edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson Grant; Tisch LindsayGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): What a great pleasure to stand in the House at drive time frankly—4 minutes to 10 p.m. I want to thank my colleague Chris Bishop for making sure that I managed to get my opportunity to start my contribution today. The first thing I would say is that I think the Minister of Revenue is probably setting a record for lack of enthusiasm for her role. I thought she should have been more positive tonight because as my colleague Michael Wood has alluded to she did something that her predecessor—I need to be careful; there are a variety of former revenue Ministers around—her immediate predecessor Michael Woodhouse failed to do which is actually get a bill in for the rates of income tax somewhere approximating when that year might begin as opposed to the exercise we went through in the House most recently when we just scraped through with the 2016-17 rates.The Minister should be a lot happier in her work I think given that she has actually managed to put a bill in front of us that contains the annual rates of income tax for the 2017-18 year. Of course it all could go up in smoke on Thursday when the Minister of Finance comes to the House with a Budget that apparently—I read this evening—is going to deliver $50 a week to some working families. It will be interesting if the tax rates are used to do that just who will get that benefit because the truth is that if you are using the tax system to do that be it thresholds or be it rates the people who benefit the most are people like us who earn very substantial salaries. It does not matter whether you move the bottom thresholds the people who benefit the most are the people who earn the most at the top. New Zealanders have to ask themselves: is that the priority they want from their tax system or actually are we looking to create a fairer tax system right across—Alastair Scott: Which clause of the bill are you talking about?GRANT ROBERTSON: What was that?Alastair Scott: Which clause of the bill are you talking about?GRANT ROBERTSON: I am talking about the annual rates of income tax for 2017-18 provided for in the very first words of the title—the very first words. So Alastair Scott has woken from his—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E mihi atu ki a koe e te rakatira o Ngāti Paoa ā huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you the esteemed one of Ngāti Paoa and you collectively throughout this House I greet you.]I just want to say first of all that I still have a lot of respect for the last speaker Louisa Wall. But some of the thoughts that she put to the House tonight I think really do put into jeopardy the situation on this side of the House when it comes to Treaty settlements. This is the party—the National Party is the party of Treaty settlements. When we look at the past record of that side of the House compared with this side there is no comparison at all. So to actually bring this in as a political football—when we hear the other side of the House and not just the Labour Party members but also the Green Party and New Zealand First members actually using this as a political football it is a very very dire day in this House.What I want to do is just to say to this House that this bill is a little different—absolutely—but this is an opportunity through this bill to release land so that there are opportunities for an iwi actually to be able to build on this land. It is a piece of land that was used only for the grazing of cows and some other sorts of activities. The best use of this land has been recognised by this party and the other side of the House has now used it as a political football where they are saying: Oh no because of this the whole Treaty settlement process is in disarray." What I want to do is say to that side of the House that you need land. You have just promised 100000 houses and yet everything we have put up to you is all about the release of land—you do not want to go there. Look at what we are doing. Look at what has just come. We will build 34000 new houses in Auckland and the reason for that—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I do not like that word being used. I will not have that at all.NUK KORAKO: Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I can see that I have really hit a nerve because the truth hurts. At the end of the day I want to congratulate Minister Nick Smith and Ngāti Paoa on working together to achieve this excellent outcome for iwi and Aucklanders.Phil Twyford: I think someone left a window open. Let's build some houses on parks in your area.NUK KORAKO: It is a shame that we get the disrespect from that side of the House particularly because this is a great bill. Kia ora tātou katoa."
