edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 5 NOVEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.SPEAKER'S OBSERVATIONSChamber Audio—MicrophonesSPEAKER: Can I just remind members especially those on my right that the Clerk's mike is open and their conversations and laughter can be heard through it.
Thursday 24 October 2019 - Volume 742
Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 52New Zealand National 51; Ross.Bill read a first time.The question was put that the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 52New Zealand National 51; Ross.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.
8. Question No. 8—YouthTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for YouthQuestion No. 8—Youth8. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Youth: He aha ngā mahi kua mahia e Te Minita ināia tata ake nei kia tautoko i te oranga o te hunga rangatahi Māori? What actions if any has he recently taken to support rangatahi Māori wellbeing?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): On Monday I travelled to Ōtautahi to launch the RUIA Fund which is a collaboration between Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu the Rātā Foundation Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and the Ministry of Youth Development. These partners have established a contestable fund with a little over $360000 to support initiatives that will improve wellbeing outcomes for rangatahi Māori and Te Waipounamu.Tamati Coffey: He aha te whakahirahiratanga o tēnei rangapū? What's the significance of this partnership?Hon PEENI HENARE: The partnership between iwi a Whānau Ora commissioning agency a philanthropic organisation and Government showcases what can be done for young people through having a shared vision and alignment of strategic priorities and funding. The RUIA Fund is a great example of how we can come together to support rangatahi Māori wellbeing leadership and cultural development.Tamati Coffey: Whakamutunga. E pēhea ai te pūtea nei e whakapiki i te oranga mō te hunga rangatahi Māori ki Te Wai Pounamu? How will this funding improve the wellbeing of rangatahi Māori in the South Island?Hon PEENI HENARE: This fund will be led and designed by Māori youth. Ngāi Tahu rangatahi have identified principles that will guide RUIA investment and grant-making decisions to include wellbeing identity leadership learning innovation and sustainability. The RUIA Fund will ensure it reflects rangatahi aspirations and provides rangatahi with new opportunities and initiatives that otherwise may not be available to them due to circumstance or geographic isolation.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I didn't want to interrupt the line of questioning—it was very good—but I wonder if you could explain to the House why it was necessary for the member to translate his own question given the very good translation service we have.SPEAKER: It is a fair point. There is an interpretation service which is available to members. I think the member was trying to be helpful and quick although of course for the Minister answering the question it probably wasn't necessary to have the interpretation before the Minister answered. I think in future it is better just to ask the question in one language. Thank you.
6. Question No. 6—Land InformationHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Land InformationQuestion No. 6—Land Information6. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Land Information: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): Yes in the context in which they were made and taken.Hon David Bennett: With the special approval to Japanese-owned Pan Pac Forest Products to purchase up to 20000 hectares of New Zealand land for forestry what restrictions did the Minister place on the lands that could be purchased?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: This is a standing consent under the special forestry pathway. It's not envisaged that many of these will be used. The application was about securing long-term wood supply and it is expected that the applicant will use this to purchase land which is already in forestry. As a standing consent it has a very different test from the substantial and identifiable benefit test which applies to rural farmland.Hon David Bennett: Has the Minister retained the power to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right place?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: No but this Government has invested substantially in the enforcement activities of the Overseas Investment Office so I expect that the office will ensure that the conditions of the consent are abided by and the office has—in some instances where it's taken enforcement action the land has had to be sold.Hon David Bennett: What independent evidence did the Minister use in making this decision that Pan Pac couldn't purchase logs from New Zealand - owned forestry blocks?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The application was about securing wood supply. Nearly 29000 of Pan Pac's existing areas are Crown forest licences. Those are passing to iwi. It needs to secure its wood supply to secure 800 jobs in the regions—in Hawke's Bay and in Otago. It is a longstanding investor in New Zealand. It has a good track record. It is our leading exporter of quality timber.Hon David Bennett: Can Pan Pac use the trees planted on these properties for purposes other than supplying its New Zealand factories?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: It can use them to provide for its operations in New Zealand yes.Hon David Bennett: Well then isn't this a de facto way around the overseas investment rules for Pan Pac if it can purchase land for forestry use without needing to use that for its factories?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The standing forestry test is about implementing this Government's commitment to have a thriving forestry industry to protect our climate through sequestering carbon and to provide jobs in the regions. It's about a thriving forestry sector and that is what this application will help achieve.
