edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I'll just answer a few of the queries that have come from clauses 1 to 3. This bill has been introduced under urgency because there is urgency to get the changes. It is a technical bill. That is it deals with technical issues not policy issues and they are I guess flaws in the bill that have been exposed through an extensive programme that we have to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. We're working through on-the-ground controls. We're doing an investigation into some of the possible sources of infection and then trying to ensure that people comply with the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system.The changes that we're making all the way through this bill are to ensure that people comply with the NAIT system and that they don't spread Mycoplasma bovis. The commencement date should be as soon as possible and delays in this House mean one more day or a few more days where people will be arguably non-compliant with the NAIT system and that puts at risk every taxpayer every farmer—Hon Nathan Guy: It should go to a select committee though.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —everyone who's committed to the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis. Look I'll just say that we want to move through this bill. There will be more substantive one—it will go through the complete process.Hon Nathan Guy: Is that going to select committee?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: All I can say is it is really important that we have proper legislation we have proper processes—Hon Nathan Guy: Proper process. This isn't proper process.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —and unless we pass this quickly we can't guarantee that everyone's going to comply with it. So I encourage that member to commit to things. I'm not going to commit to him anything around what happens with the next bill. We'll deal with that as it comes along. I'd just like to see this bill passed as quickly as possible—and cooperation from the National Party which put in place the NAIT Act and oversaw the process for quite some time. We're making the changes to bring it into line with what is required to enforce the NAIT system.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move That the question be now put.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Mr Chair I'll just take a brief call. There are a couple of reasonable questions there and points made. Regarding cattle yards—no cattle yards; I accept that is a practical challenge. I guess trucking and technology and changes that we will bring to the House and that will roll through the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system mean that technology will allow us to track those animals whether they get on or off a truck. On the issue of changes in clause 10 transport or droving" the reality is that any animal movement—farmers are very creative. I've seen them in cars; I've seen them in utes. Rt Hon David Carter: Are you sure?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No—we've just got to ensure that we cover all those bases. I think this is a technical move. It is kind of a tidy up but if there's ever a loop then people are going to drive through them. So that's what we're doing here—trying to tidy up the technical amendments to ensure that any animal movement is legitimately recorded in the NAIT system."
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are in the middle of conducting a vote.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I'm sorry?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are in the middle of conducting a vote Mr Brownlee.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Have you called another vote or are you just declaring a vote?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are in the middle of conducting the—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well can I perhaps explain. The reason for my seeking the point of order is that I understand there has been some last-minute agreement to accept a tabled amendment that would belong to this part. It is not included in your list at this point. Now the only way that could happen would be if the committee were to grant leave for that amendment to be considered in the voting. So we're not looking at further debate simply that the amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy which puts a 12-month review clause in there for the use of the warrantless powers which is quite a reasonable thing—and I understand the Government is OK with that.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. Yes thank you Mr Brownlee. We are actually just about to put that question.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): I move That the question be now put.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chair I'll just attempt to move through the thing to—firstly the accusation that this is not a technical bill. I guess I go through the explanation which is accurate which says particularly that the provisions in the bill which change the particular form the format of a search warrant—so not a terribly big policy issue—align the powers under National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) and clarifies. These are not major policy changes.I can go back to the issue of the search and surveillance powers and quote from the report that came from the Primary Production Committee way back before the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act was passed. This anticipates the enactment of the Search and Surveillance Bill"—because both were going through the system at the same time—"currently before the House and would facilitate an amendment to the provisions that are proposed to form Schedule 1A to align the provisions of the two pieces of legislation once they are both in force."The clear intention of the committee when processing the NAIT Bill before it became an Act was that the provisions would align with the Search and Surveillance Act. Can I say that those provisions are the same as in the Wine Act the Fisheries Act the Crown Minerals Act and the Waste Minimisation Act. So what they do is of course provide powers for people to enter property under warrants if they have reasonable cause or if they don't have reasonable cause they are able to have a warrantless search to check for compliance and while doing so under section 110(d) of the Search and Surveillance Act "to seize anything that is the subject of the search or anything else that may be lawfully seized:"—the point being that "lawfully seized" is a term as I've said before in my earlier speech that has been laid down through precedent and through case law which if we are to tinker with would be a policy change. But we're not intending to at all. What we are—Hon Amy Adams: No you're adding the power. You're adding the power.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are not adding power; we are aligning the powers under the NAIT Act which are currently inadequate to those of the Search and Surveillance Act. And I guess the question could be: why wasn't that done earlier to enable NAIT officers to better implement the Act? Well I can't answer for the previous Government. All I'm saying is that when exposed as a deficiency by our Government we wanted to make the change to ensure that no more powers but equivalent powers should be given to NAIT officers as are currently given to officers to implement the Wine Act the Fisheries Act the Crown Minerals Act the Waste Minimisation Act and we believe because it's so important the NAIT Act as well. That is all this bill is doing. That is why it is a technical amendment. That is why the explanatory note to the bill is accurate and I stand by it."