Hayes JoJOANNE HAYES (National): Following on from that very strong speech by Marama Fox I just want to say to this House that I have sat here tonight and it has absolutely disgusted me the behaviour of the Opposition—Labour—in not supporting this bill. It is about the Treaty rights of Ngāti Paoa. I am absolutely ashamed to be part of this House when you have got a party that abstains—that abstains from actually making a decision—because they came here representing a voice to the people whom they represent and yet they abstain on this very important bill. I just want this House to take note of everything that has gone on with this Opposition. It is disgusting that Labour which purports to have all of the Māori issues in hand really does not have them in hand and we know that the Māori Party does.When I sat here today and I listened to what New Zealand First said about this Government taking away reserves it is a load of rubbish. I sat there and I thought: Where is this guy coming from? I mean he supported the Riccarton housing bill and yet cannot bring himself to support this." Honestly some people need to go back into their offices look at themselves in the mirror and think: "Are we really worthy of being here?". Because from what I have heard tonight they are not worthy of being here.So without any further ado I support the work that Hon Nick Smith is doing around housing in Auckland. Auckland needs these houses. Ngāti Paoa have a right to their own economic development with the 300 social houses that they have put together and planned for. They have a right. Do not take that right away. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Doocey Matt; Tisch LindsayMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I am very happy to rise for two reasons: one to support this bill and secondly after that last speaker I really just wanted to stand up and stretch my legs and stay awake. Really with this bill when you look at it you have a Labour Party crying crocodile tears for housing in Auckland and it opposes this bill; you have a Green Party that is sitting on the fence; and then you have New Zealand First which voted in favour of the Riccarton Racecourse reserve bill where we were looking to put affordable housing on reserve land in Christchurch and is now voting against this bill. The Opposition does not make sense whereas on this side of the House we are showing strong leadership—strong leadership for housing in Auckland.I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I sat through the many submissions in Auckland and I listened to the submitters. Overall it is fair to say that most agreed on the intent of this bill: to supply more housing. Where it really cut up rough was around the concerns for the environment and around the loss of recreational land. From what I saw that day and from what I have read I have got full faith in Ngāti Paoa to put in mitigation strategies to address the very real concerns for the birdlife for the dotterel and for potential loss of recreational grounds—to address that and put in mitigation strategies so both can go ahead. We can support the birdlife at Point England we can support better recreational grounds for the local community and we can provide more housing.When we pause and reflect on what happened post the devastating earthquakes in Canterbury we know that when you need to ramp up housing the first step is to free up land. We saw that in parts of my electorate in Waimakariri. If we free up land it increases supply and it equals demand. That is what we need for Auckland. So I am very surprised that we have a Labour Party crying crocodile tears for housing in Auckland that we have a Green Party that is sitting on the fence and that we have a New Zealand First Party that forgot its stance last time.Overall this is a good bill that will support future housing in Auckland and I commend it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Eugenie Sage—5 minutes.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking to the Point England Development Enabling Bill this being the second reading. As we have heard this bill is about taking 11.7 hectares out of a total of 48 hectares of which the Crown owns 45 hectares and using that for housing. Specifically there are 300 new houses to be built a mixture of social affordable homes as well as other homes. I have listened to my colleagues who have talked about the merits or otherwise of using this land and also the need for housing in Auckland. As we all know there is an overwhelming need for housing in Auckland but what I want to turn my mind to at this stage is just to talk about the issue of Ngāti Paoa. I certainly listened to the speech—Tracey Martin: They're not mentioned in the bill.ANDREW BAYLY: —from my colleague opposite Peeni Henare. Whilst the Ngāti Paoa situation is not specifically mentioned in the bill clearly one of the intentions of the Government is to conclude a historical Treaty of Waitangi settlement with Ngāti Paoa.Opposition parties have made a number of claims. They claim that the iwi should be given or should negotiate some land around the Tāmaki land settlement coming out of the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company and that that is the land that they should be entitled to and that should be used for meeting settlement requirements. Secondly I have heard on other occasions that Ngāti Paoa—this is the aspersion—do not have the expertise to develop the 300 houses that they would like to. Thirdly by implication because Ngāti Paoa do not have the expertise then this land may be offered to other iwi and failing that might even be offered to developers. Well they are wrong and we are very lucky to have a senior representative from Ngāti Paoa up in the gallery here. I do acknowledge him.It is clear first of all that Ngāti Paoa have a very strong cultural traditional spiritual and ancestral commitment and connection with this land that we are talking about. Secondly this piece of land is absolutely crucial to their settlement. They do not want the Tāmaki development land; they want this piece of land. And related to that the coinciding position and the enhancement of the marae—the two hectares that will be set aside for the marae on the land right beside the housing development that they wish to undertake—is also a crucial element of that settlement and very important. I think that the Opposition parties have truly misrepresented that situation.Next the aspersion that iwi do not have the expertise to undertake this development I find personally insulting. Ngāti Paoa have talked about an investment company being set up to work through that and I think they do have the expertise and they do have the right intent. Finally I think the persuasion that they want to create social and affordable houses on this site is a very valuable part of their offering. So I do have a great deal of faith that Ngāti Paoa will do what is correct. I do believe that this bill is the right thing to do and I fully endorse it. Thank you.
