edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Jackson WillieSecond ReadingHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: I move That the Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): So we have agreed—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh third reading. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): —that there's no debate on the second reading Dr Smith. Bill read a second time.
Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Debate and Committee Stage—Leave Declined
Seymour DavidSecond Reading Debate and Committee Stage—Leave DeclinedDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave for this bill to have a second reading and committee stage as well as a third reading so that amendments I have on the Table to make this compulsory for all MPs may be debated. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Jackson WillieREMUNERATION AUTHORITY (COVID-19 MEASURES) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: I move That the Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Bill read a first time.
Little AndrewFAMILY COURT (SUPPORTING FAMILIES IN COURT) LEGISLATION BILLSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): I move That the Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following a discussion with the shadow Leader of the House I seek leave for there to be no debate on the first and second readings and no committee stage on the Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hipkins ChrisBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following discussions with the Opposition I seek leave for there to be no debate on the second reading and no committee stage for the Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill. It makes relatively small changes but they have large implications and that is to reinstate legal representation in the early stages of the Care of Children Act proceedings with legal aid for eligible parties. My understanding is it's going through as part of the Budget because there are concomitant Budget implications.So the previous National Government under the direction of then justice Minister Judith Collins removed for fiscal reasons the right to make use of legal representation and legal aid in the early stages of on notice Care of Children Act proceedings if parents so choose. The result of the removal of legal representation and legal aid has restricted parties' access to justice particularly low-income parents and whānau. That's meant longer resolution times for care of children disputes parents and children being left in limbo for extended periods of time and there are currently around 16000 children subject to the Care of Children Act proceedings in the Family Court each year. So this really does affect a large number of children. This change which the Green Party supports because it provides proper access to the Family Court is important so that people can deal with family issues such as domestic violence childcare and relationship property. The consequences of reduced access have been that more parties have had to deal with an expensive and cumbersome family disputes resolution process before they could access the court and may not have had a right to legal representation for some types of hearings.So the Green Party is supporting this. I think it'll be a positive change and it's one that needs to happen pretty quickly for the sake of those 16000 children that have been left in limbo.
SpeechHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Can I just first open by saying that I think Chris Bishop looks fantastic today. I think he's an exceptionally good-looking man and his new presentation merely enhances what we already knew. I'm now going to move on to the bill.I'm going to take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the bill. I do have to say how incredibly disappointed I am by the Opposition's decision to not support the legislation. As the party of the day that actually created a Minister for Children and who understood and set in place legislation to better protect and better support those children who find themselves inside of families that are not working well—that was the National Party that was the Hon Anne Tolley who had that vision and created the Ministry for Vulnerable Children and the Minister for Children.The Hon Judith Collins I believe did what she did with regard to the changes to the Family Court because she believed they would work well for children. They have not. They have not worked well for children. And when you speak to children and the process that has been put into place you would know that it has not worked. Sometimes we have to admit we got it wrong. Sometimes we have to admit that it's not the system; that it's the human beings inside the system. It's a highly emotional time for families to go to Family Court. And yes we ask our parents to put their children first but human beings are human beings and there are moments when the adults cannot—do not—act like adults and the children get caught in the middle.I am exceptionally disappointed by the National Party saying that they cannot support this because—and I'm going to be a little bit gracious—they believe that it's the system that has not changed enough that has created the problem for the children. What relevance $25 million has got when we're talking about our children I do not know. I cannot think a better place to spend every single dollar we have in this country if not upon our children who find themselves in a situation where their mother and their father or whoever is caring for them are now tearing each other apart and need the court to intervene.So I'm asking the National Party to reconsider. I know it's a hard thing to do but I've seen it done. I'm asking them to reconsider as this bill goes through. I understand it's going through quickly but let's not take away from the intent of the Hon Judith Collins—let's not take away from the intent. Let's not make it about a slanging match. But let's make this about the fact that it was a good idea that didn't work. Let's just say that and that we have to undo it because the children—we've heard how it is affecting them. I can tell you the consequences that it has on the workload of Oranga Tamariki. I'm asking the National Party to reconsider their vote but New Zealand First will support the legislation.
SpeechHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thanks Madam Speaker. Just a few comments about this bill which is to allow thankfully legal representation in all proceedings under the Care of Children Act and relates directly to a Budget provision of nearly $25 million over four years and is about restoring the rights to people to have access to legal advice from the very beginning of a Family Court process for parents and whānau in care of children disputes.The thing that really stood out for me about the inequity in this is when under Judith Collins' reign as justice Minister the previous National Government—and I use the word reign" deliberately—removed for fiscal reasons the right to make use of legal representation and legal aid at the early stages of on-notice Care of Children Act proceedings of children if parents so choose. That removal of legal representation also created an incentive for parties to file applications without notice because that meant that they could obtain a lawyer. Those applications were intended to provide a faster response in certain cases. The result was that those without-notice applications rose from 30 percent to 70 percent of Care of Children Act applications which placed huge pressure on parents the Family Court system and most of all children. I had some experience of that myself personally which I won't go into but can I just say—huge pressure within that system.Thankfully we have a Minister who has announced measures as part of this Budget which are more than this which will lead to more legislation more equity within the court system and most importantly—and this is why this is urgent and important—will protect our children."
SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I wasn't going to take another call and this one will be a very quick one but I have to answer a couple of comments that the—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope it's about the bill.Hon TIM MACINDOE: It is absolutely about the bill. She has suggested that—well first of all she said that I mentioned the last year of our time in Government. I talked about the last few years but there had quite clearly been a significant—I do hope the cameras are not on me at the moment Madam Speaker!DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or me!Hon TIM MACINDOE: This is unbelievable. Good Lord no. The member for Hutt South has just entered into the House with hair extensions and I have been completely thrown off. Is this the member for Hutt South?I didn't say year" Ms Martin; I said "years". But it is absolutely right that the importation of illegal tobacco has increased sharply in recent years and yes it can be linked to the excise increases of recent years which almost all parties in the House have supported except for New Zealand First. Her suggestion that that particular policy hasn't helped drive down smoking rates in New Zealand is absolutely confronted by the evidence. Of course it has. We're all—or I think almost all of us are—firmly committed to the Smokefree Aotearoa policy. We know that's in the best interests of the health of our citizens and increased prices through excise taxes have helped to achieve that. Yes there have been some unfortunate consequences including a tax on dairies and all the rest of it and that is to be regretted but for her to suggest that it hasn't had that health impact is absolute nonsense and she knows it.Bill read a third time."
Customs and Excise (Tobacco) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
SpeechHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you. I'm just going to take a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First supports the bill. We support the bill because we actually want to support those businesses who legally sell cigarettes right now who are being undermined whose business is being undermined by people bringing the product into the country illegally and selling it on the black market. So this is about New Zealand First supporting legal businesses and their products and their ability to make a profit legally in this country.I want to pick up on something that the Hon Tim Macindoe said about the fact that he took exception to Minister Salesa saying that the problem of smuggling had been increasing for a long period of time. He said that in the last year of the previous Government it had been increasing and it had continued to increase during this term of Government. I take him at his word; I'm not disputing that at all. What New Zealand First would say is that that clearly points out that the piece of legislation that the National Party introduced that required the Government to increase excise tax every year knowing that it did not reduce the number of smokers knowing that it hit the pockets of the poorest members of our community—knowing that it did those things the National Government passed a piece of legislation in their term that would have required a new Government to come back and overturn those price increases. New Zealand First feels so strongly about the fact that the increases in excise that were placed upon some of the poorest New Zealanders—that does not do what we asked it to do. That does not take the $2 billion that the Crown gets and puts it into prevention—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. Well we'll just come to the bill because everyone else has—so we'll just come to the bill.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —and we used—absolutely—our agree-to-disagree powers inside of Cabinet around those changes.So we support this because we're supporting legal businesses; legal businesses who have the right to sell tobacco even at the incredibly high price that the previous Government made sure that New Zealanders would have to pay.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh that's jolly decent of you. This will be a very short contribution—really it's just to continue to put National's if you will protest around process. We find it incomprehensible that we have to be rushing this through Parliament under Budget urgency. I want to stress again for the record that this bill according to the regulatory impact statement has effectively been ready since November last year and why it needs to be rushed through now is beyond me.I think also while we support the intention of the bill and we support what the Minister of Customs is saying the big players already have effective import licences. No illegal importer is going to seek said licence even if it's free and while we are also rightly changing the way that someone if you will can appeal the seizure of their illegal goods I would put good money—see how we're switching from smoking to gambling here—on the fact that no illegal importer is going to challenge customs for having seized their tobacco.So again we support this bill but it's just nonsensical that the Government in front of the greatest crisis in a hundred years has decided a tweak to the Customs and Excise Act is necessary.
