edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. For the avoidance of doubt the Minister and I are exactly in lock step on the need to make sure that there isn't a Kiwi available to do the job. I have no argument with that only he's obviously been in his bubble for the last six months because there aren't any. If he goes to Mr Mooney's electorate of Southland and speaks to the good people of Queenstown goes to Jacqui Dean's neighbouring electorate in Wānaka or goes to Rotorua or Taupō he will not find them—you can't kidnap staff right now and the same process that is being gone through to find a chef in Queenstown as I understand it under the accredited employer work visa would be also adopted for a nurse. Now the job check must be done on an industry geography and occupation basis or otherwise Immigration New Zealand is repeating that process needlessly time after time after time and it's that that's winding up the employers and grinding their gears.Now I heard the Minister say he was impressed with the simplicity of the system. With that being the case can he confirm that Immigration New Zealand has stood up an incident management team (IMT) to manage what has been described to me as an imminent regulatory failure in the visa system? And it's a problem with the ADEPT system which staff are now calling the inept system. Can he confirm that Immigration New Zealand now has an IMT to manage that risk?
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I see the Minister's stacking up the questions. So I'll add to Mr Mooney's question and the Minister's own reply stating that at least the accredited employer visa is being processed in a timely manner. On page 139 of the education and workforce appropriations there is a set of performance measures one of which is that 85 percent of visitor and student visa applications be decided within 15 days. Now for reasons which elude me the Immigration New Zealand website's statistics page has those metrics at 75 percent and 90 percent; it doesn't line up with the Budget. Nevertheless visitor visa: at the moment 90 percent of them are taking 51 days or more to process. Student visas: 67 days or more for 90 percent of them. Essential skills visas: 49 days. And whatever essential skills lite" is that's taking 85 days. And skilled migrant category visas even though they're closed is taking 46 months. None of that to me suggests anything other than a significant slow-down in the processing time frame. Now I don't blame the staff at Immigration New Zealand; I blame a really convoluted process and a confusing set of metrics that they need to meet in order to satisfy things like the labour market test.So my question to the Minister is: does he accept that over the last four years or so even allowing for COVID—and I'll come back to the numbers of visas being processed—timeliness has dramatically dropped on his and his predecessor's watch?"
SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Just earlier today the Minister talked up visa automation again and new systems and how it's been so useful for accredited employer work visa applications. I'd like to know if he thought it was useful given the Advanced Digital Employer-led Processing and Targeting programme wasn't actually doing automated lodgement so that Immigration officers can do their jobs leaving support officers having to manually complete lodgement for eventual assessments in ANS.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I think that's a really good example of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Because one of the hallmarks of our immigration system was I think that it was fair consistent and timely. And the fact that we have slowed this process down so extraordinarily by turning one category name into another is not fair it's not consistent and it sure as heck isn't timely. Is the Minister the only one who doesn't see the crisis in the health sector? If the New Zealand Nurses Organisation are now overwhelmingly saying we have a crisis and in fact the resident visa is likely—as Jem Traylen alluded to in her BusinessDesk article this morning—to make the problem worse not better. Because with residence they can go to Australia and that's the opposite of what we were trying to do. Now I'm not undermining the call for nurses to be on the green list because what's going to happen is that nurses are not going to come in the first place. So if the Minister stands by his statement that he would make changes if the outcomes for nursing and healthcare are not being achieved why will he not act sooner than 12 months after the green lists open to add nurses to that list?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): The member's assertion that the system is slowing up considerably is simply not accurate. So the average processing time for employees to become accredited is approximately six days at completion. Applications to work through the job check process is taking an average of 10 days for completed job check applications. At the same time we are still having people coming through the critical purposes visa as well. So we continued to have I think over the last few months about 150 health workers per month coming through that pathway. So it's not like one stopped and there's then been a big gap as we get the new system up and running. The two have effectively overlapped to ensure that there continues to be a flow.In respect to the second set of questions that the member makes I think frankly the logic is very confused. The entire line of the National Party has been apparently that we should be speeding up access to residency. Yet his line of questioning was to the effect that that might be a bad thing to do because if we did so it might mean that people can leave the profession leave the country more quickly. There is some truth in what he's saying at the back end but they can't have it both ways. That just speaks to some of the genuine complexities that we're trying to work through as we get the system working well.