Borrows ChesterSchedule 3 Consequential amendments and revocationsThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The amendments to schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of David Clendon are out of order as they are consequential to a previous amendment negatived by the Committee.Schedule 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing duties) Amendment Bill with amendment and the Statutes Repeal Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
Hipkins ChrisClause 5 Repeal of this ActCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): This is the longest debate that I have ever had on such a minor bill. Hon Jo Goodhew: The member certainly tells it as it is.CHRIS HIPKINS: That is true. It is absolutely right. I was going to say that one day the member will find herself over here but apparently she will not.Hon Amy Adams: Neither will the rest of us.Hon Jo Goodhew: Been there done my time.CHRIS HIPKINS: That is right. But clause 5 of the bill repeals the Act once it has been passed. It is a rather interesting provision because this bill will be made law the day after it receives the Royal assent—so the Governor-General signs the law to say it is now the law. Then 28 days later it will disappear. It seems to me rather interesting that that would be the case because we are repealing a number of other Acts that have already been repealed. So in view of the fact that this bill has a self-destruct clause if we could call it that what I would like to know from the Minister in the chair Nicky Wagner is whether that then means that it will not then at any point itself need to be included in a future statutes repeal bill.Paul Foster-Bell: That's right.CHRIS HIPKINS: Paul Foster-Bell says That's right." but go back to the Rugby World Cup legislation that this repeal bill repeals.The Rugby World Cup legislation had a self-destruct clause as well but the self-destruct clause was by Order in Council so the Act could be repealed when a Minister signed a piece of paper by Order in Council that said that it was repealed and that was done. So why is it that that Act having been repealed by an Order in Council is now having to be repealed again as part of this bill yet this bill will then not have to be repealed—I know this is sounding very very circular—by another future repeal bill?So does clause 5 mean that this is it for this bill—completely finished?Paul Foster-Bell: Yes.CHRIS HIPKINS: Well Paul Foster-Bell should perhaps be the Minister in the chair. Maybe he has resigned too early from the House because he seems to be willing to engage in the debate which the Minister in the chair the Hon Nicky Wagner who is actually responsible for the legislation does not seem willing to do.Actually it is an important issue because the reason that we are having this debate—we would not even need to have this debate if clause 5 which we have got here had been included in all of the other repeal bills that are now being repealed by this repeal bill and then we would not need to have further repeal bills. So a simple question: does this mean that it is the end of the matter for this bill? If it does that is a good thing. If that is the case then we should certainly put this into all of our future statutes amendment bills and other bills like that so that we do not then have to come back and have these debates in the future.Clause 5 agreed to."