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): When I referred to seizing cigarettes and tobacco leaf and destroying it right away what I meant was—and I used an example in my first speech where in just a couple of weeks in August of last year 2086 packets of cigarettes were seized. And just with the 2086 packets of cigarettes Customs actually spent a total of 90 days—90 days—to record seizing the tobacco as well as storing it. And then because we allow people to be able to claim to be able to come through and even appeal the decision of the Customs chief executive officer this would basically mean that Customs does not have to do that—it doesn't have to spend that much time for a period of two weeks of this many cigarettes coming through the international mail centre so that Customs officers can get on with ensuring that other illicit drugs like meth don't come through the border and also that they can make sure that as we deal with COVID-19—because they are at the forefront of dealing with COVID-19—they focus their energies on that. Thank you Madam Speaker.Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Customs and Excise (Tobacco) Amendment Bill — In Committee
SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): It is a little bit disingenuous of the current Minister Jenny Salesa to suggest that this was a problem of constant duration through the nine years of the previous Government. It was not. The rate of importation or smuggling of illicit tobacco increased significantly in recent years—yes towards the end of our time in Government—and it has continued to do so. It certainly wasn't the problem that we now know a decade ago. And so it's wrong for the Minister to suggest that.Could I just pick up on the comment that she made that this will enable a much more efficient destruction of the illicit tobacco. I'd be interested in her description as to how that will occur and what is inefficient about the destruction now and also—particularly with the climate change Minister here—I'd be interested to know will we suddenly see career criminals and smugglers watching a great bonfire of illicit tobacco because I don't think the climate change Minister would want to see the emissions that would cause. So how does the destruction occur—how will it occur? My hope because I'm actually a keen recycler and composter is that the products will be composted or mulched—mulched and then composted might be good—but in a way that is environmentally safe. I would be interested to hear her answer.
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): So the question about compensating for when cigarettes or tobacco leaf is taken and the person actually had a permit and then for the taxpayer to compensate for that—I have a lot of faith in our customs officials. I know that they will ensure as much as they can that they will only seize and destroy cigarettes and tobacco leaf that do not have a permit.On the issue of why we are so confident that this particular regime will address illegal cigarettes coming through in the international mail centre well they will actually be able to destroy these cigarettes in a much more efficient way. I do not expect that organised criminals who we know are the main people that are using this way of smuggling cigarettes into New Zealand will suddenly go and get a permit to be able to do the illegal smuggling of cigarettes over to New Zealand.However the fines and the penalties that this particular legislation has: so for an individual the maximum penalty is $5000; for a body corporate the maximum penalty is $25000 for sending through cigarettes illegally in this way. This may not be the nirvana of dealing with this particular issue but it is one way of dealing with it because we are seeing so much of an increase of cigarettes coming through. When you look at the difference between just 2016 and 2019 at the huge number of cigarettes coming through—over 352 percent increase of cigarettes being sent through the mail—we've got to actually come through with legislation to stop that. When I said earlier on that this is something that should have been done much earlier on I wasn't just referring to our particular Government; I was referring actually to the honourable Minister Tim Macindoe and the National Party. When they were in Government—nine years—they could have done something to address this issue. We are doing it now and this is a good bill to ensure that we stop helping or stop the illegal importation of cigarettes through the international mail centre because we know there is a black market and we know we must address organised criminals from doing this.