Guy NathanWEDNESDAY 15 AUGUST 2018(continued on Thursday 16 August 2018)NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION AND TRACING AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Good morning. Thank you. It is great to be back here. I do feel that we shouldn't be back here this morning debating this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill in urgency. We spent quite a bit of time last night actually outlining to the House why this bill is unnecessary to be debated in urgency. Indeed it should have gone to a select committee.Hon AUPITO William Sio: It's for the farmers.Hon NATHAN GUY: That member over there wouldn't have a clue about what farmers do. In fact if he was genuine about his rebuttal he should be using his influence on the Minister to say this is a really important issue and it should have gone to a select committee.Can I re-highlight some of our concerns and I look forward to Minister O'Connor taking a call. Where I left off last night in my contribution was I was very keen to hear from the Minister about this aspect of this bill where a farmer moves animals to a non - National Animal Identification and Tracing farm location. We support what he is trying to achieve here but I was under the impression that the system may not be able to cope with that. Indeed we have some new information this morning that says that potentially it could but it's going to require an investment in due course from Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand to do that.
Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Tolley AnneCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members it appears that the will of the committee is to not agree to such amendments. Therefore I will not put the rest of those amendments to the vote—that is the amendments from the Hon Nathan Guy the Hon Alfred Ngaro Chris Penk Todd Muller Melissa Lee the Hon Judith Collins Matt King Simon O'Connor Dr Jian Yang Simeon Brown Maureen Pugh the Hon Louise Upston the Hon Jacqui Dean Lawrence Yule Dan Bidois the Hon Gerry Brownlee Simon O'Connor Jonathan Young Tim van de Molen Matt Doocey Denise Lee Melissa Lee Hamish Walker Paul Goldsmith Andrew Bayly and Hon David Bennett. We will move on.
Tolley AnneCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members there are 50 amendments proposing amendments to schedule 3 to exempt overseas investments in sensitive land involving different primary industries. These amendments are so similar in substance that I think I will test the will of the committee to make such amendments by putting the question on a broad selection of these very similar amendments.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I'm very happy to respond to that. There is nothing in this bill about paying overseas people to buy or be subsidised to buy land; so I'm not sure where the Hon David Bennett gets that in this committee stage of the debate.There is still this continuing misunderstanding which was displayed not just by the Hon David Bennett but also by Andrew Bayly. Andrew Bayly asked why with 72 percent overseas ownership of forestry land—and he's right with that statistic—would we want to have more. Well actually a future Government may not want to have more. Unless this law is passed a future Government will not in effect be able to control overseas investment of New Zealand forest land because as I have said previously and to which no one has been able to disagree with any forest in New Zealand can be sold as a forest registration right for multiple rotations for 100 years. And unless that loophole in the legislation is plugged before CPTPP comes into effect—and the last Government wasn't going to plug it but we are—New Zealand would have an ineffective screening regime in respect of forestry assets.In respect of the Hon Amy Adams' point we do need information-gathering powers that are broader than monitoring of consent conditions. We need to be able to police the regime as other members have said including checking whether people are trying to avoid the obligations in respect of residential land. That's why the balance has been struck as set out in clause 24 of the bill. And I repeat: we won't be supporting the member's Supplementary Order Paper.
