edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Mr Speaker. I don't think there's any argument throughout the whole House from anything that I've heard today that we don't want big corporations to pay their bills in a timely fashion. We don't want small and medium sized enterprises to be banks. In fact you can't even call them a bank because it's interest-free. Banks charge interest with regard to things like that. What we do want though is legislation that is efficient and is effective in delivering on the purpose that it serves and we've already got evidence being presented by the Minister that across the Tasman Sea that is not the case. So we need to be outcomes-focused. We are trying to make sure that there is good behaviour by all businesses with the methods with which they're actually paying.The Minister has also presented what he plans to do with the seven initiatives the seven focus areas subsequent to the repealing of the particular piece of legislation. This is not big businesses versus small to medium sized enterprises; this is about attacking the core issue that we're talking about. For that reason I'm happy to commend this bill to the House.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I am glad that I'm able to stand for a second time to commend this bill to the House because I joined this Parliament this House because I see so much more aspiration for New Zealand and for many many of our small medium and large businesses and employers because they have the aspiration to grow New Zealand so that we have a bigger economy so that every individual in New Zealand gets better outcomes at the end of the day. I came to this House to support faster innovations and to support creative innovations that small medium and large businesses can actually go out grow their business and bring more for everyday New Zealanders. So therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Wedd Catherine; Tuiono TeanauCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I'd just like to get us back on track in this debate here today because we seem to have moved off the issues. We totally agree with that side of the House that we are the Government of Small Business". We are aspirational for small business and we want our economy to get ahead but that is not with regulation red tape and compliance. Coming back to the issues we agree that businesses need to pay on time and we're not refuting that. But that is not done with more regulation and red tape being inflicted on business which costs more and takes more time. I'd just like to read out some of the things that our Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing has already said in his speech—which obviously on that side of the House you aren't listening to—that we will be doing and that's reinforcing the requirement for Government agencies to pay ordinary creditors and ramping up the adoption of e-invoicing. That's innovation. That's innovation which we understand and which obviously on that side of the House you don't understand. There are many things—there are actually seven things—that we're going to implement. We've got a plan and it's not done through having more regulation. So I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I do want to acknowledge the enthusiasm in this House—maybe some members need morning tea—but if there are going to be discussions there are a lot of places out in the hallways for you to have that."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's quite incredible what we just heard. Clearly the member Ricardo Menéndez March did not hear what the Minister said in his first reading speech and indeed in his second reading speech. He is going to bring forward seven initiatives that will go much further than this current bill does and in a much more efficient way that doesn't add a whole lot of costs to businesses. We heard that it's going to cost $2 million to $3 million for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's own IT system let alone the costs that the businesses would have to implement to get compliance up with this particular legislation.Some of the speeches seem to assume that the current legislation is saving all of the businesses from being not paid on time and that that is being forced by this legislation. That's not the case. It's a reporting Act—that's all it is. That information is actually available from four other entities plus Centrix—which the Minister alluded to in his first reading speech—for a cost of $35.So it's all there. This is just going to add costs and create a whole lot of inefficiencies. Therefore I commend this wonderful bill to the House.
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and having been well a solopreneur for most of my working life in a coaching and consulting small businesses I can assure people on the other side that no one on this side wants to see small businesses fail. No one on this side wants to see late payment for small businesses or other solopreneurs out there who struggle with this. It is known—we know about it. What we want for small business and for solopreneurs is to have the ability to have a more informed decision-making process when they are thinking about their potential customers. I know that smaller businesses will have access to data through the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) but the reality is: will they use it? I know from speaking with many of my clients that what stresses them is compliance—things they don't understand. They wouldn't know how to interpret the data that is held by MBIE. So these are some factors that we are taking into account because they are specialists in a certain field but they're not specialists in business and in interpreting data. So that is why things like this stress them. What does stress them is having more compliance costs and that is why New Zealand First is commending this bill to the House.
