bodies corporate and rates $25000 in marketing and $7000 including electricity in utilities.Hon Judith Collins: Is she confident that the 859 more KiwiBuild homes that are underwritten but not yet announced will sell to KiwiBuild buyers within the underwrite period?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of those that we have contracted we are currently going through them looking at where we believe there is high first-buyer demand. We clearly laid out mechanisms in the KiwiBuild reset for what would happen if that wasn't the case. But what I will also remind that member is we're not prepared to sit around doing nothing as that Government did for nine long years.Hon Judith Collins: Why has the Government signed taxpayers up to $43 million of outright purchases and underwrites when they've only been able to sell around 100 KiwiBuild settled sales?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the member is confused; in terms of the homes sold to eligible KiwiBuild buyers 271 have been sold. I do remind that member that's a further 132 since we did the KiwiBuild reset. Maybe she needs to put in some more written parliamentary questions and bring herself up to date.Hon Judith Collins: Now what date will she be releasing the monthly KiwiBuild programme housing dashboard that she announced in September this year?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Imminently.
5. Question No. 5—TransportJAMI-LEE ROSS (MP—Botany) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 5—Transport5. JAMI-LEE ROSS (MP—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: What planning work has been undertaken to provide for park-and-ride facilities in Botany to service the AMETI Eastern Busway and airport to Botany rapid transit projects?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): It's great to see a member from across the aisle wanting to get things done for his electorate. I'm advised that Auckland Transport as the lead agency is currently investigating park-and-ride facilities as one of the options to complement a future interchange at Botany. This will be determined as part of the airport to Botany detailed business case which Auckland Transport aims to complete in early 2020.Jami-Lee Ross: What benefits will public transport users in Botany see from the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) eastern busway and the Botany to airport project once completed and will a park-and-ride facility in Botany improve those benefits?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well as the member well knows I think the south-east of Auckland is one of the poorest-served areas in the Auckland region for public transport. The AMETI busway and the proposed rapid transit connection between the airport and Botany up to AMETI will significantly improve public transport services it will increase the frequency of bus services and it will ease congestion. Jami-Lee Ross: Given he still believes that east Auckland is one of the worst-served parts of Auckland for public transport would a park-and-ride facility at Botany station encourage greater uptake of these new public transport services?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I believe it would encourage greater public transport use. Park-and-ride is one of a number of options currently being considered for enabling better transport choices in Botany. Auckland Transport is developing the business case for facilities in Botany as part of the wider work on the AMETI busway which is now under construction.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context they were given and taken.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement in the Budget 2018 speech We cannot continue to rely on merely increasing our population" is it not the case that after two years of his Government our economy is deeply reliant on population growth?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. Our economy is reliant on people working hard right across New Zealand to lift their productivity to employ more people—the 92000 extra jobs that have been created under this Government—and to be lifting their spending on R & D. They're the things that the economy is reliant upon. I have said from the very beginning that it'll take a long time to deal with nine years of neglect but we're getting on with the job.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that over the past year three-quarters of total economic growth was because of population growth?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would need to check the member's statistics on that matter. What I do know is that we have an economic plan to transition this country to being more productive more sustainable and more inclusive. Looking firmly in the rear-view mirror with a glass-half-empty mentality as that member does is not going to turn around the New Zealand economy.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think Grant Robertson's 2017 description of an "economy … built on a sandcastle of population growth" is more applicable now than ever?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No I do not. What I think is that this is a Government that is getting on with shifting the economy to a more productive more sustainable basis. Every single initiative that we've done there with the R & D tax incentive with lifting our skills and training performance with developing new venture capital markets—all of those things are things that the National Party opposes. They're against everything. On this side of the House we're focused on a positive agenda for the economy.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does it mean for the average New Zealand family when their economy is delivering 0.5 percent per person growth?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the average New Zealand family is looking at is a Government that came into office and said "Our priority is to lift the incomes of low and middle income families."—that's what we did. We turned around the tax cuts of that Government and delivered $5.5 billion into the pockets of those low and middle income families. On this side of the House our focus is on making sure our growth is more productive we are more sustainable and we are more inclusive.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he content with 0.5 percent per person growth?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will always be looking to see those growth rates increase. I do note that on a per capita basis we inherited a position I think of about 30th in the OECD and we've increased that to 23rd."