2. Question No. 2—Economic DevelopmentDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 2—Economic Development2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Economic Development: What new rules and guidelines has he announced to help protect construction companies and their workers?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Along with the building and construction Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa I announced this month that new Government procurement rules and guidelines have now come into force. These are aimed at helping to keep construction companies afloat by promoting better practices when awarding multimillion-dollar construction contracts. The new rules move away from the lowest price model that causes a race to the bottom and hurts the industry to a broader outcome model which has to take into account the financial health of the construction company the health and safety of its workers and the environmental health of the building.Dr Duncan Webb: How will the new rules require Government agencies to change their procurement practices? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The new rules require that Government departments move away from least-cost procurement and choose contracts that offer the best public value—including these broader outcomes—over the whole life of the goods services or works. These broader outcomes explicitly include investments in trade training and improving the conditions of workers. Dr Duncan Webb: Why are these new rules and guidelines so important?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The reason is that the new guidelines help address some of the key concerns raised through the Construction Sector Accord recently negotiated between the Government industry and unions. We're helping boost the resilience of construction companies by being more transparent in contracting about what risks exist in a project and who is liable for managing them. This allows for fairer pricing fairer margins and less likelihood of unexpected financial shocks. It considers the whole life of value to the public of the construction project not just the upfront costs. This industry produces around 7 percent of our GDP it has more than 62000 firms more than 242000 workers and we know that we have to step up.Dr Duncan Webb: What reaction has there been to the new rules and guidelines? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well there have been many in the industry who have been very supportive of this move by the Government to tackle what is a long-term challenge for New Zealand. Nick Collins the chief executive of Metals New Zealand said that the building and construction sector will gain much-needed stimulus and support in building a skilled workforce". The New Zealand Institute of Building chief executive Malcolm Fleming said the rules were a "positive signal from the Government". And David Kelly of Master Builders said the new guidelines had "the potential to significantly improve the quality and consistency of how Government construction projects are delivered"."
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It's an important bill. I commend it to the House.
Andersen Ginny; Rurawhe AdrianGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I'd like to briefly say that national security is not an issue for politics and it's a sad day when we see the Opposition playing games with the safety and security of New Zealanders.I have one question: what was done in nine years to develop a national strategy of security or engagement with communities? Zero—nothing was done. All we've seen is games being played. National was left out because they were playing politics now they're grumpy that they've been left on their own—and that's the truth of it. This is a bill about protecting the national security of New Zealanders and it's incredibly sad that they don't have the gumption or the wider view to be able to support it. They are answerable to the citizens of New Zealand as to why they refuse to vote for it.I commend this bill to the House.Simon O'Connor: The gross incompetence of what this—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you seeking the call?Simon O'Connor: Oh yeah sorry. Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Simon O'Connor—five minutes.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. I do so with a degree of exasperation actually listening across the House. It is important. This is a national security issue and it is important in these times that our two biggest political parties can work together for the benefit of New Zealanders. There is a pressing issue around terrorists that may wish to come back to this land and he does have rights as a citizen. We are in a no-man's land and we do need to address this. But what am I hearing? I'm hearing that the National Party seem to be more intent on refighting the 2017 election than actually addressing the issues with the bill and the clear and present danger that we are facing. This is not the time for a fit of political pique; this is time for focused minds and to act in the best interests of the New Zealand people—and New Zealand First will be doing just that. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Dyson RuthASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members before I put the final vote on the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill I just want to advise everyone that immediately following the vote permission has been given for both a waiata and drumming.Bill read a third time.Waiata
Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill — Third Reading