O'Connor GregHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the Minister for what was a comprehensive suite of answers. We'll try and sharpen it up a bit in the question side so that he doesn't need to go quite as extensive on the answers. I will come to the question of the processing because I think there's some interesting data there. But I want to just focus in on health and this chronic shortage of nurses that Dr McDowall and the whole industry are talking about. In the context of the accredited employer work visa which the Minister trumpets with I think he said over 8000 visas applied for—190 of them were approved in the health sector—can he confirm that only 24 of those were for nurses in the past eight weeks and if so given that the critical purpose visa was processing nearly 60 nursing work visas per month that actually the accredited employer work visa is processing at only about the rate of 21 percent that it was prior to the thing that it replaced?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I think that the comparison that the member makes doesn't tell a complete story. The nature of the accredited employer work visa is that it fully opened up in early July. It works in three phases: the employer needs to become accredited; secondly there is then a job check where the employer effectively applies for approval to be able to recruit—and that's closer to 9000 now as I understand it—in the sector; and then after that individual employees are able to apply and work visas are issued. It effectively is only in about the last couple of weeks that we have started to have any real numbers of the work visa applications coming into effect. So while the member is technically correct that category has been open since 4 July just the sheer logic of employers working their way through one two three steps in the system means that mostly those applications have come in relatively recently. We're starting to see them coming in at a much faster rate—even in coming days—so I think it's a little too early to make that judgment. Broadly speaking I have confidence that it's going to be actually a much simpler system than we've previously had in place.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse—and just for members I'm quite happy while the questions are short like this to allow a member to ask two or three on the trot and then move on to another member to do the same thing. If they're going to be long questions then we may rethink that—just so you know.
SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll just kick off by saying I'm curious and I'd like to know how the Minister can reconcile talking up the 2021 resident visa during question time today—as it's simple and relatively open and most importantly it doesn't bond people to a single employer—while simultaneously emphasising and standing by the fact that nurses can't have a fast track to residence because they might leave the sector upon getting residency. I'd just like to know if the Minister thinks he can have it both ways.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): The short answer is yes because by and large the resident visa 2021 relies on people having been working in New Zealand for several years in the same way that the two-year pathway to residency does.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I stand as kind of the reserve coming off the bench and into the game because of the inability of my colleague Erica Stanford to ask the questions of the Minister but rest assured I'm well primed and perhaps somewhat interested and knowledgeable in this area.As the chair of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee said this is very much about the visa processing so a lot of my questions are going to be about the performance of Immigration New Zealand in discharging that responsibility with the appropriations that they've been given. I do note in the documents for Vote Labour Market that it does have a summary of the proportion of the costs of running the immigration system that is funded by third-party revenue—that's applicants—which is now just over $219 million of $464 million. So less than half of the revenue that is coming in to fund the costs of running our immigration system is now being paid by applicants. Now as I recall pre-COVID that was much closer to about 75 percent and it's no surprise that given the way the borders have been over the last 2½ years that has happened. But I do think the committee would appreciate some kind of commentary from the Minister on where the target is in terms of the proportions and whether that 75 percent target is still the Government's goal what has happened to the memorandum account and how much in deficit it is because ultimately that's going to either need to be funded by applicants in the future or the Crown—that is the taxpayer—who may be a little reluctant actually to fund that level of deficit.But I want to also start in my first couple of questions on some answers that the Minister gave in oral question time today regarding Resident Visa 2021 (RV21)—the residence visa programme—and there's three questions basically. Firstly he said I think that Immigration New Zealand were on target to meet the 80 percent of the Resident Visa 2021 applications by its target date of June 2023. Can he confirm to the committee that in fact that wasn't the original target date and that there has been some significant slippage from an initial target date of 1 December this year; if so why did he purport that Immigration New Zealand was on target and why didn't he qualify that by saying that is a significant slippage?He also said that—I think the number was 94150-something have already been approved for RV21 visas. My question is: how many of those 94000 applicants approved for residence under that policy were already onshore—were already here in New Zealand? He went on to say that 3626 of them were health workers. So my final question in this stanza is the same: how many of those 3626 health workers approved for residence so far under RV21 were already here?