1. Question No. 1—FinanceDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index was released late last week. It showed that the New Zealand services sector continued to expand in September with a reading of 54.4—higher than Australia Japan the US the UK China and the eurozone. New Zealand's reading was boosted by a strong new reading of new orders and new business at 59.3 its highest level since January. With the New Zealand services sector making up about two-thirds of the economy this result shows services businesses remain strong and highlights the solid fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on the outlook for the dairy sector of the economy? SPEAKER: Before the member answers I'm going to ask Dr Woods to shift her offending red—[Hon Dr Megan Woods removes file box] Thank you.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you Mr Speaker. Today Fonterra announced it has increased its 2019-20 forecast farm-gate milk price range by 30c from the $6.25 to $7.25 range per kilo to the $6.55 to $7.55 per kilo range. Fonterra said that this is due to firm demand for whole-milk powder while global production is down year to date and is expected to decrease through the remainder of the year. CEO Miles Hurrell said that while there are positive signals for milk prices there are a number of factors to keep an eye on including global trade tensions and political instability.Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on New Zealand exports?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well more good news. The 2019 Export New Zealand DHL Export Barometer released yesterday showed that 50 percent of Kiwi exporters experienced an increase in export orders over the year. Although this is down on the 52 percent and 55 percent increases in 2018 and 2017 expectations remain positive with 61 percent expecting an increase in 2020. This remains a solid result for our exporters despite the challenging global context that they are operating in and it demonstrates that the New Zealand economy remains in good shape.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. With a very short amount of time I take great pleasure in rising to talk to the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill. I was a member on the very hard-working Health Committee at the time that the bill was introduced and I spoke on the first reading. I then moved from the select committee but I did manage to hear some of the submissions. In fact we had 16 written and five verbal submissions so I did sit for some time hearing this bill.I'd like to thank those people who did take the time to make the submissions for what they contributed. We had some small tweaks that happened and then I came off the select committee at that point. I'm really pleased that our Minister David Clark saw fit to move this bill with its origins as a member's bill as we've heard in this House into the legislative programme.In my first speech I talked of Wairangi Te Rupe who is my daughter's sister by another mother. So Wairangi Te Rupe at eight weeks old was diagnosed with biliary atresia which is life-ending essentially. She was able to get an organ—a liver. She's now in her double digits and is living her best life and has been able to survive because of that. That liver as I understand was gifted to three people.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It seems that there isn't a speech from a Labour member that is complete unless it uses the words nine years of neglect". We heard that twice from the previous speaker Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki. I found that rather uncharitable on a bill where there is widespread bipartisan support and a bill that achieved a great deal when it was firstly written by me and then taken through the member's bill stage by Chris Bishop and improved significantly by him and it had an immediate positive effect of a 500 percent increase in the number of live organ donations as a consequence of this.We're not saying that that was a bad bill but it can be improved and so the previous Minister Dr Coleman actually in reviewing the organ donation strategy made the very recommendations that this Government has picked up and carried on. So I'm not going to be so uncharitable as to say that it's only the most ardent Labour supporter that even believes the nonsense about nine years of neglect but I will say this particularly about Mr Shaw's contribution in respect of opt in and opt out. That was a discussion that was held by the submitters to the Health Committee and indeed it was acknowledged that those issues were outside of the scope of this bill but it is clearly something that the Government could consider and with the right public consultation I think we could support.The other issue was the matter of advanced directives—the fact that there were a number of submitters one of whom I know very well who believes that the Human Tissue Act already provides for the person's wishes to prevail after the event of their brain death and therefore that the quite sensitive issue about family veto can actually be circumvented if the Human Tissue Act was interpreted in the way that he an eminent lawyer believed was in place. But again it was outside of the scope of this bill. The point I'm making is that there are actually a number of very good initiatives that I think we can continue to pursue in order to improve the live organ donation rate and deceased organ donation rates because we do considerably lag behind. Nevertheless thanks to the improvements from the select committee and the submitters—I want to thank them for that—we've got a good bill in a better shape and I think we're going to see a great deal more opportunities for live organ donation particularly with the trans-Tasman arrangements that have been put in place. I'll leave that there. There are some other technical matters that I can talk about in the committee of the whole House but I won't slow this process down."