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): I move that all parts of the Customs and Excise (Tobacco) Amendment Bill be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you actually seeking leave?Hon Jenny Salesa: Seeking leave; that's right Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is there any objection to that? There seems not to be.
SpeechIn CommitteeHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Quick point of order: could I just ask for your guidance? I'm assuming we're going to have a very short committee stage. Will you be adopting the pattern that we've seen in recent days of allowing questions to be asked the Minister to respond and to have that free flow or are we back to the more standard five-minute speeches?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My recollection is that the Business Committee removed the limit on the four five-minute speeches only for the debate on the appropriation bill.Hon Tim Macindoe: So we're back to a more normal pattern?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): [Interruption] Oh is that right? Oh I beg your pardon. Yeah so you can.
SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Yes of course all members of this House want to have confidence in the security of our borders. But the fact of the matter is that there are many ill-doers out there who constantly want to breach those borders. I mentioned in my first reading speech that as a former Minister of Customs I am acutely aware of not only the nature of this problem but also the increasing nature of this problem. It is therefore something that we do need to tackle with seriousness—and everybody has been tackling it with seriousness. Where there has been incredulity and a degree of cynicism on this side of the House is in the fact that we are dealing with this particular measure under urgency and in particular with the suggestion that it's going to make a huge amount of difference.For a former police officer and a former secretary of the New Zealand Police Association to stand up in this House and tell us that this bill will solve the problem because suddenly smugglers and those career criminals are all going to stand in a queue and apply for an import licence—beggars belief. It is absolutely gobsmackingly stupid and I cannot believe that I heard such nonsense not only from Mr O'Connor but from some of his colleagues.Hon Members: Greg O'Connor.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Mr Greg O'Connor. He had a flick at me so I'm having a flick straight back. That was one of the most naive misguided stupid things I've ever heard him say.In the explanatory notes that I've received about this bill we're told that any importation without a permit or that is not in compliance with the conditions of the permit would be subject to forfeiture. That's great; that's absolutely as it should be. It's absolutely as it is it's as it always has been. And it is exactly what the men and women—those very fine servants of our nation who work for the New Zealand Customs Service—do day in and day out and they do it incredibly well.If this bill will help of course we support it. But the fact of the matter is it will not slow the importation of illegal products across our borders. Drugs tobacco and other things that smugglers can make money out of will continue to come across. So for the Hon Clare Curran to talk about confidence in the security of our borders is pie in the sky stuff. We have a very good Customs Service we have very good Ministry for Primary Industries officials who are doing great work but there are a lot of people out there wanting to undermine that work and to breach our borders. So anything we can do to enable them to do that fine work has my full support but the idea suddenly that we're going to reach nirvana as a result of this bill is absolute nonsense.Bill read a second time.