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I want to pick up where my colleague Kris Faafoi left off in relation to the Home Ownership Savings Act. We have got consequential amendments to that Act in schedule 3 but that Act cross-references some key definitions that are contained in the Fishing Vessel Ownership Savings Act and the Farm Ownership Savings Act which are actually repealed under schedule 1.I am just cross-referencing them over but what I would like to know is—there are core definitions within the Home Ownership Savings Act that have been repealed and also the Act that they were established under has been repealed under this bill as well. I would like to know how certain the Minister is that there are not still valid accounts that exist. I believe that it was up until 1986 that no further accounts could be opened however we are talking about potentially quite a large number of accounts. The institutions that those accounts were opened with are still around albeit sure the banks might have changed ownership over the years.Clearly not all of that Act has been repealed; it is only certain definitions relating to farm ownership and fishing vessels. So what I would like to know is based on that how certain is the Minister that the fishing vessel accounts and the farm accounts aren't still valid and what happens in that situation? You are repealing the legislation that creates these accounts and you could create a sort of void. You are voiding these accounts and the potential accountholders or their successors. I would like some I guess confirmation from the Minister that this will not affect existing accountholders. This goes to the point that we have been making around the complexity when there are repeals happening upon repeals.I just want to bring another point—I beg your indulgence Mr Chairperson. If we look to Part 2 of schedule 1 it covers the repeal of parts of the Fisheries Act. I have looked at that section section 314(1) and the repeal of those paragraphs relates to the repeal of other provisions in the Fisheries Act. So what we are dealing with is a repeal upon a repeal. I am cross-referencing it because it links to the subject matter in schedule 3. All I am saying is that there are inconsistencies. The potential inconsistencies here—I would like to get clarification from the Minister that these are consistent with these repeals because it does not make sense. Why would—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I will just draw to the member's attention that the schedule he is talking about was debated under clause 3. We are now debating clause 4.RINO TIRIKATENE: I was begging your indulgence because I was switching among the various schedules.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): My indulgence has expired.Clause 4 agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to make a brief further contribution to this debate. I was again somewhat surprised when I looked at Part 2 of schedule 3 which includes the consequential revocation of regulations. It revokes a number of regulations made by Order in Council. The thing that surprised me about that is why we needed primary legislation in order to revoke pieces of legislation that have been made without legislation. These are regulations that have been made by Order in Council by Ministers and therefore why are we revoking them by way of legislation? Surely they could be revoked without the need to resort to legislation.It seems to me that the genesis of this bill is repealing unused statutes and the justification was the Productivity Commission's report that the law needs to be tidied up and that we need to reduce the amount of unnecessary legislation that we have so what is the point of passing legislation as part of this bill that we do not actually need? Revoking regulations by way of an Act of Parliament when those regulations could simply be revoked by Ministers signing a piece of paper to revoke them seems to me to be the very mischief that this bill is designed to remediate which is that we do not want a whole lot of unnecessary laws either on the books of the House or passing through the House.So Part 2—I would be very interested in an explanation from the Minister as to why these regulations are being revoked by an Act of Parliament rather than simply by Ministers using the prerogative that they have to be able to revoke. Well it is not actually a prerogative that they have; it is the prerogative that the Governor-General has on Ministers' advice to simply revoke these by way of Order in Council. It seems to me that that would be a much more sensible way of progressing that matter unless there is a good reason why they are being dealt with through primary legislation. But I certainly cannot see from my reading of the bill why that might be.
Hipkins ChrisClause 4 Amendments to and revocations of other enactmentsCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am somewhat perplexed with regard to this next clause clause 4 which deals with schedule 2 Amendments to other Acts". My question to the Minister in the chair Nicky Wagner is a relatively simple one. None of these amendments in schedule 2 by my reading of them repeal any Acts so why have they been included in a statutes repeal bill? It seems rather odd. If this is a case of updating in the form that we might expect in a statutes amendment bill then it could have been included in that. But the very narrow purpose of this bill is to repeal unused Acts and unused provisions in Acts.It seems to me that if we look at—it is page 9 that we are talking about here; the first one is an amendment to insert additional provisions in the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. The next amendment inserts additional provisions in the Government Roading Powers Act 1989 in particular around the Auckland Harbour Bridge which was rather fascinating the definition of what constitutes the Auckland Harbour Bridge. There are further amendments to the Public Works Act 1981—Kris Faafoi: Nick wants to build under it.CHRIS HIPKINS: Nick wants to build under it. Well funnily enough I will come to that. Hold that thought for just a moment I am going to come to that.The Public Works Act 1981 is amended by inserting additional provisions. The State Sector Act 1988 is amended by inserting additional provisions. It seems to me that we have somewhat missed the purpose of the Act which was to repeal Acts not insert additional provisions. Mr Faafoi did raise a legitimate point which is around the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The definition of the Auckland Harbour Bridge that is being inserted in this Act says that the Auckland Harbour Bridge does not include—(a) any land or water over which the bridge passes on a structure where there is air space between the land or water and the structure:".Kris Faafoi: That's prime for housing.CHRIS HIPKINS: That is a prime site for housing. I think that this is Nick Smith's new solution to the housing crisis. I am very much looking forward to the Government's explanation of exactly how that is to be. But really the main purpose of this contribution was really to get an explanation around why these provisions are in here because they are not repealing anything they are actually adding to the Act and that seems to be completely inconsistent with what the purpose of this bill is."