Doocey Matt; Dyson RuthMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It's a pleasure to rise in support of this very important bill the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill. I just want to touch on the work in the Health Committee—this is a second reading of course—and talk about some of the amendments proposed and also some of what we heard from the submitters as well as what was canvassed in the House. There were only 14 submissions and five were heard orally. It is a small technical bill but I must say it's through the power of the select committee process and submitters getting involved that some very real amendments were made through this process and it just goes to show that you don't need thousands of submissions.In one case for clause 5 the intent of the bill was to not allow anyone living outside of New Zealand to be able to claim compensation for organ donation. But through what was advised through a submitter it worked out that actually the wording would have allowed that. So the change to clause 5 actually closed down that provision and only allowed for the intent of the bill which was New Zealand residents who might be donating an organ through a trans-Tasman programme to Australia and quite rightly New Zealand residents would get compensation for that. There was also an amendment to clause 11 which from the submission—it is part of regulations Order in Council that there'll be the required organ donor programmes to be part of this bill. But we do have one donor programme already the trans-Tasman—I think it's the liver or kidney programme. Here it is: the New Zealand Paired Kidney Exchange Program which is already well established. So this will be the first programme that will actually be covered by this bill and will be implemented in the bill. Also retrospectively anyone who is in this programme now before the bill gets its Royal assent will be able to receive compensation retrospectively. There was also a lot of discussion about ensuring that this bill is well funded. I think it's very well-canvassed in the House that we need to increase our rate of organ transplants. Unfortunately this bill won't deliver that. It really is up to a Government to increase funding for public awareness and education. So I would encourage the Government of the day to do that.Also there was a call for the wider scope of compensation for donors whether that be travel or further medical costs and accommodation costs. So what the advice was that we got back from the advisers was there is already an ability to get this covered and we would encourage people to do that. So look with a short call I think this bill needs to be passed tonight. I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call is a split call. I call Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki.
Marcroft JennyORGAN DONORS AND RELATED MATTERS BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 17 October.JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I'd just like to begin by recapping where I ended off previously and I was talking to a submission that we received in the Health Committee and it was from a group of students in Auckland Macleans College. They were taking on this as a project for their level 3 social studies class. So they made some great recommendations to the select committee. In fact they recommended that the committee consider substantial increases in funding towards the New Zealand Blood Service that will be dedicated to this new planned organ donation agency and suggested that this funding would idealistically be specifically used towards public messaging around live and deceased organ donations in Aotearoa New Zealand. That's a really great suggestion because to get the awareness out there to get those donation rates up public messaging is a great way to go about that. They've also suggested this should include funding for further research and development in the area of organ donation. So it was good to have the submission from those students and I'd like to make note of all those who submitted. It was great to receive their contributions to this bill. New Zealand First we support the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill. It contains a number of improvements to our organ donation programme that really are long overdue and I think we'd all agree with that in this House. You know it actually will help to meet the needs of living people who donate an organ and also for the families of deceased people who donate. It folds neatly and cost-effectively into the New Zealand Blood Service which actually has the experience as well as the ability to manage the programme that will be coming to them and to promote the service ultimately to get those donor numbers up. What is proposed is really sensible and it's not unnecessarily coercive to get those numbers up.This bill also will provide for those organ donors who are not currently eligible for compensation but who clearly deserve it. So those that need to take time to recover after they've made an organ donation they will have that time and that compensation to go with it. So for example they will be eligible for earning compensations for 12 weeks immediately after surgery. Now if they happen to need extra time then they will be given that. So it's important that we compensate them for that. Maybe they return to work inside that 12-week period and need to take time off again because of the effects of surgery—then they will receive adequate compensation for their time.You know we actually can't pass a law to make people donate their organs. There's no stick that can be used in this but very carefully allocated carrots and this bill will set about to do that. New Zealand First continues to support this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee