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I am going to give the call to the Hon Amy Adams but before I do can I just make the point that where there is a case for members who have for one reason or another limited mobility—and I am conscious that we have a couple of walking wounded as a result of the Parliamentary Netball Team at the moment—it is perfectly in order where you are having difficulty getting to your feet quickly enough to gain the attention of the Chair in some way or another.Hon Amy Adams: Wave my crutch!CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well I don't want it going—you could as the member has done send the Chair a note. But it is perfectly reasonable.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): The irony of that speech is it's complaining that the screening regime in respect of forestry is now too loose. If this amendment legislation was not passed there would be no effective screening regime for forestry. That was discussed with the select committee—Hon Amy Adams: No that's not true—completely untrue.Hon DAVID PARKER: —and has been discussed in the House. It is absolutely true because unless this legislation passes forest registration rights are not within the screening regime. Any forest can be purchased whether it's a freehold leasehold estate. It can also be transferred for multiple rotations as a forestry registration right. Therefore if forest registration rights were not included effectively there was no right not just of this Government but of subsequent Governments to control it. Because the Government is doing this a future Government can change those rules. They can loosen them they can tighten them. If this change was not made New Zealand would have in effect lost the ability to control overseas investment in our forests.In respect of the amendment that the Hon Amy Adams made reference to her intention to put to the House it now has been submitted. It says Delete clause 24(2)". The Labour Party and the other Government parties will not be supporting that amendment for the reasons that the Rt Hon David Carter alluded to earlier: there is a problem in New Zealand with monitoring compliance with overseas investments where investors promise to do things and haven't. One of the things that is needed is more information-gathering powers on the part of the regulator to check whether they have. That is the reason or one of the reasons why we are making the amendments to the Act in clause 24 and if we were to go back and agree to the Hon Amy Adam's amendment we would be removing those provisions that are necessary to improve the information-gathering powers of the Overseas Investment Office."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Responding—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —ha ha! I beg your pardon.Hon DAVID PARKER: Did you call me the Hon David Carter"?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No of course I didn't—no of course I didn't. Ha ha!Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha ha! I'm happy to take a call and respond to the Rt Hon David Carter. In respect of his query about the 99 percent loan at low interest loaned to the farm manager of course that would be a silly thing for the overseas owner to do because the increase in equity in the property would belong to the farm manager. If that wasn't the reality because the underlying arrangement was that there was some hidden trust arrangement where the farm manager was effectively buying it in trust for the overseas person then that would be in breach of the Act. In respect of the forced marriage situation—a ridiculous suggestion and if taken to its logical conclusion would mean that we don't have any overseas investment rules in respect of farms—Hon David Bennett: We don't now.Hon DAVID PARKER: —because the same sort of thing could happen in respect of a farm. Well actually Mr Bennett—the Hon David Bennett—we do have an overseas screening regime already applying to farms.In respect of the Hon Amy Adams' queries relating to concerns about the breadth of information-gathering powers I agree that the Privacy Commissioner's concerns should be taken seriously. We believe that they have been. The new section 41(1) inserted by clause 24 of the bill has as a precondition to the information-gathering powers being operable that the regulator has to have "reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary or desirable" to be getting that information for reasons that have been particularised in new section 41(1A) which was agreed at select committee following the submissions from the Privacy Commissioner. In respect of the amendments the member proposes it's hard for me to comment on them because despite the time that the member has had they have not yet been tabled in the committee."
Robertson GrantIMPREST SUPPLY (SECOND FOR 2018/19) BILLThird ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2018/19) Bill be now read a third time.
Robertson GrantIMPREST SUPPLY (SECOND FOR 2018/19) BILLFirst ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2018/19) Bill be now read a first time.