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. New Zealand businesses are in a thicket of regulation: compliance the different laws we have to go through—I mean as a small-business owner I think we all know how hard it is to keep track of all the different things that Government forces us to do. This sort of regulatory burden adds to the thicket of red tape. It adds to the cost of running businesses. It means that if we can do anything to relieve another burden on any type of business—small large medium—it's all important so that we can pass benefits on to customers by not spending extra. I think the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has it at $26 for a paper invoice instead of encouraging people into e-invoicing for $10. These sorts of things can improve this life for all New Zealanders when the costs to actually supply goods and services are relieved.I have heard from on the other side of the House that this means that we are going to be mistreating our medium and small businesses. I think medium and small businesses need to be looking at who they're doing business with. It is something that everyone has to take responsibility for and it doesn't mean that you can't already access information from your networks and from people you interact with about the business practices of the people whom you interact with. I commend this bill to the House.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I rise to support the repeal of the Business Payment Practices Act because businesses in New Zealand are desperate to move forward in this very challenging economy and they're desperate to move forward with the modern world. What they don't need is excessive regulation in their areas that will just ask them to do additional administrative work and disclosures. What businesses don't need is for the Government to tell them to keep disclosing. What businesses need is smarter and more modern processes so people can actually go on and pay faster. This will benefit the entire economy. So therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I'd like to speak in support of this bill and I'd just like to allude to the member that has just spoken Ingrid Leary who said that this Government has no plans that she's seen. Well in the first 100 days we've got 49 actions and our plans are very much focused on getting this economy back on track. And that's being aspirational for business—driving productivity creating jobs and opportunities not strangling business with six years of red tape regulation compliance and cost. This is not the way to get this economy ahead. As my colleague has already pointed out we're all about innovation and using innovative ways for small business—that's e-invoicing. On that side of the House they'd know nothing about innovation productivity aspiration for business and that is why I commend this bill to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. Actually this debate so far underlines what some people are not approaching as a debate. If they had listened to the speech from the Minister Andrew Bayly—clearly the Green member Scott Willis had not heard that or had chosen not to listen. The Minister pointed out that there will be a bill which I predict will be called the Bayly Bill" which will actually address a lot of the issues that they raised in a much more comprehensive way in a much more cost-effective way and bring all of the stories of woe that were brought before us under control.No one is suggesting that we don't enforce people paying their bills on time. That is exactly what the Minister said he was going to do and for those newer members just have a listen to the people that are speaking before you. Helen White did actually do that and I give her credit for that. We have different views but at least debate. That's what this is; it's a debate. I commend this bill to the House."
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of repealing this previous Act that was put in.Now one of the things that businesses need is data. They need data in real time in order to make good decisions on how to run the business. So whether it's a small business or a big business data is vital. Now if there is a six-month reporting period and then another four months after that that is 10 months; whereas now there is information available. If you want to pay the fee it is a minor fee to pay. But good business owners don't make decisions based on 10 months of lapsed data. So this is why New Zealand First commends this bill to the House.
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill. I'm proud to be in a party where the majority of our MPs have actually worked in small business. We actually do represent small business on this side of the House because we've been there. We understand what it's like and we know what the challenges they face are day to day. This bill that we're putting in place does repeal some unnecessary compliance costs—and in a relationship we don't actually need to be interfering in. We're very supportive of small business but this is not the way to do it and it's also not the way to impose additional costs on other businesses. We are very supportive of this bill and it's good to get the Act repealed before it comes into force and all of these reporting requirements are put in place. Darleen Tana: Cheap debt-servicing for big business. TODD STEPHENSON: I'm hearing a lot of interjections from across the House. We support all business and as I've already stated we actually have worked in small business so we actually know all of the pressures that they face. Hon Members: So have we. TODD STEPHENSON: Great! So you'll know that this is totally unnecessary and yet again it's having the Government interfere in the relationship between enterprises working together. I commend this bill to the House.