Twyford PhilParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): So just some brief introductory comments to this debate on this bill. The Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) has two parts to it. Part 1 serves to simplify the role of the Community Housing Regulatory Authority and reduces the administrative burden on registered community housing providers. Part 2 amends the Retirement Villages Act 2003 to clarify that the higher maximum fine will apply for breaches of the Act where an operator or promoter of retirement village did not take all the practicable steps to ensure an advertisement was not misleading or deceptive or where an operator of a retirement village contravenes their obligations relating to the code of practice for operating a retirement village. The code of practice sets out the rights and obligations of retirement village operators and residents and it's important that the operators understand the consequences of breaching the code and that the registrar has clarity when detecting such breaches and offences under the Act. Both of these offences are considered to be of a serious nature and are similar to the other offences that currently receive the higher maximum fine.Let me just also note the Social Services and Community Committee recommended amending clause 7 of the bill to remove the reference to section 26 in section 79(3) of the Retirement Villages Act so that the higher of the two existing maximum fines would apply. And yes the committee considered that the offence of misleading advertising was serious and of a similar nature to other offences listed in section 79(2) and considered that the fines should be consistent.Andrew Bayly: Madam.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Madam Chair.
Twyford PhilREGULATORY SYSTEMS (HOUSING) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): I seek leave for all provisions in this bill to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Chair it's a pleasure to speak in the committee of the whole House for the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2). I spoke on this bill in the first reading so I won't hold up the committee's time by labouring the same points but just to note on the changes that came back from the Social Services and Community Committee—I absolutely agree with those changes. It seems fair that the partner and spouse in these circumstances should be entitled to those. So I think the law as we've written it—or the bill that we've written here—fixes up the anomalies and I think it'll be great for businesses to just have that clarification. So it's really good to have this bill before the committee of the whole House and I commend this bill to the committee.Parts 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It's an absolute pleasure to take yet another call on this Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2). I spoke at length last week to this bill—in fact I think I took three calls in one week; so this is just a little bonus for me.Hon Member: Hero of the Chamber very good.MARJA LUBECK: Yes. What else can I add to what the Minister Phil Twyford has said and what I was mentioning last week about this part of the legislation fixing an obvious gap and addressing an unfairness when it comes to paid parental leave?I guess when it comes to us tidying this kind of legislation up ensuring that we don't have any unnecessary compliance costs and double-ups but in particular in this aspect making sure that those who are entitled—or should be entitled as was the intention of the law—to those parental leave payments are receiving those is exactly what this legislation does. There's very little else I can add to it so I would just like to commend this bill. Thank you very much.
Twyford PhilParts 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): So just to make an introductory comment on this the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) in this bill I want to pick up on the changes that relate to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. This bill addresses an obvious gap between the intent of the parental leave scheme and the legislation whereby spouses or partners are treated differently to other types of primary carers in a similar situation—for example adoptive parents. The situation may arise if the working spouse or partner becomes primarily responsible for the care of the newborn and the biological mother is ineligible for or hasn't applied for parental leave payments. This situation could arise for example if the biological mother dies or has a disability following an accident and in that case the spouse or partner currently would not be entitled to parental leave payments.I want to share the Prime Minister's concern for families in these situations particularly as they're likely to be in great need after losing the support of a parent. This small fix will have minimal impact on the regulatory system overall. It will offer important benefits for these families.Partners and spouses in these situations will be able to access parental leave payments if otherwise eligible that contribute to their family's income stability and the health of the young child and enable them to maintain a connection to the workforce.