Visitors — Parliament of Papua New Guinea Delegates and American Council of Young Political Leaders Exchange
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 14 AUGUST 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSPapua New Guinea—Parliament DelegationSPEAKER: Members I'm sure that you would wish to welcome two delegations present in the gallery. The first is Koni Iguan the chair of the Public Accounts Committee Lekwa Gure chair of the Plans and Estimates Committee and other delegates from the Parliament of Papua New Guinea.United States—American Council of Young Political LeadersSPEAKER: The other group is the American Council of Young Political Leaders exchange.
Thursday 18 October 2018 - Volume 733
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to.Ayes 111New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 7Green Party 7.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 111New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 7Green Party 7.Bill read a second time.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading
12. Question No. 12—RevenueANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 12—Revenue12. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by all the Government's policies and actions in relation to the revenue portfolio?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: On behalf of the Minister of Revenue yes.Andrew Bayly: Does the Minister believe that IRD has in place the necessary resources to collect the expected additional $2.5 billion of new taxes introduced by the Labour – New Zealand First Government including the revenue from fuel taxes—SPEAKER: Order! The member has finished the question.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I question some of the premises in the member's question but what I would say is that there never is 100 percent compliance with tax policy but the IRD does a pretty good job by world standards.Andrew Bayly: How much additional GST revenue does he expect IRD to collect from the 40c increase in the cost of petrol?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's a very specific question. If the member wishes to put it down in writing I'm sure an answer will be provided.Andrew Bayly: What certainty can he give to the House that overseas suppliers of goods sold online will comply with the requirements to collect GST from consumers and not be a disaster from a revenue-collection perspective as noted by an EY tax partner earlier today?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's a useful question to ask and I'm very happy to answer it. To minimise the risk of any supplier leaving the New Zealand market we've designed the rules to be as simple and flexible as possible. And if we look across at Australia my understanding is that Amazon as a good example is complying with the rules that have been put in place.Andrew Bayly: What is the estimate of the cost of collecting tax revenue from a capital gains tax as proposed by the Tax Working Group?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Tax Working Group final report will be released in February. It hasn't been released as yet and when it is released in February the Government will then look into it and form its priorities from there.
11. Question No. 11—Economic DevelopmentHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 11—Economic Development11. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What are the key elements of the Government's economic development strategy?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): There are four main parts to our plan for growth: firstly strengthening the foundations of future success by developing new points of comparative advantage; secondly in the farming and tourism sectors we need to add more value to volume while reducing adverse impacts on the environment—we believe this will add value both via efficiency improvements and by enhancing the brand we rely upon for premium prices—thirdly we need to leverage new opportunities many of which are adjacent to our existing key sectors—that's important to lift productivity and exports and enable higher-value land uses as well—and fourthly we need to back the industries of the future positioning New Zealand as a hub for world-leading innovation linked to global value chains. We're doing all this as we move New Zealand's economy away from its reliance on speculation and immigration.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does increasing the cost of doing business fit into the economic development strategy?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well if the member's referring to the price of oil that's beyond our control. If the member's suggesting that we follow the Argentinian example of fixing exchange rates well the only thing I can say is that's a Muldoon-ian heritage that he shares with other people on that side of the House.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think increasing petrol taxes by 24c a litre of petrol in the space of just three years will increase the cost of doing business?Hon DAVID PARKER: No it will actually free up traffic congestion in Auckland and make our economy more efficient. It will also reduce travel times for people as they go to and from work and it will assist in increasing productivity in a way that the prior Government was never able to achieve after nine years of pretty lacklustre economic performance.Hon Paul Goldsmith: If investing in transport infrastructure is such a priority for economic development why doesn't he insist that the lion's share of the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund be devoted to priority transport infrastructure?Hon DAVID PARKER: Because that would be a waste of money. It would fund lower-value infrastructure projects and it would not achieve what I believe is the most important attribute of the Provincial Growth Fund which is to bring forward new points of comparative advantage to grow productivity and to increase job prospects and incomes in the regions.
