edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
4. Question No. 4—ImmigrationHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 4—Immigration4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he believe he has considered all relevant factors in deciding to grant residency to Karel Sroubek also known as Jan Antolik?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Shortly before question time today I became aware that information may exist that appears on the face of it to directly contradict information that I used and relied upon to make that decision. I am now taking advice on my options and need to consider the veracity of the new information that has been made available to me.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did all of those factors include submissions from Czech Republic officials about any statements Mr Sroubek had made relevant to them and if not will he be also asking the Czech officials to provide submissions?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Given the potential new information that I have just become aware of I do not intend to make any further comment on the information that I was provided. I need to take advice and I need to carefully consider the way forward from here.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What actions if any has the Government taken to ensure the sustainability of New Zealand Superannuation?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The coalition Government restarted Government contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in December last year after nine years of the previous Government refusing to acknowledge future generations by freezing those contributions. Today in Wellington there will be a celebration of the super fund turning 15. This is an excellent opportunity to thank those who had the vision to create the fund—in particular former finance Minister Michael Cullen. The coalition Government recognises the importance of the rationale for the super fund which is to ensure future generations are not unfairly burdened by smoothing the cost of an ageing population across generations.Willow-Jean Prime: How has the New Zealand super fund performed over its 15 years?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The super fund has delivered an annualised return of 10.44 percent over the last 15 years. These returns are well ahead of the fund's reference portfolio benchmark meaning the fund's independent managers have been making sound investment decisions for the future benefit of all New Zealanders. The outperformance of the super fund has generated approximately $7.9 billion of additional value to the Crown beyond what would have been earned in the reference portfolio. This shows that the decision to not make contributions to the fund over the last nine years was misguided and is a decision that cost future taxpayers $24.1 billion.Willow-Jean Prime: How much is the coalition Government investing in the super fund?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister and I hit the button to resume contributions in December last year. The coalition Government plans to invest $7.7 billion in the super fund between the last financial year and 2021-22. These are important intergenerational investments which look out beyond 30 years and beyond the electoral cycle. By resuming Government contributions to the super fund we are helping to protect the Government's ability to keep the super age at 65 and showing that we care about future generations. The super fund—the Cullen fund—is a great legacy to New Zealand.
2. Question No. 2—JusticeHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 2—Justice2. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: What is New Zealand's process for extraditing Czech nationals to the Czech Republic and what stage is the application for extradition of Karel Sroubek also known as Jan Antolik at? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The Czech Republic is able to make an application for extradition of one of their citizens and any application is made under the Extradition Act 1996. There is a process that usually starts with an application being made through diplomatic channels. It goes to the Minister of Justice in New Zealand. It is an application ultimately determined by the District Court on the grounds of eligibility and then the final decision on whether or not an extradition is made is made by the Minister of Justice of the day. On the second part of the question despite the Czech Republic indicating to the New Zealand Government in 2015 that it had an interest in Mr Sroubek no formal application for extradition has been made. Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the Parole Board aware of an extradition request? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not responsible for the determinations of the Parole Board. Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the Minister speak with the immigration Minister ahead of the Minister approving residency for Karel Sroubek? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Minister of Justice has no responsibility for immigration matters. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Order! No I will ask the Minister to answer the question. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. Hon Mark Mitchell: Was the Minister aware of any controversy around Karel Sroubek before the Minister of Immigration granted residency? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No and there'd be no reason for me to have been so. Hon Mark Mitchell: If officials advise there is sufficient evidence to support an extradition request will he extradite Karel Sroubek back to the Czech Republic? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member will be well aware that it would be entirely inappropriate and not in the public interest for me to comment on any case that may be the subject of an extradition application.
Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 4
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The member in the chair Simeon Brown is far closer to the real world of psychoactive substances than that appalling speech from the Minister of Justice which just reinforced everything in this Government including the decision today on Karel Sroubek—that this Government is soft on drugs.Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You made a number of rulings about the tightness of this debate and although clause 4 goes to the heart of what this bill is all about and there's got to be some scope to talk about the underlying policy issues this is nothing to do with a person who is currently in prison on matters completely unrelated to psychoactive substances. The member who's just now been speaking—on his feet—should be called to order as a result.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can't cast reflections on the Chair. I agree with the member but he actually only uttered a couple of words. If he had gone on further—you are quite right—I would have pulled him up but I give a great more latitude to members on this side.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This clause has a very simple question for Parliament: should the people—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry to interrupt. The time has come for me to report this bill.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill without amendment and progress on the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I move That the question be now put.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I appreciate that Madam Chair because I have been waiting all evening to speak specifically on the commencement date of this bill which is of course the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. We have had three suggestions for the commencement date thus far in this debate. As is written down in this bill it will come into force immediately upon receiving the Royal assent. My colleague the Hon Stuart Nash suggested 30 years and my learned colleague Dr Duncan Webb suggested two years. I do not support the suggestion of the Hon Stuart Nash of 30 years. I suggest that that may have been tongue-in-cheek. However the suggestion from Dr Duncan Webb of two years is a serious suggestion and one that I wish to support because we shouldn't look upon this issue just as simply one that needs to come into force on the suggested commencement date. There are some issues that need to be considered when reflecting on the date on which this bill would commence. One of those is potential education programmes that could be in place between the time that this bill progresses through the House and when it comes into effect because of course if this commences too early given the controversial nature of this bill there may well be unintended consequences. I absolutely agree that these substances are a scourge on our community. However when considering the commencement date if we do not take a wider approach to this issue and simply focus on increasing penalties we may miss out on opportunities to stop the demand for these products. So I speak in support of a commencement date two years after because if we were to address things such as education or indeed the price or perhaps inequalities in the system that are causing people to go towards these substances in the first place then we do miss out on a chance to actually address the need which I do acknowledge that the member that sponsors this bill is trying to achieve. This is not the night for politics. This is an opportunity to do something right and that's why I speak in support of a commencement date of two years later than is suggested in this bill. Of course addiction support services as have been reviewed currently in the mental health and addiction review of the Government are something that should be considered by this Parliament and I fear that if the commencement date continues as is currently proposed then we will miss that opportunity to actually focus on the demand side of things as opposed to a punitive approach to simply increasing the sentences as part of this. Of course the other reason why I'm proposing a commencement date of two years' time is to look at drugs as a particular health issue as opposed to a crime issue. Those are the factors that I would like to hear a response about from the member in charge of the bill. This is a serious suggestion of a commencement date of two years later than is currently proposed within this bill.
Smith Nick; Tolley AnneHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House for the remaining debate to be on all clauses as was originally intended. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There is. OK—in which case I'm going to be very tough.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I just want to take a very very short call. This commencement clause is a very narrow and very particular clause in the bill. It says that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent.This is an issue which is causing huge havoc up and down our country. We can see the harm. We can see that there are people making money from people's misery who are making money out of selling these drugs on our streets and we need to crack down on them. Parliament cannot sit on its hands and do nothing and that's why this bill needs to come into force as soon as possible.It's a very narrow clause. Let's vote on it and get it through.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. Speaking to the commencement date as other members have already done—they've traversed the subject matter very thoroughly so I think there's probably not much point in me saying an awful lot on that.It does occur to me that the key point about the commencement date is that it provides the maximum urgency and I would be interested if the member in charge of the bill Simeon Brown has a view on the need for urgency—in particular in relation to those who are supplying and also using for the benefit of both those categories of persons. If he can perhaps take a call and explain why that's urgent—to have the bill come into force as soon as possible for the benefit of both those groups—I would be most grateful.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): As has been well canvassed I believe I have one last question remaining for the member in charge of this bill Simeon Brown with regard to in particular the point that I made earlier as to perhaps a better title being Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution and Possession with Intention to Supply or Distribute) Amendment Bill". The question that I want to ask is is the member aware what the demographic is of the average or regular supplier of psychoactive substances as far as the evidence shows? If so—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well I'm sorry but that—CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The reason—Madam Chair if I may clarify—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to relate it to the title.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that I am relating it to the title—Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Madam Chair we have had three warnings to come to the title clause followed by two final warnings to talk to the title clause prior to you resuming the Chair. We've now had an additional warning to return to the clause. I suggest the members have strayed too far from this and that we get on with the debate on what they clearly want to be debating.Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order—Hon Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No I don't need any help thank you very much. I have just assumed the Chair. The member is asking a question; I am asking the member to relate that to the title. If she can do that then she is in order.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you Madam Chair. Had I been able to speak for 10 more seconds I would've been able to address exactly that. So my point was that the title of this legislation as proposed is the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. My point was that the way that this bill is drafted will impact those who are using. That is why I'm directing my question to the member in charge of this legislation: what evidence does the member have about the profiling demographic of producers of these psychoactive drugs?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK that's all very well but it does not relate to the title. I repeat by the committee deciding to debate clause by clause then the debate is absolutely tightly focused on what the title is. The question the member is asking is the justification for the bill not the title.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: If I may explain Madam Chair otherwise—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No I would like you to speak to clause 1 which is the title. Otherwise I will have to curtail the speech.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: All right final question: would the member consider changing the title of this proposed bill to the "Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution and Use of Psychoactive Substances) Amendment Bill"?"