Twyford Phil; Dyson RuthREGULATORY SYSTEMS (WORKFORCE) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): I seek the leave of the committee that all provisions be taken as one question in the debate of the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2).CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought I'd take a call tonight. I was hoping that members opposite would jump up and contribute to the debate. But we're here tonight discussing three bills but I will keep my comments just to the one that we are discussing at the moment which is the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2).As my colleague Alastair Scott just mentioned this is essentially a tidy-up bill. It amends 14 Acts. The one I particularly want to touch on is some amendments that are made to the Companies Act 1993. There are two changes in particular there which I think are very sensible and it relates to clarifying what the rules are in terms of disqualification criteria for directors where the court has prohibited a discharged bankrupt from becoming a director. And that makes entire sense. I mean what we don't want is a situation where people can I guess sneak in through the back door and become involved in companies having been judged by the courts as perhaps not being entitled to do so. So it is a sensible change.As I say there are about 14 Acts that this bill amends but I think the changes to the Companies Act in particular are very sensible. I commend the Minister for Economic Development for bringing it to the House.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 388 in the name of Hon Phil Twyford be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 14 Schedules 1 to 5 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to the Minister Phil Twyford for explaining in quite a lot of detail Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 388. But regarding that SOP—and he almost explained it in the way that it is the Minister's intention to include some new updates in a future bill—my question is obviously: when will that be and what other things might be in that bill that that we haven't discussed today or that was not discussed in the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee? But otherwise it seemed to me like a bit of a typo and it was caught at a late stage and therefore we are in this process of creating another bill at a future date. So there are a couple of questions there.As the Minister said this covers a lot of different bills. A lot of it has been described as repairs and maintenance of existing legislation—and you know we've got to do that from time to time. And of course the Acts evolve through a number of bills that come through this place. And as the Minister says 14 bills are affected in this at this point.I also note that the select committee did delete clause 7 which seemed to me sensible—or almost redundant in a way.The other thing that I was going to comment on was that this doesn't seem to me to be a primary piece of legislation doesn't seem to be a piece of legislation that needs to be done. It doesn't really create a lot of new policy in a way. So my third question is: why is this in front of the House now? Is there not more important legislation for this Government to look at and to participate in? So those are my three questions. Thank you Madam Chair.
Twyford PhilREGULATORY SYSTEMS (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): I seek the leave of the committee for all provisions in this bill the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2) to be heard as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill at its second reading. I didn't sit on the Justice Committee but I am someone who does have a view on these matters and my view is that this is the type of bill which seems to be where a Minister is scratching around for something to do and he came across this great idea and decided to do this bill. The bill establishes yet another Crown working group—no sorry. It's an agency which will cost an enormous amount of money and will essentially replace an already existing system which is already there with significant checks and balances. Need I say more? No I don't. I oppose this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): When making decisions in this House and speaking to legislation we need to be aware that what this Parliament does and how things are decided don't give a perfect solution and while this Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill is an attempt to supposedly make a system easier to right some wrongs there is actually no guarantee that it'll be any better than the current system. The current system doesn't always get it right but there are mechanisms for appeal. I accept they are expensive and difficult to get to sometimes but generally various Governments and various parties over the years have made the right call. The National Party is opposed to this on the basis that the commission provides a mechanism for addressing miscarriages and in our view it will simply open the floodgates for a whole lot of cases to go to court and through this commission process. It can refer cases back to the appeal court but it does not determine guilt or innocence. The commission in our view will open the floodgates and there is actually a relatively low threshold to take it back to the court. The commission's decisions cannot be appealed because to include a right of appeal would risk further complicating the constitutional relationships between the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the courts. In our view while this may appear to be a genuine attempt to help miscarriages of justice this House is charged with making balanced decisions on behalf of all New Zealanders. It's my conjecture that just as many miscarriages will be done under this proposal but in a different way than they currently exist and for that reason I urge this House not to support this bill.