10. Question No. 10—Trade and Export GrowthJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export GrowthQuestion No. 10—Trade and Export Growth10. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What actions is the Government taking to enhance New Zealand's international trade relationships?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): On my own behalf the coalition Government is getting on with the governing and we're working hard to grow exports jobs and incomes. An important part of our trade strategy is the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) which we hope to ratify in the coming weeks now that our foreign buyer ban is in place. With the rising tide of trade protectionism CPTPP is essential to protecting and enhancing our trade interests. I'd also like to thank the Opposition for supporting the Government to improve outcomes for our exporters by supporting that legislation. We believe CPTPP is good for New Zealand.Jamie Strange: How is the Government representing New Zealand's trade interests internationally?Hon DAVID PARKER: We're doing this actively around the world. I was in Singapore last weekend at negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement and next week I'll be in Washington and Ottawa. I'm meeting US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer as well as other members of the US administration. In Ottawa New Zealand will be presenting our options for reform and improvement of the World Trade Organization. The maintenance of a fair rules-based international trading system is essential to protecting New Zealand's economic interests.Jamie Strange: How is the Government rebuilding public support for trade at home?Hon DAVID PARKER: After years of dwindling public support in New Zealand for international trade this Government has turned that around by going out and listening to people. We undertook extensive public meetings around CPTPP around our ban on foreign buyers of existing homes and on forestry investment rules. We recently launched the Trade for All agenda which provides a forum for all sectors of civil society to make recommendations to the Government on how New Zealand conducts its trade policy. We believe it is critical that New Zealand remains an open export-focused nation but we need to ensure that the Government has the social licence to do so.Hon Todd McClay: Does he believe that the Pacific Alliance trade deal launched by the previous Government last year will enhance New Zealand's trade relations with Columbia and if so is he concerned that Columbia didn't turn up to the most recent negotiations hosted by his Government held in New Zealand last month?Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes we were concerned by that. It was occasioned by the fact that the new Colombian Government has not yet decided whether it wishes to pursue the Pacific trade alliance. I've also seen recent comments from other South American countries that say that the Pacific Alliance is less important to them because they now have CPTTP.
8. Question No. 8—Small BusinessHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small BusinessQuestion No. 8—Small Business8. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: Has he heard from any small-business owners about any increased cost of doing business?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Small Business: On behalf of the Minister yes.Hon Jacqui Dean: How does he explain the ANZ Business Micro Scope survey which shows that business confidence among small firms is now at a 10-year low?SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member has to somehow relate it to the original question. Just the words small business" are not enough.Hon Jacqui Dean: How does he explain—in the context of the increased cost of doing business—the ANZ Business Micro Scope survey which shows that business confidence amongst small firms is now at a 10-year low?SPEAKER: Very marginal ministerial responsibility but—Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: On behalf of the Minister looking at the headlines from the small firms confidence survey cost of doing business is not mentioned as a headline issue in business confidence.Hon Jacqui Dean: Which of his policies if any support small businesses against rising costs when the ANZ report says that "small firms continue to see reasonable demand for their goods and services but perhaps some difficulty in passing on rising costs to consumers"?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: On behalf of the Minister the policies that will best support small businesses to protect themselves against rising costs are the policies that support growth in New Zealand and policies such as the Provincial Growth Fund the R & D tax credits and the largest investment in transport infrastructure that this country has seen in decades will all contribute to small-business confidence.Hon Jacqui Dean: So what does he say to the Wairarapa builder I met who wanted to take on an apprentice but is holding back because of the rising cost of fuel and wages?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: On behalf of the Minister I would say to that person that we have the huge KiwiBuild programme which will give them certainty of demand for their services over at least the next 10 years. I would point them towards the Mana in Mahi programme—that will support them to take on an apprentice. I would point them towards the fees-free policy—that gives not one but two years of free fees for people who take up an apprenticeship. This Government has a range of policies that respond to that person's concerns and that is I am sure why they have more confidence in this Government than anything the previous Government did."