Customs and Excise (Tobacco) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
SpeechHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Oh thank you Madam Speaker—sorry I didn't hear. Look I just want to make a few more remarks on this bill. I heartily agreed with Ron Mark earlier in the first reading who said that that this should've been done 15 years ago. The Minister of Customs has set out the fact that this legislation was to be introduced in March but COVID-19 has impacted on that as it has on all parts of New Zealanders' lives.I can't see that anybody in this House could disagree that safe borders are critical to our current fight against COVID-19 that the sheer amount of time and energy that's being wasted on the work that needs to be done to seize illicit tobacco is wasting the time of our border officials whether that's directly on the border whether that's through the New Zealand post system and that this—again counter to what for one member the member for ACT seems to be a constant theme that it's all about bureaucratic hurdles—piece of legislation actually provides for a simplified seizure process. So it's a much simpler process that will actually make it easier to bring in these controls. This bill is about cracking down on illegal activity at our borders. It's not just about safe borders; it's about confidence in the safety of our borders which is a really really important thing at this time and I do hope that the members across the House agree with that that New Zealanders can feel confident about our safe borders. So you know with that I heartily commend this bill to the House. Let's just get on and do it.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I want to agree with Minister Salesa who's just taken her seat that this should have been introduced a while back. I pointed out in the first reading before I was somewhat rudely interrupted four times the regulatory impact statement—in other words the Minister has had this bill since November last year. So I have to reiterate in the second reading speech why do we have to do it under Budget urgency?I'd love also at this stage at the second reading of the bill to reference the select committee report the fact that we brought major importers of tobacco in. Obviously we couldn't bring ipso facto the illegal people in but would love to have done a select committee report and I'd like to reference it now. Oh that's right; we don't have one. We're rushing this through the House. I want to point out too to the Minister who has quite rightly—and look I actually respect the Minister as a person and in her role. I think she does a good role in Customs. But she pointed out the extra money that was given to Customs—that was the last Budget. This current Budget had not effectively given Customs any more money and I'm shocked as we think about the primary vector for COVID being the border that no more money's been done. In fact we're wasting our time if you will or wasting this Parliament's time racing this through.My final point in this emotional second reading speech is to point out as I did in the first reading that we are looking at more and more people becoming unemployed. I just want to point out to the Minister that as we considered her Customs bill another three to five New Zealanders have lost their jobs in the time it's taken me to share these words. And I personally think that this really is a Budget that's going up in smoke.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was hoping that the member might have run out of puff. I call Clare Curran.Hon Clare Curran: Madam Speaker—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I called you.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Speaker the previous two speakers speaking about the issue with tobacco just show that their heads are in a cloud of smoke—to continue the pun of the previous speaker—because this bill is a very simplified process of solving a problem. The very bureaucracy they are claiming it is creating is the very bureaucracy it is removing and the previous Minister of Customs will be sitting there squirming very guiltily. He had the opportunity to do something about it when he was in power—he didn't—so no wonder he's mouthing off the way he is and his colleagues. So feel very guilty Mr Macindoe and just feel relieved that someone is fixing up another one of your problems.I've also heard those opposite many of whom are out-of-town MPs concerned about this Budget. I can assure you—one of the advantages of being a Wellington MP—I got to go a Khandallah cafe full of people who may have been supporters—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt but I'll repeat: we are talking about an excise bill not the Budget.GREG O'CONNOR: Thank you Madam Speaker. Just reassuring those that may have been concerned that we should have been perhaps debating something more close to the Budget. I can reassure them the good citizens of a Khandallah cafe some of whom have in the past been supporters of the party opposite were very very happy—all owners of small and medium enterprises—very very happy with the Budget.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we talk about tobacco? Tobacco.GREG O'CONNOR: But Madam Speaker I will return. The other thing that's important with matters to do with customs—very important when you are going to fix a problem which this bill is doing—is you don't give the crooks any more notice than they need because if we put this through the full process knowing this is coming they will change their practices. This way will make sure that exactly what we are trying to achieve will be done will be done quickly—and again something that should have been fixed by the Minister of Customs in the previous administration; now another problem solved. So this is a very good piece of legislation. It does deserve urgency at this time to ensure that the crooks the organised criminals who have now moved into this market now won't be able to come up with another way of smuggling their product. I thoroughly recommend this bill to the House Madam Speaker.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Mr Speaker—or Madam Speaker? Thank you very much presiding officer of uncertain gender.Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute on the Customs and Excise (Tobacco) Amendment Bill. This is the first time given that Parliament would usually have sat on a Thursday in any case and today represents the first day that we would have had the opportunity to be out and about in our electorates for many weeks and here we are discussing this particular bill. It's a smokescreen. It's a pipedream. It's a plan on the back of a fag packet and the justification is paper thin. It's hard to avoid thinking that this is merely a measure to create more breathing room for the Government and I suggest they start by turning over a new leaf because they have created more eye-rolling than they have stopped hand-rolling by doing so. This Government knows a thing or two about importing substances from overseas that are dangerous to Kiwis' lungs. Nevertheless the basic underlying intent of the bill as you've heard from others on this side of the House we support and as such we will vote for the bill at this stage and I understand subsequent ones. But of course we do note for the record our bemusement at the fact that it has gained such relative priority over urgent matters connected with the coronavirus and of course the Budget that apparently was passed yesterday—or began to be passed in debate yesterday. Thank you.David Seymour: Madam Speaker?DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand you missed a call so is this a split call or is this—this is a split call.
SpeechHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thanks Mr Speaker. In my brief contribution on this bill I'll make the following points. I was doing a bit of research and looking and found an article from Stuff from December last year where Customs national investigations manager Bruce Berry was quoted as saying that 95 percent of his fraud unit's time had been spent in 2019 investigating cigarette smuggling. I think that's a pretty telling statistic. We are certainly this world this country facing an economic shock posed by the coronavirus presenting challenges that haven't been seen since the Great Depression and so it is absolutely important that there's a clear path through.Customs as do many other Government agencies have an incredibly important role to play in ensuring that we are in the best place to get through this crisis. Customs therefore needs to be in good shape and focused. What this bill does is combat that particular issue which is taking up 95 percent of that investigation unit's time by combating tobacco smuggling and securing the Crown revenue collected from the taxes on tobacco. Another important statistic is that interceptions have increased by 352 percent between 2015 and 2019. It's wasting time and resources at Customs it's undermining our system and it's undermining the Government's goal of a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025.If the National Party had some coherence around their arguments perhaps they could be taken more seriously but on the one hand their Customs spokesperson says it's an incredibly significant issue; on the other hand it's making a mockery of going into urgency. Perhaps if they took shorter calls and backed the bill so that we could get Customs in a good place to play their role in this crisis we could all get this bill finished and get back to the job at hand.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I stand on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to put on record briefly our position on the Customs and Excise (Tobacco) Amendment Bill this being the first reading and our support for it. I must say the Opposition is spending a heck of a lot of time talking about something they're saying they don't want to be talking about. The content of this legislation of course does two things primarily. The first is allowing for stricter control of tobacco importation by requiring a permit or a licence prior to that importation. The second gives a kind of content or function to that mechanism by way of allowing customs to destroy tobacco on seizure provided that they have first written to the importer.I think what this bill fundamentally does is showcase the importance of meaningful regulation around a substance. We did have a member of the Opposition the Hon Simon O'Connor speaking to how this Government is seeking to create greater regulation around tobacco. But he—and I quote—said that there is somehow a glaring contradiction" with regard to cannabis. And here I want to draw the opposing members' attention to the importance of what he has just highlighted which is that regulation works.The different mechanisms of regulation—many of which are actually highlighted in this legislation—are for example education particularly education around the public health implications of utilisation of a substance whether that be tobacco or alcohol or otherwise; also around licensing and regulation of the supply chain which this bill does; thirdly around cessation support which Minister Salesa spoke to; fourthly around availability which notably this bill does not impact in terms of the availability of tobacco for those who are purchasing at licensed retail outlets; fifthly around advertising; and sixthly with regards to price which you can change through mechanisms such as taxation.Inside a regulated model that we have for tobacco in this country we are able to as a Government as a Parliament pull levers which reduce the use—particularly harmful use—of that substance. And that is exactly the same proposal that is being put forward with regard to cannabis. It would just so happen that the Opposition prefers to continue empowering the black market. Kia ora."