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I'm pretty sure many of us in the House as we know have studied law. When I went through the practice part of the law component I remember our lecturer saying that when it comes to sentencing as a lawyer you've got to put together a list of mitigating factors for the judge to consider when he or she is making a determination on sentence. So I don't think it's such a big ask for us to say for our lawyers let's get back to the basics. Let's put together that list of mitigating factors for our magistrates for our judges to make their decisions. What the last day of kōrero has shown me is the extent to which some people in this House will go to defend criminals. It's been astounding. So what we say here today is we commend—I commend—this bill to the House.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): We must acknowledge the challenges that face offenders and many young offenders especially. There is a lot of help needed for them long before they get to the space of being in a position to offend. But what the Legal Services Amendment Bill wishes to do is simply to bring back section 27 reports to what they were originally intended to do which was to allow family members and friends people who knew the offenders to speak to the report and give them support. It was never envisioned for authors to be paid a whole lot of money which is raised from taxpayers—to be provided—even with no direct connection to the families or the offenders. So we commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor Greg; Redmayne SuzeTUESDAY 5 MARCH 2024(continued on Wednesday 6 March 2024)LEGAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good morning. The House is resumed. We're on the third reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Let's be really clear here. Amending the Legal Services Act 2011 to exclude section 27 reports from the legal aid scheme doesn't stop offenders from being able to get someone to speak directly to the court on their behalf. It doesn't stop someone from being able to provide a written statement regarding their background. But it does stop the cottage industry that writing section 27 reports has become costing the taxpayer millions—over $7.5 million last year up from $40000 in 2017—while doing nothing for the victims of crime. I commend the Legal Services Amendment Bill to the House.
Wednesday 22 May 2024 - Volume 775
Kuriger BarbaraHOUSE IN COMMITTEEDEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill and the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill.
Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Kāti ki a tatou katoa. Te Whare e tau nei e ōku tini whanaunga o te wā kāinga e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.[Greetings dear Speaker of the House. And also to all of us. This House standing my many relatives from home I acknowledge you all.]This is the second reading of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill and as Greg Fleming the speaker before me mentioned the third reading is where ka tino hurō tatou [we can celebrate] the progression that has been hard-fought for by Te Whakatōhea and those who have worked on the claim for so long. Therefore I don't want to drag out proceedings but I do want to acknowledge kei te tangi tonu ngā uri o Mataatua waka. Ā ko tōku pāpa Pānapa Davis te pāpa o Kelvin uri o Ngāi Tai tērā o Mataatua. E tangi kau atu ana ki te hunga kua riro atu ki te pō. Ka tāpai ake te īngoa o taku pāpa o Pānapa ki te tāhūhū kōrero o tō tatou whare e tū nei. [the people of Mataatua waka still in mourning. Also there is my uncle Pānapa Davis Kelvin's father descendant of Ngāi Tai of Mataatua. Deepest sympathies to those who have been taken by the night. I will add my Uncle Pānapa to the ridgepole of our House.]I heard my matua Shane Jones talk towards some of the challenges around hapū. When you look towards such large settlements like Te Whakatōhea—and he rightly expressed that as a descendant of Ngā Puhi the spectre of so many hapū involved in such delicate negotiations and the progression of our aspirations moving forward is always a tricky one. But if there's one thing I can recall from the late 1980s my grandfather the late Sir James Hēnare—when Ngā Puhi seemingly had consolidated but then had sort of started to branch out into various different hapū groupings—always said tēnei mea te whakapapa kore e taea te karo. [this thing of genealogy can never be evaded.] This thing of genealogy can never ever be swiped away or pushed away or fended off. That speaks to the depth of our genealogy and the strength of it and that regardless of what's negotiated and how this House might proceed with such important settlements like Te Whakatōhea and so many others that have already been undertaken and others that are yet to come we must remember that our whakapapa our genealogy will continue to remain strong. It has done for centuries. It did so before this Parliament was even created here in Aotearoa New Zealand and I suspect it will continue to do so for many many more centuries.So while I appreciate some of the challenges through some of the submissions claims to the Waitangi Tribunal can be confronting as we continue to progress settlements. I just want to remind my whānau in particular of Te Whakatōhea—as a descendant of Ngāti Rua myself—and also the manu hapū around this country tēnei mea te whakapapa e kore e taea te karo. [This thing of genealogy can never be evaded.]I support this bill at its second reading.
Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
Tuiono Teanau; Pugh MaureenSPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill. WHAKATŌHEA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary matters historical account acknowledgements and apology and settlement of historical claimsCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members the House is in committee on the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 21 Preliminary matters historical account acknowledgements and apology and settlement of historical claims". The question is that Part 1 stand part. Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Cultural redressCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 22 to 117 "Cultural redress" and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.Part 2 agreed to.Part 3 Commercial redressCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 118 to 159 "Commercial redress" and Schedule 3. The question is that Part 3 stand part.Part 3 agreed to.Part 4 Natural resources arrangementsCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members we now come to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 160 to 178 "Natural resources arrangements" and Schedule 4. The question is that Part 4 stand part.Part 4 agreed to.Part 5 Governance reorganisation and taxation mattersCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members we now come to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 179 to 209 "Governance reorganisation and taxation matters". The question is that Part 5 stand part.Part 5 agreed to.Schedule 1CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.Schedule 3 agreed to.Schedule 4CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Schedule 4 stand part.Schedule 4 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 "Title" and "Commencement". The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that clause 2 stand part.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for third reading immediately."
7. Question No. 7—HealthHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement in reply to a supplementary to oral question No. 3 yesterday that there is no hiring freeze" and what advice has he given to the Prime Minister on this matter?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes I agree with the Prime Minister's statement because we understand that our front-line health workforce is the backbone of the system. As I've advised the Prime Minister it wasn't just a botched a merger that this Government inherited but also a workforce crisis that had not been prioritised. That's why this Government continues to actively recruit into front-line clinical roles. In June alone Health New Zealand has advised that over 883 people were hired including 124 doctors 243 nurses 30 midwives and 140 allied health professionals. That doesn't sound like a hiring freeze to me. As Health New Zealand have said there are some restrictive hiring processes in place so that we can continue to prioritise clinical recruitment particularly in specialties such as mental health addictions and critical care.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he acknowledge that his prioritisation of clinical recruitment at the expense of clerical jobs has meant that doctors are now telling me they have no one to book clinics load and complete wait list referrals answer patient queries fill cancellation slots or help patients navigate their appointment times?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I acknowledge is that we are committed to reconnecting with the clinical front-line and delivering better patient outcomes.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What does that even mean?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I can understand the member doesn't understand better patient outcomes.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How is it productive—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Just wait Dr Verrall. The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How is it productive to have medical specialists some of New Zealand's highest-paid public sector workers tied up in admin and not providing care?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We completely agree. We want to reconnect with the front line and have the clinical front line actually seeing patients so that they can have better patient outcomes.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why should we believe him and why should New Zealanders believe him over doctors and nurses on the front line who are speaking out about the underfunding under his Government and its impact on patient care?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Because the patients have also seen the layers and layers of management that that Government put in as part of their botched health reforms and we're reconnecting the front line. Furthermore Health New Zealand have told us in June alone 883 people were employed by Health New Zealand.SPEAKER: I'd just remind the House that when questions are being asked the House is in silence and at other times the House is orderly. That was a bit unfair on Dr Verrall on that occasion."