7. Question No. 7—Disability IssuesPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability IssuesQuestion No. 7—Disability Issues7. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has the Government made to improve the disability support system?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): On 1 October Minister Shaw and I announced the roll-out of the prototype for the transformed disability support system called Mana Whaikaha in the MidCentral District Health Board region. This new prototype focuses on what disabled people can do not what they can't and offers flexible options to increase well-being and health outcomes. The Government has committed $21.24 million over the next two years to fund the new system in MidCentral which includes Palmerston North Horowhenua Manawatū Ōtaki and Tararua districts.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What's different about this new approach?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The transformed system enables disabled people to have greater decision-making authority over their lives and supports. Mana Whaikaha is based on the Enabling Good Lives principles and approach and lessons learnt from the Enabling Good Lives demonstrations in Christchurch and Waikato as well as the Ministry of Health's new model and international evidence. Enabling Good Lives takes a person-centred approach supporting disabled people in families to think about what they want in their lives and what support they need to make that happen.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will the Government ensure that the new system is right for people with disabilities and their whānau?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In this new system there will be a connector who will work with disabled people and their whānau to identify the supports they require to live the life they want. We're taking a try learn and adjust approach to this new system so we can be responsive and innovative during the prototype and ensure the voices of disabled people continue to be at the heart of this work. Mana Whaikaha was co-designed by disabled people whānau providers and Government officials working together over the last 18 months. This reflects the Government's commitment to Nothing about us without us"."
4. Question No. 4—TransportHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 4—Transport4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes in the context in which they were made.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by the last part of his answer to my question on Tuesday Does he agree that the Prime Minister's summation on 8 October that taxes and levies amounted to 6.8 cents was wrong?" namely: "As the Prime Minister also pointed out the lion's share of the increase in petrol prices in the last year is due to the pre-tax cost not Government revenue measures."?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's conclusion last week: "New Zealand consumers in my book are being fleeced."?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I always agree with the Prime Minister. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who is doing the fleecing?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Just check the Prime Minister's statement—it made it pretty clear.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is the Prime Minister the judge and jury in any inquiry that's going to be going on into fuel pricing?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No."
3. Question No. 3—Housing and Urban DevelopmentJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 3—Housing and Urban Development3. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What reports has he seen on the housing market?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): This morning the latest Massey University Home Affordability Report shows a 4.4 percent improvement in the national affordability over the most recent quarter and a 2.1 percent improvement over the last 12 months. This comes on top of CoreLogic reporting that one in every four homes sold in New Zealand last month was sold to a first-home buyer the highest rate for first-home buyers since the Clark Government in 2006-07. There is still a lot of work to do to build our way out of the national housing crisis but we're making good progress.Jo Luxton: How has housing affordability improved across regional New Zealand?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Over the past year seven regions have shown improvements in affordability led by Northland with a 6.5 percent improvement. Housing affordability has also improved in Auckland and Queenstown two of the areas with the most acute housing crisis. There's a lot more to do but this is an early indication that this Government's policy to intervene in the housing market on the side of first-home buyers to discourage speculators and to build our way out of the national housing crisis is starting to bear fruit.Jo Luxton: What did Massey University's report say about median house price-to-income ratios?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well most importantly median house price-to-income ratios are starting to contract. House prices in Queenstown moved from 13.7 to 13.2 times annual wages and nationally moved from 9.1 to 8.8. We are stabilising house prices and lifting household incomes through increasing wages sensible economic management the Government's Families Package and increasing the minimum wage.Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen on the effect of other policies on home affordability?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Recent research has found that special housing areas created to improve housing affordability actually generated a 5 percent increase in house prices and worsened the affordability of homes in that area. The researchers found that the special housing area programme simply allowed developers to offer new homes with an additional attribute a shorter delivery time which allowed developers to set higher prices.