O'Connor GregESTIMATES DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 23 August on the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): All right thank you members. Just keep the noise down please. The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates. There are four hours and 56 minutes remaining in the debate. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio so there'll be no sector-specific debates. All Votes are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolios only. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Immigration the Minister of Health the Minister of Housing and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be available today. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or a member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister's portfolio. This debate expires after 11 hours at which point questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill. The time for the debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis and may be taken as parties see fit during the debate. New Zealand Labour has two hours and 24 minutes remaining New Zealand National has one hour and 34 minutes remaining the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 38 minutes remaining ACT New Zealand has 21 minutes remaining and Te Paati Māori has 11 minutes remaining. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government's current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the Table. The question being debated is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of appropriation for 2022/23 stand part of the schedules. Members we start with the Minister of Immigration. The Minister is available from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.—sorry Ms Marja Lubeck.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Peki Waihanga—New Zealand Artificial Limb Service annual report 2021Inland Revenue Department Tax foreign investment and productivity – long-term insights briefing and associated technical appendices.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK:Report of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on the petition of Marisa Bidoisreport of the Governance and Administration Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General Our observations on local government risk management practicesreport of the Justice Committee on the International Treaty Examination of the Agreement between New Zealand on the one part and the European Union on other part on the exchange of personal data between the European Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the authorities of New Zealand competent in fighting serious crime and terrorismreport of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Junming Mai the petition of Patrick Szetey the petition of Seann Paurini and the petition of Trish Castle.SPEAKER: The report of the Controller and Auditor-General and the international treaty are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022/23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
O'Connor GregTUESDAY 30 AUGUST 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Thursday 25 August 2022 - Volume 762
Electricity Industry Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
11. Question No. 11—ChildrenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for ChildrenQuestion No. 11—Children11. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: Does he have confidence in the Government's ability to protect and support vulnerable children and what lessons if any have been learnt from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care to date?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): In response to the first part it's improving. In response to the second part we're on the right track.Karen Chhour: Why after a four-year-old boy was critically injured by his father and stepmother did Oranga Tamariki return him to his abusers six months later where he was then almost beaten to death?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That is a terrible case and no child deserves that. That's why I asked the Prime Minister if I could be the Minister for Children: so that we could set in place the changes. The future direction plan that we have in place—the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan that we have in place—is there to address these very issues.Karen Chhour: How are vulnerable children supposed to have faith in an organisation which returns them to their known abusers?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That is a very good question and that's the very reason I asked the Prime Minister if I could be the Minister for Children: because we have to turn those very issues around.Karen Chhour: How many children have been killed or hospitalised by abusers since he took over as Minister for Children?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I think in the last three years and that might go back to before I was the Minister—so last year I think there was one; the year before that there was two; and the year before that there was one. No death is acceptable it is a tragedy and that is what we are trying to turn around and change.Jan Logie: What is the Minister's response to the social services provider who recently told me that every single day they're supporting whānau who have had their children removed or have been told that they may have been removed because of poverty or a lack of housing?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The first thing I'd say is thank you for the work that they do. In terms of the providers—we're working to make sure that communities have the resources and the ability to make the decisions around the needs of their communities. I ask them to get on board with this work because that is the way forward.Karen Chhour: Can the Minister clarify the number just given—is that known to Oranga Tamariki or all across the board?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I'm not sure—SPEAKER: In as far as the Minister is responsible.Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I'm not sure. Sorry can I just ask her to clarify the question. Is she talking about all children in New Zealand or children in Oranga Tamariki's care?SPEAKER: I'll let the member answer that question.Karen Chhour: Yeah it was all children that have been hospitalised or killed.SPEAKER: Again in so far as the Minister has responsibility.Hon KELVIN DAVIS: So my response was the advice I've given about children in the care of Oranga Tamariki.
7. Question No. 7—Research Science and InnovationWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 7—Research Science and Innovation7. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made regarding the Research and Development Tax Incentive?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): This morning I was pleased to announce that the Research and Development Tax Incentive has supported over $1 billion in research and development activity in New Zealand. The Research and Development Tax Incentive provides a 15 percent tax credit for businesses performing eligible research and development activities in New Zealand. This milestone represents $150 million in tax credits allocated over the first two years of the scheme.Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the tax incentive important to New Zealand's economic development?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Research and Development Tax Incentive is part of a wider economic strategy to improve the wellbeing and living standards of New Zealanders through better productivity sustainability and inclusive growth. Through the tax incentive we're enabling more businesses to innovate and driving greater investment in research and development as a proportion of GDP.Willow-Jean Prime: What sectors have been supported by the tax incentive?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Research and Development Tax Incentive is supporting a range of innovative businesses from exciting start-ups to some of our largest companies and growing sectors like aerospace medtech biotech and manufacturing.Willow-Jean Prime: What impact has the tax incentive scheme had on businesses?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There are now over 1600 businesses enrolled in the scheme and we know that $700 million of the $1 billion has gone into salaries for a range of high-value low-carbon jobs for the future. Through this incentive we're boosting the amount of research and development taking place and building a high-skilled knowledge-based and productive economy.Willow-Jean Prime: Can she provide an example of research and development that this tax incentive is supporting?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes. This morning I visited one of these companies Dawn Aerospace in Christchurch a leader in New Zealand's growing space and aerospace sector. Dawn Aerospace is investing tens of millions into research and development for reusable space vehicles and satellite propulsion systems supported by the tax incentive. Dawn and their fellow innovators in the aerospace sector are contributing over $1.7 billion to our economy each year and employ 12000 people.