1. Question No. 1—Social Development and EmploymentHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 1—Social Development and Employment1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that We are focused on lifting New Zealand families out of hardship and giving them more opportunities to get ahead by helping all who can work into jobs"?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. This Government is implementing a more proactive welfare system to support New Zealanders into work because in the six years before we came to office the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit increased by 70000 or 57 percent. For part of these six years businesses were desperate for staff which underscores why the welfare system needs to do more to support job seekers into work. We've already taken action such as providing 4000 more young job seekers case management over the phone and requiring job seekers to attend a work seminar in the first two weeks on benefit. This is to make sure the welfare system is more proactive.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will the additional 21000 people on benefits since she took office lead to an increase in children living in poverty?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What we do know from what we have inherited over the last six years: the number of job seekers increased by 70000; the number of children living in benefit-dependent households increased by 44000. So now there are one in five New Zealand children growing up in a benefit-dependent household. That is why our Government is making sure the welfare system is more proactive in supporting those off welfare and into work.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did officials warn the Government that the number of children living in poverty would likely increase by 7000 as a result of her benefit indexing changes?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course Ministers receive advice around changes that may be made including the Budget 2024 tax changes which will reduce the number of children in poverty by 17000.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can she confirm that the Government received advice from Treasury on 23 February stating 9000 beneficiaries would be worse off as a result of the tax changes and how does this support families to get ahead?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As that member has asked before and we have traversed changes around tax and tax refunds are the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why won't she admit that her policy decisions are leading to increased numbers of New Zealand children forced to live in poverty?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm very proud of Budget 2024 of tax relief of focusing on the cost of living because the cost of living crisis is the single biggest impact on the number of children living in poverty today. That's why our side of the House is unwilling to tolerate that level of hardship."
Personal Explanations — Personal Comments—Tanya Unkovich
Leary IngridPERSONAL EXPLANATIONSPersonal Comments—Tanya UnkovichINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.INGRID LEARY: I wish to apologise to Tanya Unkovich for comments I made at a meeting of the Health Committee on Wednesday 19 June 2024.
Peters WinstonORAL QUESTIONSPoint of Order—Punctuation within Substantive QuestionsRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order. Can I just ask you to consider with respect to question No. 10 and compare it to question No. 7—SPEAKER: Sorry question which sorry?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Question No. 10 as opposed to question No. 7. In question No. 7 the questioner is asking and putting the quotes in inverted commas to signal that it is a quote. When you get to question No. 10 there is no such precision no such exactitude and I think it's wrong.SPEAKER: I think it's because it's a quote.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Well continuing the point of order if it's a quote it'll be in quotes won't it? That's the only reason why you'll know that you can verify that. If it's a quote it'll be in inverted commas so that you can then check to see its accuracy. At this point in time none of us knows whether that's accurate or not.SPEAKER: My apologies; it's not a quote.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well Mr Speaker if that's the case—SPEAKER: Can I just make it clear—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does she stand by her statement—SPEAKER: No hang on—just a minute. For those who are watching just to make it clear questions are lodged with the Clerk's office. They are considered by the clerks who have considerable experience of these things. They're signed off by the Speaker later in the morning. But the advice that comes from the Clerk's office generally is that—in fact most days—all the questions are in order. That has been the case today. But if you've got a point I'm happy to hear it.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Well my point is that if it's a quote it should be in quotes so that we can therefore check against the evidence to see whether it's honestly reported or not. If it doesn't have any quote marks to it no one knows what's going on here and with the greatest respect to the Clerk of the House if this was a court of law they'd ask for that as well.SPEAKER: Yes I know but we're not quite a court of law just yet.Rt Hon Winston Peters: We're the highest court in the land.SPEAKER: That's right and we should do things properly. I'm assuming that the Clerk's office has done the right thing here and if that's not the case they'll clearly review it but we're not going to review it in time to rectify it for this question time. So we'll come to question No. 1 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Thursday 30 May 2024 (continued on Friday 31 May 2024) - Volume 776