O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I wanted to take part in the debate on two of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are in front of us. The first one is the blasphemy SOP SOP 315 if I could put it that way. New Zealand First would support that change. We feel that it is contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. One of the sections in that Act refers to freedom of thought conscience and religion" and clearly this so-called crime of blasphemy is contrary to that. Similarly it is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which contains similar declarations of freedom. It is out of place in 21st century New Zealand because I think that few people these days would accept a prosecution for blasphemy. In fact I do not even think it is possible to properly define in this day and age what blasphemy would be because of the huge cultural diversity we have in the country. So quite plainly this is a section in the Crimes Act that is thoroughly out of date incapable of prosecution and should be dispensed with forthwith so we will support the elimination of that.However turning to the sentencing council SOP New Zealand First will oppose that SOP because we think that the Sentencing Council should be removed not just because it has never been used but because it is probably incapable of ever being used. Having said that I will say the reasons why. First of all when I look at that particular Act I see in section 8 what the purposes are and the purposes are to produce guidelines about sentencing and parole to promote consistency and so on and to enable development of sentencing and parole policy to be based on a broad range of experience and expertise. It is difficult to understand exactly how that would work and what sort of policy would come under that section. So I can understand why it has never been implemented because it seems to me a particularly difficult piece of legislation to put into place.When I look at the functions under section 9 it talks about guidelines on sentencing principles whatever they may be; sentencing levels which I think actually are for Parliament to decide and not that council; particular types of sentences which again I think is for Parliament to decide and not that council; and so on. It also in section 9(1)(c) talks about assessing and taking account of the overall costs and benefits of the guidelines. I have no idea why that exercise should be undertaken or why it should be undertaken by that council. Then in section 19 it says: "Any guideline (not being an inaugural guideline) may be disapplied by resolution of the House of Representatives passed within 15 sitting days …". So the House can then undo whatever it is that the council decides to do. I think it is a nonsense piece of legislation I think it is impractical I think it is inappropriate and it is certainly not New Zealand First policy so we will vote against it.Clause 3 agreed to."
Kuriger Barbara; Tisch LindsayBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No I am going to hear from Rino Tirikatene.
Hipkins ChrisClause 2 CommencementCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to take only a very brief call on the commencement clause because of course there is a relatively limited amount that one can say on the commencement clause which basically means that this law—this new Act—will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. The question really is what the legal effect of that is considering the comments that I made earlier. Many of these repeals have already been repealed so what is the legal effect of repealing them again? Once this new repeal comes into effect how is the world going to change if the things that it is repealing have already been repealed? So the Royal assent in this case does not actually make a heck of a lot of difference given that this particular bill gives effect to decisions that have already been made. So I think that it is an interesting legal question.The other question would be: if something has already been repealed and then this Act repeals the repeal does the original repeal come undone therefore making the mischief that was repealed in the first place once again operable? I guess that is a question for a legal scholar like—maybe the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith would like to argue that; but I am pretty sure it will not. I would love to hear from one of the greater legal minds in the House than me as to whether that is the case because it seems to me that would create all sorts of issues.Clause 2 agreed to.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Regulatory Reform): I just want to take a quick call on this just to make the point that statutes repeal exercises have been very widely used in many countries overseas although the practice has not been used frequently in New Zealand. The UK Parliament has passed 19 statutes repeal bills since 1965 and in total it has repealed more than 3000 public Acts. And in Australia the Federal Parliament of Australia has a regular repeal day that redundant legislation is caught through and that practice has evolved because there is good sense in keeping the statute book up to date and tidy and to declutter and to move things out of the way. There has not been one in New Zealand—we did one in 2012 but prior to that there has not been one since 1907 so this is very timely in the New Zealand context. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Act 2012 repealed 31 Acts some going back to the 19th century and this one will carry on that tradition. I might mention that a quite a lot of reference has been made to the Sentencing Council Act—or is that in the next part?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in clause 3.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes. So that is all I needed to say. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.
Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I rise to speak about the Statutes Repeal Bill having been a member of the committee considering it the Government Administration Committee. I would like to pay tribute to the chair of the committee for handling a difficult discussion very well. It was an issue that previous speakers have noted was a difficult discussion particularly centred on the potential repeal of the Sentencing Council Act 2007.Just to remind the Committee this Sentencing Council Act 2007 actually came into force on 1 November 2007. It was not an Act that was never brought into force. It actually was brought into force and then as previous speakers have said the Government decided that it did not want to act on an Act that was in force. Like other speakers I was pretty much persuaded by strong evidence from Sir Kenneth Keith to say that not only is this Statutes Repeal Bill the wrong place to repeal this Act but actually the Government was wrong in not taking action earlier to do something about an Act that it just chose not to act on when the legislation was already in force. So we are very concerned about that Act.With regard to the rest of the Statutes Repeal Bill we think probably—marginally—getting rid of old statutes is not a bad thing to do although we would pass a comment to say that the Government obviously has too much time on its hands and not enough important things to do to be spending important legislative time on a job that has very dubious benefits. As a committee we are struggling to actually understand the justification for the time and effort that has gone into this bill including a significant amount of the time of officials.But we would like to register our concern over that particular item of the Sentencing Council Act. We would say that we would like to ensure that this statutes repeal process is not used in future in order to conveniently get rid of legislation that the Government does not really want to take action on. This is not the right process and the Sentencing Council Act should not have been dealt with in this way and we certainly would appreciate a response from the Minister in the chair to these concerns.We raised these concerns repeatedly in the committee. As a new member on that committee I must say I found it rather strange that the committee members did not offer an adequate explanation from the Government side as to why the Sentencing Council Act was included in this statutes repeal bill process rather than being the subject of a stand-alone and separate process if it was legislation that it did not intend to implement. Therefore it would be good to hear a response to that issue from the Minister because frankly it left members of the committee from the Green Party's side—and I suspect others—a little bit confused as to why this route was chosen for the Sentencing Council Act.Further I would note that there is Supplementary Order Paper 319 which is included here on behalf of my colleague David Clendon. It deals very much with the issues that have previously been raised in this debate and those specifically raised by David Parker the last speaker. Thank you.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The member Megan Woods has just very well and precisely illustrated the difficulty of constructing what will be an objective public interest test. Of course the test will vary by circumstances—those circumstances that the member has just rehearsed from within the bill. It will also depend on what sector of the economy is being complained about. Therefore the need for judgment is inevitable. I would direct the member to clause 13 of the bill which inserts new section 10 Application for investigation" into Part 4 because the member asked how an investigation will be initiated. It will be simply by way of a complaint."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Members have raised a number of issues so I will cover off a few of the issues that have been raised. The first—and it has been mentioned several times—is around the subjective nature of the public interest test. I would note that the public interest test is subjective by necessity simply because it involves judgment. The inclusion in the bill of multiple criteria to be evaluated such as quality means that a purely objective public interest test is simply not realistic. The reports outlining the recommendations to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs will be made public at the end of the investigation. This will provide a great degree of transparency will provide a degree of clarity and will also signal and give future applicants an idea of how the public interest test will be conducted.There were also comments around the nature of the public interest test criteria not being weighted. I would say this: being too prescriptive and rather inflexible during the test could result in inconsistent and unintended outcomes. What seems sensible to one sector of the economy might not be appropriate at all in another sector of the economy. There were comments around New Zealand's international reputation and I would say to that that the public interest test simply allows the Minister to take into account the wider competition and consumer effects of imposing a duty. The public interest test as it is introduced in this bill contains a presumption in favour of imposing duties and it also does not conflict with New Zealand's stance against subsidies.Finally a question was asked about what constitutes quality". The Government has an entirely separate regime for dealing with quality control of imported goods. The anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime was never intended or envisaged to deal with issues relating to compliance with standards. That is an entirely different matter."