5. Question No. 5—ForestryANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of ForestryQuestion No. 5—Forestry5. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made about transforming the forestry and wood processing sector?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Forestry): Last Friday at the Canterbury West Coast Wood Council Forestry Awards I launched the draft Forestry and wood processing industry transformation plan (ITP) for public consultation. The plan recognises how pivotal the sector will be in our future and is a significant step forward for forestry and wood processing in New Zealand.Anna Lorck: Who if anyone did the Government work with in developing the plan?Hon STUART NASH: The Government worked closely with industry Māori and unions to develop the draft ITP and we'll continue to work with these groups to move our sector from having a significant reliance on unprocessed commodity exports to one which processes more of our logs onshore thus creating jobs value and low-carbon products.Anna Lorck: How will this ITP help the Government meet its climate goals?Hon STUART NASH: By growing our wood processing capability we can replace high-emissions material in our buildings and use woody residues to produce low-emissions fuels to power our trucks trains and planes and replace plastics in a number of products and applications.Anna Lorck: What investments has the Government made to support the forestry and wood processing sector?Hon STUART NASH: The Government provided $385.4 million in Budget 2022 to support the sector. This investment will be instrumental in further developing wood processing in New Zealand.Anna Lorck: What feedback has he received on the industry transformation plan?Hon STUART NASH: A great example came from Grant Dodson president of the Forest Owners Association who said that the plan would be a game-changer for the New Zealand economy. I'm sure the chief executive and chair of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council would have waxed lyrical as well given the opportunity.
4. Question No. 4—JusticeHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 4—Justice4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Kei a koe te Māngai o te Whare te mokopuna a Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana kei te mihi ki a koe mō tō tūranga hou. [To you the Speaker of the House the great-grandson of Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana I congratulate you on your new role.] To the member yes.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was her unwillingness to say yes in response to my primary question on Tuesday Is it still the Government's intention to be 'the most open most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had'?" because she has abandoned that goal?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.Hon Paul Goldsmith: That's good to know—that's good to know. When the Minister said on Tuesday that the former Minister of Conservation "was a lawyer and advised a lot of people on official information issues" did the former Minister say it was her legal advice that the best way to avoid things unfolding through the Official Information Act (OIA) process that were less than desirable was to have a yarn rather than to write things down?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Questions are asked in silence thank you.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did the former Minister of Conservation tell her what letter from whom prompted her message to colleagues not to write but to have a yarn instead?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No although many colleagues have conversations all of the time.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order Mr Speaker. Is it possible for a Minister to claim ignorance of what was in her own mind?Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. On this side of the House we don't talk to ourselves. [Laughter]SPEAKER: Are members ready for me to rule? Thank you—I appreciate that. Both the point of order and the member speaking to the point of order are out of order.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does she think a Government culture that avoids writing things down helps improve public confidence in Government transparency?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refute the underlying assumption in that statement and I think and consider that all members on this side of the House adhere to our obligations under the Official Information Act and adhere to the Cabinet Manual.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was her statement on Tuesday in relation to the OIA "As [the] member will be aware … we wear different hats." a confirmation of recent high-profile allegations that Ministers were using different hats to avoid disclosure under the Official Information Act?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No."