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): The member who just resumed his seat Simon O'Connor talked about losing the will to live. I've lost the will to live after listening to about seven minutes of his speech and I would suggest that that member reads the bill if he wants to understand what this is about. Or I'll outline it for him.The problem that this bill is seeking to address is the fact—Dan Bidois: What is the problem?PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Let me tell you Mr Bidois. The interceptions of smuggled cigarettes at the border has increased by 352 percent between 2015 and 2019 and that member who has just resumed his seat talks about warehouses that might want to stock illegal products. That is horrifying let me tell you. Interceptions in 2018 were 53 percent—SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to interrupt the member early and repeat a ruling I made on an earlier debate. The fact that a member has previously brought in an irrelevancy does not make it relevant to be replied to. And I ruled that what the member said was not relevant.PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Sure Mr Speaker. I wouldn't want to make my speech irrelevant as a result. Interceptions in 2018 were 53 percent higher than in 2017. This is a growing problem. In the last 12 months alone customs has seized illicit tobacco product representing $10.8 million of excise tax that was forgone. Those are the two issues that this bill tries to combat. I think it's pretty clear if only that member had bothered to read the bill.Now the way in which this bill will address that problem is to impose import controls over tobacco products tobacco leaf and refuse—very clear. It requires anyone who's importing these goods to hold a permit and it will ensure that very quickly and in a cost-efficient manner there will be seizure and disposal of that product that is imported illegally and without a permit. That's pretty much what this bill will do. It addresses an industry that is illegal and growing in New Zealand. I just want to make one more point before I take my seat and that is to assure those who may be hooked on cigarettes that the Minister has made it very clear that if they would like to seek some help to quit there is that help available. However people who currently buy their cigarettes from the local dairy down the road need not worry that they will be affected by this bill because they won't. No one buying legitimate product in New Zealand will notice any change as the permit system will have no impact on the availability or the price of legitimate tobacco product Mr O'Connor. And so that is the crux of the bill. That is what this Government is addressing through this bill. It's a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I find the narrative that we've heard or rather the narratives that we've heard from speeches across the House incredibly confusing. It seems like they're in disarray and quite disunited on their view because some speakers claim that the forestry industry is important; others claim it's not important enough to discuss today. We on this side of the House beg to differ: it is incredibly important. This work has gained urgency with the pandemic situation that we're in because processing and forestry companies need to differentiate themselves in a post-COVID environment. The forestry industry is the third largest exporter in the primary sector. Our Budget is about rebuilding together and that includes the forestry sector.This is a bill that absolutely shows that the Government backs the forestry sector because it allows log traders and forest owners to have confidence in the advice that's provided to them. That point has been made time and again from this side of the House. That side of the House just has completely disunited narratives. They can't make up their mind on whether it's important or not and whether they should have confidence in advisers. This is an excellent bill; it's part of our plan to rebuild New Zealand's economy together and I commend it to the House.