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. It is my good fortune to speak on the commencement clause which I think should be delayed and I would suggest instead of the words This Act comes into force"—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister has assumed we're debating the commencement clause. We're not debating the commencement clause; we are still debating the short title and the Minister should be held to giving the speech consistent with the title.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My apologies—my apologies. I wasn't listening properly. We are still on clause 1.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I've made my case for the change of title. I'll allow another member to speak—my mistake on this occasion."
Brown Simeon; Williams PotoSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for those additional questions in regard to the intent of the bill. Yes Chlöe Swarbrick correctly points out that the purpose section says that The purpose of this Act is to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who use psychoactive substances." Under "Principles" it also includes "(d) a psychoactive product that poses more than a low risk of harm to individuals who use the product should be prohibited:". So part of the intention of this Act is that some of these products will be prohibited. So that is part of how the Act is set up and therefore under section 70 if people are selling and supplying those products which aren't approved they are considered to be prohibited and they are illegal. Answering the second question of how many substances does that capture well it captures all substances which are not approved. So therefore going to her point around "Well there could be a couple of products which we do know are causing a huge amount of deaths" they could be scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act but if this bill does not go through we will leave an incentive for those to change the concoction of chemicals which they use. They will change the mix of chemicals that they will use and they will find another chemical compound which they will then switch to and the Minister of Health will be left in a situation where he has to then try and reschedule something different and something new.So the reality is this is a catch-all and this is something which says we recognise the harm and we are going to catch all of those people who are selling or supplying synthetic drugs which are not approved and we will be prohibiting it and then giving the courts the discretion and the ability to be able to apportion the appropriate penalty as has been put forward in the guidelines from Justice Brewer in the High Court case of Moore v R [2015] which outlines the three categories broadly speaking as to the guidelines on which the court will then apply the sentence depending on the level of offending which is evidenced.So the final question there was around section 70. I think it was section 70(1)(c)—which I will just turn to—which is possessing a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product. I think that takes into account those who could be manufacturing the product and a range of other things.Hon Dr David Clark: What's the threshold?SIMEON BROWN: So I think the threshold is something which will be determined by the courts and that's something which the courts have already provided guidelines as to what will constitute that.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call a member I just want to caution that we're not straying into a clause 3 debate."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I move That the question be now put.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I just would seek the Chair's guidance on the advisers that appear to be present. I'm not sure if they're from the ministry or from Mr Brown's office. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair I understand. But I have just seen about advisers under Speaker's ruling—what have we got here?—8/2. Ministers are entitled to have advisers but members perhaps not. So I'd seek the Chair's guidance on whether they are in fact advisers and whether they're ministerial advisers.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It's entirely at my discretion who is in the Chamber and it's perfectly fine for the member's advisers to be there.
van de Molen Tim; Williams PotoPSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES (INCREASING PENALTY FOR SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. That leave is not granted.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill — In Committee
van de Molen Tim; Williams PotoTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We might take one more.Dr Duncan Webb: It must be my turn Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Dr Duncan Webb.