3. Question No. 3—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Here we go! Workers have experienced their biggest pay hikes on record and outstripping inflation. Statistics New Zealand figures released last week show median weekly earnings from wages and salaries jumped by 8.8 percent in the June year—the largest annual increase since records began in 1998 and well ahead of inflation at 7.3 percent.Barbara Edmonds: What did the Stats New Zealand report say about median weekly earnings for women?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Women's median weekly earnings increased by 9.9 percent for the June year also the highest annual percentage increase on record.Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the resilience of the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the manufacturing sector has continued to expand. The seasonally adjusted BNZ–Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) was 52.7 led by new orders and employment.Barbara Edmonds: What indications has he seen on activity in other sectors and its impact on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well activity in the services sector is continuing to support the economy. The seasonally adjusted BNZ–Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index (PSI) stood at 51.2 in July driven by new orders and sales. Combining the PSI results to the PMI results from the previous question BNZ economists said the composite index suggests the economic expansion continued into the September quarter albeit at a slower pace than the June quarter.Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well the global activity in the manufacturing and services sector continues to be volatile. The US composite index contracted to its lowest level in two years in August and the eurozone composite index declined to a 16-month low. Australia's composite index also shrank in August for the first time in seven months. While New Zealand is not immune to global economic uncertainty our performance in these areas shows that the country is in a strong position to respond to the current pressures we are facing.
1. Question No. 1—PoliceCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of PoliceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Police1. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement made on Tuesday that Police do keep a tally of ram raids in different regions"; if so how many ram raids have been recorded over the past three months?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Yes police at the local level will identify and respond to incidents of commercial burglaries that use vehicles as their method of entry commonly referred to as a "ram raid". Police take these incidents very seriously and investigate each of them thoroughly. Police have advised me that based on a national tally of events the current numbers for each of the three months in question are 50 in May 37 in June and 42 in July.Chris Baillie: How many offenders have been caught over the previous three months and how many were under 18 years of age?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't have the age breakdown of them but I have the figures for Auckland and for the Waikato where most of the ram-raiding offences have been taking place. Over the last four months—so they're slightly different time periods—so from 1 April to 6 August there were 84 ram raids in Auckland in Tāmaki-makau-rau. To date 38 offenders have been identified or arrested almost all of whom are under the age of 18—the median age of them was 15—and a further 27 offenders' images have been identified through CCTV but they don't yet know who the particular people are. In terms of the police's Operation Pryor in the Waikato they have arrested 216 people and laid 829 charges.Chris Baillie: Does the Minister stand by his statement "I want to know how I can best support them make sure they have the tools they need to do their jobs" when referring to police and if so what tools if any have police requested that would assist them in tackling the rising ram raid issue?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question yes absolutely. In answer to the second part of the question one of the things that the police have asked is that I as Minister help to facilitate them working with other arms of Government to try and prevent this sort of offending happening in the first place and that's exactly what I'm committed to doing.Chris Baillie: Can the Minister explain to a small-business owner in Ellerslie who has been ram-raided what the process for applying to the Small Retailer Crime Prevention Fund is?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'd suggest that they talk to their local police in the first instance who will be able to talk to them about the range of support that's available to them and will be able to talk them through the various prevention strategies that they can put in place."
Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill — Second Reading
Williams Arena; Salesa JennyARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on what my colleagues have called a straightforward bill to be able to make a short contribution about why it's so important to have public confidence in our judicial system and our justice system as a whole and how this bill improves that public confidence. Because it is the Government's responsibility to determine a system and a framework for maintaining the independence between the executive and the judicial branch and this bill will put in place those criteria which distinguish the group of officers being transferred to the Remuneration Authority from the Cabinet fees framework through this bill.I also just want to touch on my colleague Vanushi Walters' comments about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the American Supreme Court. It reminded me of how we should not take for granted in New Zealand the independence of the judiciary and all of the constitutional framework that goes with that because there are democracies around the world with very different systems of appointing judicial officers and of determining the way and the conditions that they operate under. That is a very different judicial system to our own and I think New Zealand's system can be admired for the way that our justices practise completely independently. What this bill does is it continues that degree of arm's length independence between the Government and these judicial officers. And so for that reason I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Joseph Mooney.
SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. The Green Party supports the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill and I'll be taking a very short call. Mr Goldsmith should not be so cynical. The judiciary is independent because we act constitutionally to protect that independence. This is a small bill but it does protect the independence because the Cabinet fees framework is controlled by the Government and that fees framework does classify judicial and statutory officers into broad categories. And then it allows the Minister responsible for those statutory officers or the decision of the whole of the Cabinet to set the fees for the category of work that they do depending on the nature of that work the expertise that's required and the extent of the decision-making powers. So this bill with those six categories of officers including Environment Court commissioners and deputy commissioners and referees of the disputes tribunal ensures that the fees are not set by Government but are set by the Remuneration Authority which is independent of Government and there is a permanent legislative authority which provides a permanent tranche of funding which Ministers don't have any discretion over. It is a small but important mechanism in ensuring that the judiciary is independent of Government and ministerial decisions cannot influence the salaries which in a corrupt Government could be seen as Ministers or a Government wanting to reduce those salaries to impact on the work of the judiciary and the referees of the disputes tribunal and the Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators and others. So it is a good step forward and the Green Party supports it.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm very tempted to go down the garden path as well like my colleague Mr Goldsmith and respond in terms of what this Government is doing actively doing purposefully doing to address community safety. But Madam Speaker I won't; I will speak to the bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you.VANUSHI WALTERS: —this afternoon. I won't speak to much of the detail which has been traversed by the Minister and by colleagues across the House but I will speak just to what I believe to be the core of the bill and its purpose.There was a former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who drew on an analogy to describe the importance of the independence of the judiciary. She talked about the importance of having an impartial referee at a basketball game" which is an easy concept to grasp: it keeps the game controlled it ensures an objective eye in controversial decision-making and allows the fans to feel the outcome is fair. So the analogy is of course to the limbs of our democracy. Courts and judges often perform that referee role. Often it's Government and Parliament who set the rules but sometimes Government is one of those players; it's at those times in particular when independence is really critically quite important.The Supreme Court Justice who I referred to didn't just recognise the importance; she also recognised that "Judicial independence doesn't happen [all] by itself." In fact she said "It's hard to create and it's easier than most people imagine to damage or destroy it." So that's really why it's important for us to periodically consider whether the architecture we have in place that protects that independence is still appropriate or whether the threshold the radius which that independence covers at the moment needs to be shifted. That's essentially what's happening here with the six categories of decision makers moving from the Cabinet fees framework to the remuneration authority.My colleague across the way Chris Penk made the comment that this is not a bill that will change the world necessarily but I suspect that perhaps—we both agree that it's got a bit of a constitutional flavour about it and it's always a pleasure to speak to bills with a constitutional flavour like this which are significant in terms of protecting our democracy. I commend this bill to the House."
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm not going to filibuster on this bill like the previous speaker did. It is a very simple piece of legislation allowing the Remuneration Authority to set the remuneration of a number of people in the system—the Human Rights Review Tribunal a few magistrates and so forth and that makes sense.I look around the country and I see the rise in violent crime I see the rise in gang membership I see the ram raiders going on everywhere I see the huge delays in the court system—and the Government's making very little progress on that very little legislative focus on that. But its focus is on this bill the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. I suppose they need to have something at the end of three years to point to in terms of their justice area. What have they done? It looks as though when we pass this bill they will have done that and that is I suppose small mercies for this country.I don't see any point in dwelling on it any further. It makes sense let's do it but please—please I say to the other side—let's make some more progress on the things that really matter in the justice space to keep New Zealanders safe to keep them safe from the rise in violent crime the increase in gang membership the ram raids that are going unchecked in our cities and also the huge delays in the court process. And while we're at it on justice we could also focus on equal voting rights for all New Zealanders which has been lost over the last little while in Canterbury and we need to restore that to this country. But I'm getting a little off the topic Madam Speaker so I won't go any further in that direction other than to say that the National Party supports this bill. Thank you.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I have the privilege of being the last speaker on this bill and so I wanted to speak about it rather than other things. One of the things I wanted to come back to because this is a debate is this issue who this is for. This bill is for consumers. It's for the middle—the squeezed middle is often the reference made. These are the people who need a break on their electricity bills. The bills have been too high for them and their voice has not been heard so this bill helps that.Miriam Dean is the QC who did the original review and she recommended changes which meant that there would be a standardisation of terms. That was to increase competition and this bill will do that.In addition there will be an advocacy body which will actually look after interests of those small consumers—an objective of the authority which does the same. That's a really important thing if we're going to really address the cost of living for people because energy is one of the great costs and it's the one that my neighbours cross the street to talk to me about. They want to see lower energy prices for the middle-income and lower-income people of this country and I'm proud to say that this bill will do that. Thank you.
SpeechDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take this short call on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. This bill implements a number of recommendations from the 2019 Electricity Price Review to improve the electricity regulatory system and ensure that it's more future-fit in light of the significant changes occurring in the industry. This bill aims to improve fairness in the electricity sector and the thing I like most about this bill is that it protects the consumer. In New Zealand we have some consumers that depend on electricity in their homes for critical medical support such that a loss of electricity may result in the loss of life or serious harm. This bill provides the Electricity Authority with clear powers to make code to prohibit retailers from disconnecting medically dependent consumers for non-payment of their electricity bill and it's for that one main reason that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to rise and say a few words in support of this bill the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. Look this is yet another way that this Government demonstrates that it's looking out for people. One of the ways one of the myriad of ways that we do that day in day out is something that hasn't been mentioned so far in this debate and it's relevant to the New Zealanders that many of us will know and some of us will know well and some of us will have as family members—as I do—where they're people who depend on electricity in their homes for that critical medical support. As someone in that situation I can tell you that the concept of the power not being on or for something to go wrong in that direction is something that people don't need to needlessly think about and this bill provides the authority with the clear power to make the code to prohibit retailers from disconnecting medically-dependent consumers for non-payment of electricity bills. On the basis of that alone I would commend that to the House but on top of that at the heart of this it really is about strengthening consumer voice as we've heard from several other colleagues—particularly households and small businesses who struggle to make their voice heard. Not to sort of gloss over the fact but we have over half a million small businesses in New Zealand and I think most of us would appreciate the fact that they don't necessarily have time to make considerations about their electricity. It may be a small part of their outgoings but they also don't have any representation. It's representation that they could do with unlike the big players who are represented by the Major Electricity Users Group and BusinessNZ Energy Council.So as with the two million residential consumers we think that small to medium sized enterprises would absolutely benefit from an agency tasked with representing their interests. On those two points alone I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I rise this afternoon as the MP for New Plymouth which is a very popular spot and before the last election part of my campaign—and since being elected—has been around how do we as Taranaki continue to be the energy province for New Zealand. It really excites me because that is what we're doing but we're looking at how to actually be the clean-energy province for all of Aotearoa and be world leaders which is what we're doing with initiatives such as Ara Ake and others that we're doing to champion the causes of what a low-carbon future looks like. This piece of legislation traversed many a topic. Obviously one has been—and it has already been spoken about this afternoon—around strengthening the consumer voice. In fact the Salvation Army submitted on this and it talked about it from an energy hardship perspective that we wanted to do. But also coming back to my initial comments it's very much around addressing the need for more adaptive regulation to respond to new technology advances. I know that Colin Bell who is a constituent from New Plymouth submitted on it and spoke very strongly in favour of how we ensure that as technology changes there aren't just organisations or businesses who have the monopoly but there are opportunities to ensure that we have equitable and quality clean energy for our future. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee can I just firstly start by acknowledging all of the officials and the submitters who have worked with us in the passage of this bill.It is really disappointing for me to sit here and listen to the Opposition not grasping the concept of competition. This bill is a bill that will finally increase competition in the electricity market making sure that things like vertical integration in our market—which our select committee has actually just received a petition on—brings about competition which actually lowers the price in our electricity market. This bill has not come at the whim of the Minister or the ministry but since 2018 we have conducted the Electricity Price Review and this bill is a product of that Electricity Price Review knowing that in parts of our electricity market we need the Electricity Authority to have better control.There's one particular aspect that I find really really important that we have to implement in this bill which is to create space for emerging technology and I note in the bill that it especially alludes to solar energy. We know that right now as the world keeps changing and as wars are fought over energy for new technologies like solar where it's low in carbon and where it democratises our electricity industry it's extremely important for New Zealand to go forward. Making sure that big monopolies don't actually take over the whole entire emerging solar industry is so important and this is what this bill would do. It is to make sure that small consumers will get the better deal at the end of the day to make sure that New Zealand has a proper and competitive energy market. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Members petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Cheryl Singh requesting that the House clarify or amend the Unit Titles Act 2010petition of Cheryl Singh requesting that the House require the Official Assignee to disclose to a bankrupt person the administration and legal invoices paid from a bankrupt estatepetition of Cheryl Singh requesting that the House tighten responsible lending and borrowing obligations that apply to body corporatespetition of William Harding requesting that the House require smart electricity meters to be removed and replaced andpetition of William Harding requesting that the House place requirements on turbine makers Transpower and smart-meter owners.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK:Health Research Council of New Zealand statement of performance expectations 2022-23Te Manatū Waka Ministry of Transport long-term insights briefing.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Education Workforce Committee on the 2021 resident visas petitions and the inquiry into migrant exploitation.SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Coroners Amendment Bill introduction.Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.