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you very much. Look I'd just like to respond to a couple of thoughts that were thrown around throughout this whole debate. The words sneaky little bill"—this bill was referred to as a "sneaky little bill". Well what about the sneaky fuel tax and the sneaky ute tax that were thrust upon our people in the last six years?And the "broken promises" they spoke about—well what about the promise to extend free breast cancer screening for people up to the age of 74 years old? Broken promises 2017 2020— Ingrid Leary: Point of order Mr Speaker. This is the third reading of the bill and I'd just like to point to the fact in the third reading the member must speak to this particular bill rather than referring to other bills. So just hope you can make a ruling on that sir.Hon Andrew Bayly: Point of order Mr Speaker. I just wondered when we got our fourth Speaker.RIMA NAKHLE: This bill was being referred to as a broken promise—Ingrid Leary: Speaking to the point of order sir. Speaking to this point of order raised by the Hon Andrew Bayly. Mr Speaker I hope you will make a determination on it. I'm having some difficulty understanding what the member was asking so if he could indulge the House and re-ask his question perhaps we could then get you to rule on it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Could you repeat that Mr Bayly?Hon Andrew Bayly: I'm just asking when was the fourth Speaker appointed to assist you in your Chair role? I didn't think a fourth Speaker had been appointed to a new role. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Well thank you for thinking about my benefit. Just so I must make a ruling on that if the member can confine her comments to this bill.RIMA NAKHLE: To the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I understand you all want to stay here tonight but let's get a move on.RIMA NAKHLE: This bill is a great bill and I commend it to the House."
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Behind all of the emotion and the words and the rhetoric and the forgetfulness of the past six years and where we are now this bill is an opportunity—a tool—to get the Government books back in balance. I commend this bill to the House.
Brewer Cameron; Tuiono TeanauCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I want to talk specifically to this bill and I want to also make a public service announcement. This bill is part of a package of proposals that support the Government's Budget goal to deliver efficient effective and fiscally sustainable public services. The public service announcement is this—one word: . I commend the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call. I call Glen Bennett.
Meager James; Leary Ingrid; Tuiono TeanauJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look we've heard a lot tonight from members opposite about the length of contributions on both sides of the House—especially this side of the House—so bearing that in mind I just want to quote the full speech of Rachel Boyack from the third reading of the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill where Rachel Boyack said and I quote I commend this bill to the House."INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Point of order Mr Speaker! This is the third reading and the member's comments should be confined to this bill. I think that the contribution was out of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Point taken. Please focus on the bill. You may continue.James Meager: I finished. I finished the call.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Next call."
Unkovich Tanya; Tuiono TeanauTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. Sometimes less is more and on behalf of New Zealand First I am going to commend this bill to the House because it's a really good bill. That's all I'd like to say.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call and I think it's split between Labour and the Greens.
Parmar Parmjeet; Tuiono TeanauDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the third reading of the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill.That was a very interesting contribution from the Green member Ricardo Menéndez March and he did say that yes I looked confused and I was shaking my head. Definitely I was doing that because I couldn't see which bill the member was speaking to. The bill that is in front of us doesn't bring any new sanctions; it just increases the percentage of the amount that is retained by the Crown for the fines that are collected by the Ministry of Justice. So that's why I was confused and I was shaking my head. I wish he had spent some time reading the bill.Very quickly to respond to the Labour member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Dr Duncan Webb said that this bill is a waste of the House's time. No I wish he had read the bill and understood the bill as well.It's a very sensible bill and that is why the ACT Party is supporting this bill. I challenge those members to go out and buy that item they bought in 1989 now at the same price. This 10 percent that is retained by the Crown has not been reviewed or changed since 1989 and that's why it's a sensible bill and that's why the ACT Party is supporting this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I just wanted to remind the House of Speaker's ruling 65/3 which tells us to not do the countdown when we're looking at the clock. Do it inside your mind if you must but not aloud.