Huo Raymond; Williams PotoRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I do want to acknowledge Mr Bakshi—thanks for his contributions—and I also want to acknowledge the contributions by the Hon Mark Mitchell who also asked some questions last night. It's rather easy to answer his questions because the role for the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission is to review convictions and sentences and determine whether they should refer the cases back to the appeal courts. It's not the role of the commission to determine whether it is guilt or innocence. For the rest of the questions he asked I think they can be easily dealt with at the select committee level.Having said that I really want to put the bill into the real context to appreciate the principles and rationale behind the bill. We are all aware of the Teina Pora case where he spent 20 years in jail before his convictions for rape and murder were quashed. I can quote from the media such names as David Bain Arthur Allan Thomas etc. They all had spent years in prison fighting convictions that were eventually quashed. There are others who are currently in jail and should not be there.The bill establishes the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Williams PotoCRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 16 October.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Members when we were last debating this bill Kunwaljit Singh Bakshi had six minutes and 45 seconds remaining to speak should he so wish to do so. I understand this is a five minute call I call Raymond Huo.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a very brief call on this the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. Really the point that I wanted to make—having sat on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that considered this bill and listened to submitters as well—is that so much about politics and indeed trade is about choices and about cost-benefit analysis.So I challenge what the member Mr Tim Macindoe said when he made the claim that not a lot had changed with this bill in its current iteration which is the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) because actually it has. Previously in its previous shape and form the costs to New Zealanders outweighed the benefits and that's why this Government went in to bat for New Zealanders. So the five bottom lines that Labour had campaigned on—the five bottom lines that we said this bill must meet so that we feel that it is then in the best interests of New Zealanders—we went in to bat for those. And we met pretty much all of them in terms of increasing tariff reductions and increasing market access; ensuring that Pharmac is protected; ensuring that we have the ability to restrict foreigners from buying existing homes which we have done; and upholding the Treaty of Waitangi which is a clause that internationally has been recognised as being almost unheard of in terms of regulating for the benefits of an indigenous population.The investor-State dispute settlement clauses are ones that the Minister has himself said look we would have liked to have done better but we do have side letters that mean that 80 percent of trade that goes through the CPTPP won't be subjected to that.The point that I want to make really is that we've gone in and we've batted for New Zealanders and ensured that the benefits now outweigh the costs. Therefore this is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. This bill is not about whether we trade or not. I was going to do the To trade or not to trade; that was not the question." which is a truism. The bill the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill was actually about ratifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) to ensure that we had six countries that were fit for purpose really. It was incumbent on us to join Mexico Japan and Singapore who have ratified and with Australia Canada Chile Peru and Vietnam—we're all in the process of ratifying. I want to acknowledge as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that we had 577 submissions. We heard from 33 submitters. I too want to acknowledge the amazing advice that we always receive from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and just highlight that there were actually two proposed areas of amendments that we made as a select committee to fully meet our obligations. The first was in the Copyright Act and that was to ensure that we implemented two international treaties from the World Intellectual Property Organization related to Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Also there was an amendment in the Overseas Investment Act to remove references to significant business assets. But what I really want to focus on for a minute or two is the 22 suspensions and how relevant they are. Everyone has been saying that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the CPTPP are the same. Well they're not and I'll tell you why they're not. There are 22 suspensions and of those 22 suspensions seven of them require legislative change. Seven of them also require Parliament's examination and what are they? So in terms of legislation copyright term extension: this suspension means "New Zealand will not be required to extend the term of protection for copyright from 50 years to 70". It requires legislative change. A Parliament examination—an example: "Pharmac administrative changes: This suspension means Pharmac is no longer required to make certain administrative changes concerning the listing of new pharmaceutical products or medical devices for reimbursement purposes." It requires Parliamentary examination.Actually there's another one under a Standing Order that would require it to come back to Parliament to have the scrutiny of the House and that's the delay of Government procurement negotiations: "Any negotiation to expand coverage of the Government procurement chapter will be delayed until at least five years after the date of entry into force of the agreement." So to say the TPP and the CPTPP are the same is incorrect. It's incorrect based on us having to bring this back to the House.The other thing I just finally want to highlight is that there are eight suspensions that do not require to be brought back to the House because actually we really have the legislation and they do not change our obligations. I'll give one example such as the commitment to the start date adjusted for Malaysia. So that suspension affects the obligations of Malaysia not New Zealand. Kia ora. Thank you."