Coffey Tamati; Rurawhe AdrianTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Mr Speaker. The member from Hamilton East should do well to actually look after the things that happen in Hamilton East and forestry isn't one of them. If you want conversations around forestry what you should do is talk to members of this House who actually have electorates that are covered in forests—that's right. The member should do well to actually listen to the industry because this is something that many players have been calling for for quite some time. What he's saying is completely out of step with the people back home that I talk to that are calling for more domestic processing of our logs. So when he says that we don't want it he's wrong and the member would do well to actually talk to some people that know something about it because I'm pretty sure in Hamilton East they haven't got a big focus on forestry.In the Waiariki electorate we are born from the trees. We are people that were absolutely—my grandfather actually was one of the workers at the Waipā sawmill. We know forests. We know forests really well. So when people talk about the regulation of log buyers and forestry advisers they see it as a good thing.This is about something that has been a long time coming. To be able to create Te Uru Rākau as this Government has done; to be able to put a focus on forestry like we haven't as a country done for quite some time is truly significant. To have big ambitious goals to plant a billion trees is absolutely what this country needs and what we need to be able to do to address our goals when it comes to climate change as well. This bill is going to strengthen the integrity of our forestry supply chain and that can only be a good thing. When it comes to forestry of course we've seen that there have been logs flowing offshore for quite some time and we've got to make sure that when we do that we make sure that we take into account the interests of New Zealanders first. When you come to a place like Rotorua which is built from the forest we are reliant on our forestry industry—we're reliant on the strength of our forestry industry. We haven't scratched the potential of exactly what our wood our timber can do for New Zealand. So this is one part—this bill is one part in a major plan to be able to strengthen our forestry sector here in New Zealand and I've got nothing but support for it. So I recommend this to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is—Hon Amy Adams: Mr Speaker—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): —that the motion be agreed to. I'm sorry?Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders quite clearly state that a member can seek a call until the time you've finished putting the question. You were still using those words when she sought the call.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes and I want to encourage all members to be vigilant when members before them take their seats and I look around the Chamber and no one is seeking the call—I have to start the question. OK. So will someone seek the call?
Thursday 14 May 2020 - Volume 745
Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteDEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to amend the report-back date to 15 June 2020 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 25 May 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c). Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 118New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Bennett David; Rurawhe AdrianHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to take a little speech to start off with this because this shows the idiocy of the New Zealand First economic plan. They are nationalising forestry and telling people how they have to sell their products. It is all because they want to see those products being processed in New Zealand. The reality is they are not processed in New Zealand because of the requirements that that Government puts on industry the costs it puts on industry and the environmental costs that don't make it profitable to do it here. The most profitable use of those logs is to send them overseas just like our milk powder—the most profitable use is to send it overseas.They are trying to nationalise a market. That is what they are trying to do and it will not work. It will create inefficiencies in the forestry market. It will create a sense of inefficient investment and it will hurt forestry long term. Forestry needs to be able to make commercial decisions as a business and not have Shane Jones tell them who they should sell their product to. He does not make the right decisions. He has not got that power. It is up for business people and planters to do that not for Shane Jones to dictate what happens to their products. That is the nationalisation process that the New Zealand First Party and Labour Party and Green Party stand for and it will not work and it is a very good indication to the public of New Zealand. Do not let these guys run this country. They will destroy our economy. They will destroy our business base because they will put inefficiency into business. They will make businesses make decisions to actually fulfil a Minister's whims rather than making profit and actually delivering—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the evening. The House will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)
Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Well the Opposition is struggling really to find things to oppose in this bill. We know that the National Party will be supporting it to select committee and I suspect even Mr Seymour floundering around there looking for things to criticise in it will actually engage in some robust and constructive discussion at Finance and Expenditure Committee. It may be a change but I look forward to it anyway. I'm forever the optimist. I mean an objection on the basis that we're requiring details of investors to be given to the IRD really? Does he really think that we ought not require information to be given to the IRD? David Seymour: Justify requiring more.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: And Mr Yule needs to read the bill more carefully in terms of the leasehold land. He was quite wrong-headed in his criticisms of that.And you know what? I love the criticism that David Parker has been too hard-working in getting this right. We have brought legislation to the House on more than one occasion because absolutely in terms of the first bill we were going to stop foreign investors purchasing residential properties. New Zealand homes for New Zealand families: that was our policy there. We then had a bill which was disrupted by COVID-19 and that is largely what you're seeing in front of us now. So there are three bills and the other one is the urgent bill—the bill to stop the vultures of international investment companies coming in and swooping and picking the bones of New Zealand businesses. I absolutely stand behind the hard-working David Parker who has done more for international trade in 2½ years than that Government did in nine years.This is a fantastic bill. It's easing the way for good investment. It's stopping poor investment. I support this bill. I commend it to the House.