Brown Simeon; Kuriger BarbaraThird ReadingHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I move That the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.The purpose of this bill is in line—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Hon SIMEON BROWN: Thank you. The purpose of this bill is in line with the coalition Government's commitment to reduce debt reduce Government spending and get back to surplus. The bill will increase from 10 percent to 14 percent the amount that the Crown can retain from fines including infringement fines such as parking fines collected by the Ministry of Justice on behalf of local authorities and other organisations.That increase will come into effect on 1 July 2024. The bill has been developed as part of the response to the Budget priority to deliver effective and fiscally sustainable public services—listen up Labour!—and identify enduring savings across Government departments and agencies. The increase in the percentage the Crown can retain from fines collected by the Ministry of Justice is expected to increase net revenue by $2.697 million across 2024/25 to 2028/29. The increase in the percentage retained by the Crown from fines collected on behalf of local authorities and other organisations better reflects the increased costs of operating court services over time.It is fair that users of courts' collection and enforcement services who receive most of the fines collected pay an appropriate fee for those services. The bill is a part of a package of proposals which will increase revenue from changes to the collection of court fines and increases to fees in courts and tribunals. This bill along with other changes will ensure the more effective collection and enforcement of fines.The overarching goals of the Government are to build a stronger more productive economy deliver more efficient effective and responsible public services and get the Government's books back in balance. This bill will support that goal. I commend the bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Mr Speaker thank you. The Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill increases the retention by the Government by 4 percent. A small amount the members across say but every small amount helps the Government coffers that have been left in dire straits and in shambles and every little bit helps. This bill will not only help get the Government Budget in balance but it will also engender accountability and responsibility for people to pay their infringements and fines and penalties. I commend this ill to the House.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise to support this bill that makes a small amendment to the Public Finance Act but once again the Opposition are using every call obsessing about tax relief. They're obsessing about tax relief claiming it's both unpopular and insignificant. Well three numbers—three numbers: polls show that 75 percent of Kiwis want tax relief 75 percent; that's the first one. Second number: 83 percent of New Zealanders and 93 percent of households would benefit according to Treasury from tax relief. They'll benefit from tax relief on 31 July. This is a suite of packages to make New Zealanders' lives a lot better. They're looking forward to it they want it they support it; we support them. I commend the bill.
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Well ladies and gentlemen now we know why the Labour Party thinks that the tax relief offered by the Government is trivial and miserly and not quite enough because the Labour Party wants to email every hard-working New Zealander and take their tax cut and donate it back to the Labour Party. That's what they want to do. That's what they think is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars—back to the taxpayer straight back in Labour Party coffers. Shame on them.This is my first contribution today which is also 30 May still in Parliament land and as it is 30 May I'd like to wish Mike Butterick a very happy birthday for yesterday for today for tomorrow for Monday for Tuesday—for as long as it takes for this hard-working Government to get through the programme to support the Budget that gives tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders and not the semi-retired Labour Party.This bill—and I'll remind the House—is a very concise very short very simple sharp bill; lots of quick sharp calls because it does one thing: it creates a small increase to the amount collected by the Crown from local authorities from 10 percent to 14 percent for cost recovery basically driven under the rampant inflation from the previous Government. It does one short simple thing. It is excellent it is concise and I look forward to its passage through the House swiftly or otherwise.
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Public Finance Act 1989 to increase from 10 percent to 14 percent the percentage the Crown retains from amounts of fines recovered for offences prosecuted by or on behalf of local authorities or other organisations. This will better reflect the cost of the collection and enforcement of court fines and ensure that it remains fiscally sustainable. This seems to be like a very common-sense approach and since our party is a party of common sense I commend this to the House.
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Nobody likes fines—getting them paying them—but unfortunately sometimes this happens. Nobody likes to pay a fee in court but often people end up there. And when that is done and there is a cost associated with that it should be paid. Now for too long 10 years in some cases and 20 in the case of court fines the price has not gone up. This is a very fair increase and I commend it to the House.