Urgent Debates Declined — Alfred Ngaro—Investigation into Ministerial Funding Decisions
Motions — Manchester—Attack
Ross Jami-Lee; Tisch LindsayTRADE (ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill to be debated as one debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDCommunity and Voluntary Sector Minister—Investigation into Ministerial Funding DecisionsMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision by the Prime Minister to order an investigation of the Hon Alfred Ngaro's funding decisions as Minister. The decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The big hurdle to get over in applications for urgent debates is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House ought to be set aside. The test is a high one. There must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change for the matter to take precedence over other business. While the announcement of an inquiry may warrant an urgent debate the circumstances must be exceptional. In this instance the investigation found that the Minister had not been involved in any funding decisions. On that basis I am not persuaded that the setting aside of the business of the House for an urgent debate on the decision to order the investigation can be justified. The application is therefore declined.
Peters WinstonTUESDAY 23 MAY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSManchester—AttackRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to move without notice a motion regarding the tragic attack in Manchester today.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I move That this House send its condolences to the people of Manchester and the United Kingdom for the horrible attack today leading to thus far known 19 deaths and 59 injured.Motion agreed to.
Wednesday 26 July 2017 - Volume 724
Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
2. Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—ObjectivesCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Member in charge of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Objectives2. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Member in charge of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2): What are the main objectives of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)?ANDREW LITTLE (Member in charge of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)): The objective of the bill is very clearly laid out and is to improve the health of our people and to save lives. It is about ensuring that no child in New Zealand grows up in a damp unhealthy cold rental home and it sets minimum standards for insulation for heating for ventilation and for drainage.Carmel Sepuloni: Does he intend to propose any changes to the bill to better meet those objectives?ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. I intend to propose amendments to adopt the changes proposed at the select committee that the committee unfortunately could not reach unanimous agreement on. That includes the inspection regime by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to ensure that the standards are met improved standards in the bill and to ensure that it works with the existing rules for smoke alarms.
1. Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—SupportCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Member in charge of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)QUESTIONS TO MEMBERSHealthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Support1. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Member in charge of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2): What indications of support has he received for the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)?Mr SPEAKER: Andrew Little.ANDREW LITTLE (Member in charge of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)): I am obliged Mr Speaker. Thirty thousand New Zealanders have signed an open letter calling on the Government to back the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) and I would hope the Government would listen to that. This bill will make sure that children are not growing up in cold damp mouldy homes. I seek leave to table the open letter for healthy homes that has been presented to me recently and is signed by 30000 New Zealanders.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that substantial information. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Carmel Sepuloni: What indications of support has he received for the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) from experts on the effects of unhealthy housing?ANDREW LITTLE: Yesterday I received a petition from no less an organisation than Medical Students for Global Awareness. That petition was signed by 1000 New Zealanders mostly from the medical community calling on Parliament to pass the bill. That organisation is led by Josh Smith a 6th year medical student who is working in paediatrics. I seek leave to table the petition from Medical Students for Global Awareness carrying 1000 signatures.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No I refer the member to Speaker's ruling 188/4. By convention one supplementary question will be taken; it is always taken from the member who asked the question.