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call to support this bill. At the bill's second reading it's very important for us to acknowledge and thank our advisers officials and more importantly submitters. The Justice Committee received 32 submissions and after careful consideration and deliberation made a number of recommendations. Those recommendations included for instance the composition of the commission the consideration of tikanga Māori and also recommendations with regard to the information-gathering provision and the court's role in that regard. I listened very carefully to the contributions of the members especially the National members. I do acknowledge the Hon Tim Macindoe and also Christopher Penk and Dr Nick Smith and I also acknowledge the National Party's minority view. In the spirit of avoiding repetition and after specifically reflecting on the points and issues addressed in National members' contributions I shall refrain from repeating the same points. Instead I'd like to focus on one particular submission which I believe will address all the concerns and answer all the questions asked by the National members. Hopefully this would meet with the Speaker's approval. I'd like to read out the two most important paragraphs from that particular submission: In 2003 when a Member of Parliament myself Katherine Rich and I organised a petition which urged the establishment of a Royal Commission to re-examine the conviction … of Peter Ellis … This petition attracted a very large number of signatures including those of at least one person from every party in Parliament (including Winston Peters Clem Simich Judith Collins Rodney Hide and David Parker) 11 law professors 11 Queens Counsel two former Prime Ministers (David Lange and Mike Moore) and many others (including Christopher Finlayson …). And it attracted that strong support because of a very widespread view in the community that a serious injustice had been done. "The Select Committee rejected the idea of a Royal Commission to consider the Peter Ellis case but recommended instead the creation of a Criminal Cases Review Commission modeled on the UK commission of the same name. That was in 2003 and nothing was done to create such a commission in the years since until the current Bill. I therefore strongly commend the Government for moving to create such a commission now." That submission was only a half A4 page long—succinct but very powerful. That submission was from the former National Party leader Dr Don Brash. I thank Dr Brash for his passion for his conviction and for his views. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to start by clarifying that National is opposing this bill and to the previous speaker Darroch Ball I would like to touch upon one point which I feel is most relevant from my viewpoint. It is that this bill is ignoring the rights of the victims. The victims are not at all being considered in this bill. They don't have a right to appeal and they don't have a right to object. So that is one of the main points on which I feel this bill is lacking and we should be considering that at the committee stage. If the Minister of Justice can consider it that would be really good. The second thing is that as my friend the Hon Tim Macindoe as well as Chris Penk mentioned one-third of the commissioners will be having a legal background and two-thirds won't have any legal background. That is another point where there will be a challenge as to how that is going to resolve some of the really complex cases which we have in our judicial system. Those are two things that come to my mind that should be addressed to improve this bill. I think everyone in this House is contributing to provide that the best laws are formed so that the people get the benefit of them. From my point of view these two issues which are very important need to be addressed and I won't be supporting this bill.
Legislation Bill and Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Bill — Third Readings
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Speaker and I want to congratulate Mr O'Connor on his call of two halves; although he did promise that he would complete it he hasn't quite managed to do that. I much preferred the first half I have to say and I'm quite sure that my very good friend the Hon Christopher Finlayson would be delighted to have been referred to as the creator and I'll make sure that he gets that passed on.I'm the final National Party speaker in the third reading on what is a very dry and technical measure—certainly a very important measure. I don't in any way mean to demean it but I feel that my colleagues have said all that needs to be said. These are bills that enjoy cross-party support and I therefore have no wish to detain the House any further and I look forward to seeing them passed into law.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the third reading of this Legislation Bill. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson who introduced this bill and had a vision and was on the track on how to reduce the red-tapeism.This bill enables it so that all secondary legislation is brought together on one website where individuals and businesses can access that legislation so that there is no confusion anywhere. So it makes it easier and more efficient for the authorities to enforce the regulatory regime also because everything is all together. The changes will modernise the requirement for publishing and presenting secondary legislation to the House of Parliament's examination enabling better legislative schemes to be delivered in the long term.So with these words I commend this bill to the House.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): As previous speakers have acknowledged these are very practical bills. What they do in part is increase the public's access to what regulations exist in New Zealand. I sit on the Regulations Review Committee and what has been astounding I think not only to me on the committee but other members of that committee is that actually in New Zealand right now we don't know how many regulations we have. The Regulations Review Committee has been on an exercise of overseeing an audit across all Government departments of how many regulations there are so that they can all be kept in one place as these bills envisage.It's really important that as lawmakers we ensure that New Zealanders have access to the law that the law is transparent and that it is clear. Of course on this side of the House we are also of the view that having a careful approach to regulation and ensuring it doesn't get in the way of business and innovation is particularly important and that starts with having clarity and transparency about what regulations there are. I commend these bills to the House.