Wednesday 7 August 2024 - Volume 777
Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Tuiono Teanau; O'Connor GregProgress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Have a good night.The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.
Hernandez Francisco; Brown SimeonFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. My question to the Minister and I'll keep my contribution quite brief is that you know the role of the Crown facilitator and the Crown water services specialist has been defined. There's a description here that Crown facilitator means a Crown facilitator for water services delivery plan appointed under section 20" and the definition for "Crown water services specialist means a Crown water services specialist appointed under section 23". But my question is what is the criteria that someone might become either a Crown facilitator or a Crown water services specialist? Is it basically any person who the Crown sees fit to appoint under you know—there is an appointment process described here in clause 21(1) for the Crown facilitator and it includes descriptions of how they do it and the notice. But I think there is something lacking here in that there's no kind of you know job description—there is a job description but there's no kind of competency requirement that's been described here. So is it that basically anyone can be a Crown facilitator and anyone can be a Crown water services specialist or is it intended that these people are people with technical skills or knowledge or even connection with potentially iwi or knowledge of Te Ao Māori? Like what is what is the kind of intention?I'm seeking guidance here because my understanding from my colleagues who have taken part in the select committee is that this hasn't come up yet under the kind of discussions that have been held in the select committee and in the previous discussions as well during committee of the whole House. So that that kind of criteria might potentially be useful because you know people might rely on the discussions during committee of the whole House for guidance on the criteria for these. Because the work that they're doing is actually very important—I mean you know they have quite strong powers. We've heard discussions from colleagues on the Labour side about the potential of what might happen when someone might refuse. So I really would like I guess an answer on who is intended to kind of fill these roles and whether the Minister has thought through any kind of potential appointment criteria or whether that will be potentially gazetted at a later point. Thank you.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Mr Chair just in relation to that question there aren't criteria listed in this bill—this is consistent with the approach taken in the Local Government Act. In relation to interventions under that Act it will depend on the skills needed in the circumstances."
Thursday 8 August 2024 - Volume 777
O'Connor Greg; Brown SimeonPart 2 Water services delivery plans and foundational information disclosure requirements CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 46B Water services delivery plans and foundational information disclosure requirements". The question is that Part 2 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. Part 2 is in relation to water service delivery plans and foundational information disclosure. There are three subparts to it.First subpart is in regards to water service delivery plans which are required to be repaired by local authorities—they're required to prepare one and submit one. The water service delivery plan will outline the council's position in terms of its assets its needs and its financial position.Subpart 2 is in regards to ministerial powers in relation to water service delivery plans. It provides ministerial powers in relation to these plans and this is a point that has been already traversed to some extent in the first part of this debate. This is in relation to where there's a range of circumstances where local authorities may find challenges in terms of preparing them and this provides some powers in relation to supporting councils through that process.The reason for that is effectively to ensure that councils do have the support and if there is difficulty there are intervention powers available but ultimately these are backstops—with the intention of this legislation for councils to be able to work together putting forward these delivery plans for their local communities as they own manage and deliver water services in their community and to demonstrate how they will be financially sustainable in doing so whilst meeting the regulatory requirements.Subpart 3 includes foundational information disclosure requirements; sets out a framework for specified entities to disclose foundational information for the purposes of economic regulation. It also includes provisions relating to information sharing and enforcement and this is a really important part because this is the beginning of economic regulation for water infrastructure in New Zealand. There'll be more; the Government will have more to say about this in terms of the next piece of legislation which will bring in further economic regulation. This is about ensuring that councils are providing water infrastructure in the most cost-efficient effective and efficient manner possible for those consumers who utilise those services.So there is a number of key elements to it but fundamentally this is the key part of this bill. It delivers the key elements to allow councils to move forward with the ownership management and delivery in a financially sustainable way of their water infrastructure."
Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill as set out on Amendment Paper 50.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll report this bill with amendment and so divided.