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I just ask the honourable member to maybe take 20 spaces into the next hall where there's quite literally tonight a demonstration of all the sustainable alternatives to plastics and oils we have in this country so he won't get ink on his hands in the future.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): It's with obviously some trepidation that I stand up to speak on a food bill. But this is important stuff and as someone who's treated his body as a temple—a very large temple with a lot of space to fill over the years—it's something that I do have some degree of concern about and I quite seriously do believe that this bill is something that consumers want. But I am a little perplexed. In fact I had a numbing moment when the member Gareth Hughes was speaking before as many in the Chamber did when I looked around and it suddenly struck me when you were talking about the difficulty of frozen foods and various other things like that—so I've got a very simple question for the member in the chair: has he got an organic recipe for an ink that will dry on the frozen food package and not smudge as it defrosts? The problem is that people open those plastic packets—firstly should they be plastic? Should they be plastic? As they open those packets you end up with that ink smudge all over your fingers. It doesn't matter how many times you run off to the hand sanitiser and the paper towel when you come back to try and get the product out—they might be your peas right? If they were green peas one minute next minute they're black peas because of the ink that's got all over them. So I think that's an aspect of this bill that could be enhanced and I would hope that the member has thought about this and has some Supplementary Order Paper that would mean that you have to have a stable—a stable—organic ink on the frozen food package particularly when you're putting date stamps on and things like that as the member was mentioning before. I commend him though for the bill. I hope that he's not going to prolong its passing because there are thousands of consumers tens of thousands of consumers hundreds of thousands of consumers out there who are waiting for the surety that they can get as a result of this bill passing through the House knowing that their food will actually have reasonable labelling on it. That part I'm very very serious about but I am equally concerned about the poisons that are being put into the freezer in that small little bit of ink that causes such a problem for so many people.
Dyson Ruth; Williams PotoCONSUMERS' RIGHT TO KNOW (COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF FOOD) BILLIn CommitteeHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this debate to be taken as one with the part and all preliminary clauses.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for: the second reading of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill; the third reading of the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill; the third readings of the Family Violence Bill and the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill; and the third reading of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill.
Thursday 25 October 2018 - Volume 734
Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question is That the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill — First Reading
Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
10. Question No. 10—EducationGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 10—Education10. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action has the Government taken over the past year to place young learners and their needs at the centre of the education system?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Heaps but I'll highlight just two in the answer to this question. I'm particularly proud of the fact that this year's Budget contained the largest increase in learning support funding for those with special needs in over a decade and the Government has also successfully overseen the roll-out of the first-year fees-free education and training for all those who haven't participated in formal post-school education and training in the past and it's two years for those undertaking industry training.Ginny Andersen: What else has the Government done to improve New Zealand's public education system?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again there's heaps here but I want to highlight one issue in particular and that is the work that we have been doing with the teaching profession to lift the status of the teaching profession and to address the issues that they have been raising. In particular we are committed to addressing the serious teacher shortages that we currently face and we've invested over $40 million to do that. We've given teachers back the right to elect representatives to their own professional body and we are working on a long-term education workforce strategy so that we can ensure we've got enough teachers to meet demand in the future.
7. Question No. 7—Small BusinessHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small BusinessQuestion No. 7—Small Business7. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: Does he stand by all his Government's policies and actions?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Small Business: On behalf of the Minister for Small Business yes. For example about an hour ago in Canberra I signed a formal trans-Tasman e-invoicing arrangement with the Australian Government. New Zealand and Australian businesses process around 1.3 billion invoices annually and research indicates that the economic savings of e-invoicing could exceed $30 billion in both countries over 10 years. This Government is committed to growing the economy and working with businesses to encourage productivity. This agreement is yet another step this Government has taken to support small businesses in New Zealand over the last year.Hon Jacqui Dean: Is the Small Business Council providing value for money?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I believe that it is. The Small Business Council is set up to ensure that there are quality conversations between the Government and small to medium sized enterprises. The Prime Minister is going to come and meet with the Small Business Council and I'll be delighted to accompany her to that.Hon Jacqui Dean: Is it correct that part of the report back from the Small Business Council includes a recommendation on whether or not to establish a small business institute? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: On behalf of the Minister I don't have that level of detail in front of me but if the member wants to put that question in writing I'm sure she will receive an answer.Hon Jacqui Dean: Well isn't that just then a working group tasked with creating another working group?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he believe it is a good use of taxpayer money spending $135000 on a new working group who has been tasked with deciding whether or not to establish another new working group and whether or not to keep the current new working group?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government believes in the value of small business. Unlike the previous Government we want to support relationships and make business easier rather than adding the red tape that was added during the last nine years. We are concerned to make their lives easier. We're progressing e-invoicing that would create savings of around $30 billion across Australia and New Zealand over the next 10 years. We're making improvements to the New Zealand Business Number including initiating legislative changes. We're renewing the small business payroll subsidy. We're providing the R & D tax credits. We're applying GST to offshore suppliers of goods to make life easier for small businesses. And we're launching the online tools Choose Business Structure and Workplace Policy Builder. I think the small business area is delighted they've got a Government that's finally listening.