12. Housing Supply—Housing Infrastructure FundDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionHousing Supply—Housing Infrastructure Fund12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: How many additional homes will be brought forward and in what areas as a consequence of the Government's support for councils through the $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): The funding will be used to provide infrastructure for 60000 homes across nine projects in five fast-growing urban areas. Auckland will receive $300 million to provide infrastructure for an additional 10500 homes Hamilton will receive $272 million for an additional 8100 homes Waikato will receive $37 million for 2600 homes Queenstown Lakes District will receive $50 million for 3200 homes and Tauranga will receive $230 million for infrastructure for 35000 homes.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does this work on housing infrastructure complement the fast-track zoning provided through the housing accords with councils across New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The No. 1 problem with new housing supply has been the shortage of suitably zoned land and that is why our Government's top priority has been fast-tracking the additional space for housing. That has been successful in that from when the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act was passed we have seen a lift from 15000 homes a year being built to 30000 homes. However councils signalled to the Government last year that the constraint of how they funded the infrastructure to support the housing risked slowing that growth. That is why the billion-dollar injection to support council infrastructure and the new Crown Infrastructure Partners initiative announced at the weekend is about dealing with that new constraint and maintaining the momentum of growth.
10. Public Transport Auckland—Third Main Rail LineJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of TransportPublic Transport Auckland—Third Main Rail Line10. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Can he confirm that the business case for the Third Main Rail Line in Auckland says completing this project will take 400 heavy vehicles off the road each week reduce travel times for 5 million rail passengers and save 300 hours for freight services each year?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Yes. The draft business case identifies these benefits. I have always seen the third main line as a project of real merit and that is why I asked officials to jointly work on the project which has led to the development of a draft business case. Julie Anne Genter: Given that he sees the project as one of real merit why did his Government reject the Budget bid for $60 million for this critical new rail line when it is happy to spend nearly $2 billion on road freight on the uneconomic East-West Link motorway? Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well it never in fact got to a political level and that was simply because it was a draft. It was not fully prepared and had not been consulted on amongst the agencies it should have been. I note there is an irony I suppose in that this member insists on benefit-cost ratios and good economics and strong process on projects that suit her ends but not all projects. Julie Anne Genter: Will he commit to building this new rail line before the City Rail Link is complete given the business case states that without it the benefits of the Auckland City Rail Link will be constrained as there will be no capacity to introduce more … trains" to the line? Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I say it is a project of real merit I think but it has got to go through a proper process instead of a process that the member insists on for roading projects. What I would say to the member though is that it is in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project first decade and I think that should give her some confidence about this project. Julie Anne Genter: Given that rail patronage is growing at a much faster rate than his Government ever anticipated does he not think that perhaps this project should be built sooner rather than later because it will enable more people and more freight to move around Auckland? Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I note that that patronage is growing in part because of this Government because we have invested so strongly in the electrification of rail and it is on the basis of those figures that we are continuing to invest more in rail than any other Government.Julie Anne Genter: Ha ha! Ha ha!Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I know the truth hurts but those are the facts."
9. Health Services—Bowel ScreeningSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Bowel Screening9. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the Government has invested $77.8 million into the roll-out of the national bowel screening programme to date and that the first eligible residents are now being invited to take part?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes indeed. This week the first letters inviting people to take part in the screening programme are being sent to residents in the Hutt Valley District Health Board and the Wairarapa District Health Board areas. Over the next 2 years approximately 30000 residents in those district health board areas will be invited to do the bowel screening test. This is the first step in the phased implementation of the free National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme throughout New Zealand over the next 3 years. The Southern District Health Board and the Counties Manukau District Health Board will be the next to join the roll-out and the nationwide roll-out will be completed by 2020.Simon O'Connor: How will the bowel screening programme benefit New Zealanders?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Around 3000 New Zealanders are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year and it is the second most deadly form of cancer. The National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme will be New Zealand's first national cancer screening programme for both men and women. Once implemented it is expected to screen over 700000 New Zealanders every 2 years. It is expected that 700 cancers will be detected each year during these early screening rounds. The Government has invested $77.8 million into the screening programme's progressive roll-out to date with a further $19 million invested into delivering more colonoscopies faster.