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): It is a real pleasure to take a call on this bill. Labour Governments through the ages have supported trade agreements on the basis that they improve the wealth of a country. What we regard as incredibly important in the Labour Party and I know across the coalition Government is making sure that the benefits of trade are shared across the whole population so that we have an inclusive economy that looks to support all of its members from the economic gains that come from trade. In fact the first Labour Government of course fought for agricultural access into the UK and Labour Governments since then have done that.This Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is one that includes suspensions from the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) text to ensure that New Zealand's interests are better protected. I do want to acknowledge at the outset the trade Minister David Parker for his significant contribution both in terms of intellectual leadership when in Opposition and fighting many of these battles about what could be improved in the TPP deal in order for it to be acceptable for this side of the House; and also in Government as he negotiated things like ensuring that we do have the right as a sovereign Government to ban non-resident buyers from our housing market—speculators from overseas wanting to push up house prices here. So I want to really acknowledge in my short contribution David Parker's significant personal contribution to this piece of legislation.I also want to acknowledge Simon O'Connor the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee chair for the process that he ran in the select committee. I'm informed that it was both a very thorough process but also a prompt process that went the full course but came back to the House in time to ensure New Zealand would be one of the first six countries to ratify the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership meaning that New Zealand gains the benefits immediately—immediately the treaty comes into force. That will mean tariff reductions for example on kiwifruit which will be eliminated straight away. It means also the elimination of New Zealand sheep meat tariffs including locking in preferential rates to Canada which is New Zealand's seventh-largest sheep meat market. It also means that tariffs on forestry products will be eliminated over time. So there are a range of very valuable gains for New Zealand that will come into force some of them immediately because there was a very constructive process in bringing this back to the House. So I do acknowledge the select committee chair Simon O'Connor for his contribution to this.I don't wish to say much more other than to reinforce that for us on this side of the House it is very important that the benefits of trade are shared across the population that all New Zealanders should gain from the benefits of trade from a wealthier economy. We will be making sure as a Government that we support low and modest income families as well as those who trade directly and benefit directly from the trade access. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
Luxton Jo; Rurawhe AdrianJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well I can assure Nicola Willis the member who's just taken her seat that I am going to sleep very well tonight because today is a wonderful day for education. It is a wonderful day for teachers and it is a wonderful day for our children—our children. This Government is yet again delivering on its pre-election promises with this piece of legislation the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I am proud to be part of a Government that is putting children at the heart of every decision it makes and I am proud that we have a Minister of Education who believes the same. I want to talk a little bit about the removal of national standards. Now we heard from NZEI at the select committee when they submitted and they talked about the anguish and the heartache that parents of children with special educational needs have. They talked about the fact that the children were doomed to fail from the outset—doomed to fail right from the beginning. Right from the time they entered our schooling system they were doomed to fail. We heard from the Hon Tim Macindoe who said that this particular piece of legislation was going to be terrible and it was going to be a sad day for some of our most vulnerable children. Well actually I put it to that member that some of these children are our most vulnerable children who were disaffected by national standards. I want to also make comment about something that Parmjeet Parmar mentioned about how parents want to hear precise reporting. Well actually this isn't some sort of forensic DNA analysis. These are children a diverse group of young people that we are talking about who are all different who all have different needs and who all learn at different rates and at different stages. I take the point that a previous speaker—Jan Tinetti—brought up around something that the Hon Nikki Kaye mentioned about how one size does not fit all and that is exactly right. So that is why we are getting rid of the national standards. I have my sister Teresa who has Down's syndrome and I think about how that would have affected her and my mother had she gone to school during this time when national standards were in place. Now when someone has a child who has Down's syndrome or some other disability like that they know that that child's life and their life in turn is also going to have several challenges along the way and I think that it is disgraceful that children like that are faced with the fact that they are doomed to fail right from the word go. That child might not be aware of it but their parent certainly is and I for one am so proud to commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call David Seymour—five minutes.