4. Question No. 4—Housing and Urban DevelopmentJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 4—Housing and Urban Development4. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress if any has been made towards the Government's KiwiBuild homes targets?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): This morning I announced that the ballot will open next week for the first KiwiBuild homes to be built in the Waikato: 175—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! David Bennett yesterday I probably should have named you for your behaviour. What you will let this Minister do now is at least start his answer without facetious interjection.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This morning I announced that the ballot will open next week for the first KiwiBuild homes to be built in the Waikato. One hundred and seventy-five KiwiBuild homes will be built at the Lakeside development in Te Kauwhata. This announcement follows Monday's announcement of 18 KiwiBuild homes in Ockham's Tuatahi development in Mount Albert in Auckland. These homes will provide an excellent start for young families who are currently priced out of the dream of homeownership.Jamie Strange: When will the first Lakeside homes be completed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The first 10 KiwiBuild homes to be balloted are two-bedroom modern stand-alone homes all fully landscaped with off-street parking and a home appliance package. Initial works are already under way and construction of these KiwiBuild homes will be completed by Christmas 2019.Jamie Strange: When will the Tuatahi homes be completed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The 18 Tuatahi properties available via the KiwiBuild ballot consist of nine studio apartments six one-bedroom and three two-bedroom apartments ranging in price from $435000 to $600000. Construction of these apartments is under way and due for completion late next year. While the Tuatahi development began several years ago this is an example of how KiwiBuild creates efficiencies and accelerates the construction of quality affordable homes.Jamie Strange: What will these homes mean for young Kiwi families?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: A generation of young Kiwis with good jobs are priced out of homeownership. They made good choices but they still cannot afford the security of their own home. KiwiBuild is building homes for families of all shapes and sizes right across the country restoring the dream of affordable homeownership to families who traditionally would have expected to own their own home and extending that same dream to many more.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What investments has the Government made to support low and middle income New Zealanders to meet the cost of living?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government's investments were in part in response to what the Salvation Army pointed out in its State of the Nation Report in 2017 where it said it is clear that the benefits of … recent … economic growth have not been shared across the board or trickled down as the theory would have it." The Government agreed with this and that is why we made significant investments through our 100-day plan and Budget 2018 to support those who have struggled the most with the cost of living. Our $5.5 billion Families Package is lifting the incomes of hundreds of thousands of New Zealand families and helping tens of thousands of children out of poverty. We have received many positive comments about this including one from a budgeting agency who described the winter energy payment part of that Families Package as a "godsend" for their low-income clients. Along with our investments in housing health and education I am extremely proud that this Government is focused on helping those who need it the most.Willow-Jean Prime: How will the Government's overall economic strategy help low and middle income New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Under our economic strategy we'll ensure that all New Zealanders get a fair share of the country's economic growth. The previous drivers of growth such as housing speculation and population growth have actually resulted in pressure on infrastructure and public services. Our plan is for an economy powered by innovation rather than speculation and one that meets the needs of the present without compromising our ability to do so in the future. Our economic strategy will see an economy that is more productive more sustainable and more inclusive and where growth will improve the well-being and living standards of all New Zealanders.Willow-Jean Prime: What alternative strategies has he seen for assisting low and middle income New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On coming into office as Minister I inherited the settings for a very different strategy that would have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest New Zealanders giving the top 10 percent of earners—those who need it the least—collectively a benefit of $440 million. We decided that this was not focused on low and middle income families so we reversed those changes and now 384000 low and middle income families will be better off by an average of $75 a week by the time this is rolled out. On this side of the House helping low and middle income families by providing targeted relief lifting wages and shifting the economy to one in which they can all share in the benefits of growth is a project one year on that we are very proud to have started."
Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
O'Connor Greg; Williams PotoGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It again gives me great pleasure to speak to this bill. This sort of takes me back to a time before I came to this House when I spent some time in the New Zealand Police. One thing you do learn as a young police officer is that you deal with death—deal with sudden deaths. I remember many times through my career where there was dispute particularly over the custody of bodies of the deceased. It's one of those abiding memories that there's always a lot of grief around these situations and adding to it much of the tikanga. So it is actually I think very apt that we now ensure that in legislation these matters are covered because so often the problem was when we tried to deal with these issues that there were actually no protocols; there were actually no guidelines for this—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill — Second Reading (continued)
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Sorry I cut the last person Simeon Brown off. I didn't mean to do that. I apologise for that. I was—Simeon Brown: Eager.TAMATI COFFEY: I was eager—that's exactly what I was. I just want to stand and contribute to this piece of legislation. It is a good piece. It has wide support around the House. I think that all of our previous speakers have rattled through all of the components of the bill. It is the second reading so there's still the committee stage to go but I just want to acknowledge an article about the Prime Minister's visit to the Cook Islands earlier this year. She was given this responsibility by the Prime Minister over there said that actually this was an issue that needed to be dealt with and as a Parliament we have debated this and been through it and actually have all decided that it's the right thing to do just to swing in and obviously support it. I've got nothing too much left to say about it other than the fact that I commend this bill to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Malo ni Madam Deputy Speaker. It is with particular delight that I rise to speak in favour of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill that will affect the people of Tokelau as we celebrate Tokelauan Language Week this week. I think previous speakers have outlined what this bill does in quite a lot of detail so I don't feel the need to go into too much detail except to say that of course it is about greater pension flexibility for retirement. It alters some of the residential qualifications that allow New Zealanders and New Zealand citizens from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau to retire in any one of those countries—including of course New Zealand—or in any combination of those countries as well. It's an important bill because it responds to some of the concerns that have been raised by the Governments of those Islands as well in terms of the economic and social losses that they have experienced because for example of depopulation that arises from those residential qualification requirements. To be counted towards the New Zealand superannuation or the veterans' pension qualification the qualification requirement is for five years' residence and presence in New Zealand after the age of 50. I just want to point out that the requirement for 10 years' residence in New Zealand over the age of 20 remains a core entitlement requirement. Now of course again—as has been mentioned previously as well—people born in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau share New Zealand citizenship. Therefore New Zealand has an obligation to respond to the needs of these citizens as well and this bill reflects those constitutional responsibilities that we have for the citizens of those Islands. This is a Government that is committed to a Pacific reset and this bill contributes to the continued strengthening and the growing of that relationship that we have with our Pacific neighbours from the point of view of course that we are also part of the Pacific. This is a good bill. It will help and will be particularly well-received by our Pacific populations here in New Zealand as well as those in the Islands and it is with pleasure that I commend it to the House.
Lees-Galloway Iain; Hudson BrettAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 8 to MinisterHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): I seek leave to make a personal explanation correcting an answer given during oral question No. 8 today.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does anyone object to that? Leave is granted.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. During oral question No. 8 today the Hon Gerry Brownlee asked When the Minister said yesterday in an answer to a question that the ACC accounts were very full and that they needed to be rebalanced down did he convey that Government position to the board of ACC and is he concerned that the board of ACC did not listen to him in preparing a consultation document that has motor vehicle levies going up?"I did not need to convey that position to ACC because under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 ACC is required to give effect to the Government funding policy statement on ACC levies which requires ACC to target a funding band of between 100 and 110 percent of reported liabilities and also requires ACC to make adjustments to levy rates that would achieve that target funding band over a 10-year horizon should current accounts be outside of that band. That funding policy statement was gazetted on 10 May 2016 by the Hon Nikki Kaye.BRETT HUDSON (National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A personal statement is made in the House to correct an error or a misleading statement given to the House. The Minister has answered the question a second time. What's the error or misleading statement he's apologising or notifying the House about?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): There was some back and forth—DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —about the answer to this question. I believe the Speaker indicated that the answer had not enlightened the House as to the answer to the question. I have come to the House in order to provide the information the House required.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it probably would have been better if he'd sought leave to clarify the answer rather than correct because in fact the point of order is correct: there is no correction but you did explain to the House the answer to the question. In fairness there was considerable back and forth."
Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill — Second Reading
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Now I just want to start first off with my contribution this afternoon where the previous member who's just resumed his seat Andrew Bayly made a comment about the fact that my colleague Tamati Coffey spent only three minutes discussing this legislation. And I say—I put it to that member—it's about quality not quantity. I suggest that that member might like to consider that the next time he stands to take a call.Anyway so I'm going to begin by talking about this piece of legislation. Thanks to the submitters who contributed and to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee which I'm recently a new member of. I am really enjoying learning about this legislation and all the other pieces in front of us.Basically what this is about is stopping cartel behaviour. It's about protecting consumers right? So consumers—and people in general—are actually what this Government is all about looking after. Now most businesses act in a proper way and comply with everything they're supposed to but there are the odd rogue ones that don't. There was a member that spoke previously about the fact that we don't need to have a criminal offence with regard to cartel behaviour because it's not happening on that large a scale here in New Zealand. Well I say: is that a reason not to or is now not the perfect time to do it before this starts to happen? So that's just what I would have to say around that.Consumers need to be able to trust businesses—that businesses are acting with the best of intentions. When businesses are doing that and not participating in cartel conduct then we see that actually competition is better—competition is better among businesses it's better for consumers and it leads to lower prices and better quality goods and services. I say that now is the perfect time—the perfect opportunity—to implement this piece of legislation to protect our consumers now and into the future. I commend this bill to the House.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Let me just start by saying that this bill is another example of why we are on this side of the House. This is about the Government actually looking after the rights of the consumers—the little guys. That's exactly why we are doing this. What we have to do—the means that we are using to do it—are through this particular bill here the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill.Now when I go back home and I talk to friends and family about cartels they don't really understand them. You see it's not the common man's kind of language: cartels". When you're talking about cartels generally people that are embarking on that kind of behaviour are people that earn quite a bit of money. You're talking about big corporations. So when you're talking about that kind of behaviour which is anti-competition and considered to be one of the evils of the business community then it needs to be dealt with in the same kind of language and with really tough penalties.The Commerce Commission was one of the submissions that we had before us and in fact they too agreed that with stronger penalties it would lead to better outcomes for consumers. Let's just think about that for a moment because they were adamant that financial payments are deterrents—yes—but actually if you really want to discourage the bad behaviour you actually have to step up with very severe penalties. So the criminalisation aspect is obviously what we've been talking about quite a bit throughout this whole process.Putting more people in jail isn't exactly why I came into this job; I came in here actually to look after New Zealanders. But what I do understand is that when we're talking about cartel-like behaviour and we're talking about markets going awry then actually we absolutely need to step up. Overseas experience has shown that as I say financial penalties contribute towards deterring those corporations—big money—but individual criminal sanctions also play an important role in deterring that kind of cartel behaviour.So it is with that in mind—and also I guess just an acknowledgment that yes we did have some submissions that were in favour and we also had some that were against. In terms of weighing it up we as a committee looked over it and we as a Government are really happy to put our support behind this piece of legislation. It is a good piece of law that we will be making today. This is the second reading; there's still obviously the committee stage to go as well.Andrew Bayly: You've got another two minutes.TAMATI COFFEY: I'm done. I commend this to the House. Go!"
Rurawhe AdrianCOMMERCE (CRIMINALISATION OF CARTELS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 27 September.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members when the House last considered this bill Melissa Lee had the call and she has nine minutes and 40 seconds remaining should she so wish.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 24 October