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Tēnā koutou katoa e te whānau o Parihaka. Nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata o tana pire the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill.[Greetings to you all greetings to the family of Parihaka. Welcome welcome to Parliament's bill the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill.]The temporary Speaker tonight is Ian McKelvie a National Party man and I consider him our kaumātua. I've always referred to him as our kaumātua. But I think you're outranked in the gallery there well and truly. I'd like to acknowledge Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti Kelvin Davis who's shepherding this bill through the House. He's a man from the North and he's a good man. I'd also like to acknowledge Rino Tirikatene who is another good man chair of the select committee that I'm on.Matt Doocey: Good Canterbury boy.MATT KING: Good Canterbury man yes. National supports this bill. Today is a great day for the people of Parihaka and for New Zealand. This bill recognises and rights the wrongs of the past and seeks to strengthen the partnership between Crown and iwi. Previous speakers over previous readings have well and truly traversed the detail so I will not go into that detail but this bill is well overdue. Settlements around the country and this is no different will unlock economic prosperity and boost regional and provincial areas. We as National are very proud of our record in the area of Treaty settlement. We as National have settled the vast majority of the Treaty claims and for that I would like to acknowledge the former Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson who did a huge amount of work on this bill and in previous Treaty settlements. So he's a man that we're going to really miss. However I can't take away anything from the current Government who have picked up the baton and run with it. We have to right the past and we have to all get along and be great Kiwis in this great country.Now I am on the Māori Affairs Committee and I have to say it's a real honour because it gives me a real insight into a part of the history of New Zealand that—I'll be honest with you—I did not have a great knowledge of. So being part of the Māori Affairs Committee has allowed me to understand some parts of our history some really important parts of our history that I really honestly did not know too much about. But today we are here right now for the people of Parihaka. So let's enjoy all this together. Nā reira e te whānau o Parihaka kua tae mai i runga i te kaupapa tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.[Therefore to the whānau of Parihaka who have arrived on this occasion greetings to one and all.]
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): The last speaker Rino Tirikatene reflected on mood. It's always hard when you're doing bills like this because actually there's always a sense of happiness that we've come to a resolution but sadness around what has been before. So I totally understand what he was saying. I would like to acknowledge the local members of Parliament Adrian Rurawhe and Jonathan Young. I'm close to Parihaka as a member of Parliament but I was much closer as a citizen when I grew up in the town of Ōpunake.Every time I think about this I think about the time when I was growing up particularly the time when I was at the local high school and I knew Parihaka was there. But shamefully none of us actually ever knew what it meant what it was about and I'm thankful that now we've got to this point where we've actually reached an agreement. I want to thank the people of Parihaka for your generosity and for the spirit in which you have worked through this process. It has taken an extremely long time and it's always happy that we've got to this point. But you know when I look back I notice that the legacy statement starts in 1813. So for us who stand and sit in this House today we're here now and we're in this process where we are happy because we've been able to agree on a way forward but it is with a sense of sadness and tragedy of everything that's happened before us. So you know I'm not going to go through the legacy the history because others have spoken about it. The Hon Kelvin Davis described this as a new dawn. And I notice that phase 9 in the legacy talks about the aspirations of Parihaka. At the moment the aspirations of Parihaka are filling everyone's hearts with plans and dreams and it's only the beginning of the aspirations for the next future that's coming and the next part of the legacy that you're going to live through. So it's an opportunity today to celebrate to realise your dreams to be able to move forward and to remember your ancestors and all the people that have gone before you. It's a chance to reflect on the apology. I was at Parihaka on that day when the apology was made and it was one of the most meaningful days I've ever ever experienced. So today I want to wish you all the very best. Thank you for coming to the House of Parliament. Thank you for all the effort that you've made because the effort is all around the people of Parihaka. So I wish you all the best for the future in your aspirations and we look forward to engaging with you as we work forward into your future. Kia ora.
Woods MeganTHURSDAY 24 OCTOBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 5 November. In that week the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill will pass through its remaining stages and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill will receive its first reading. Other legislation that will progress will include the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill and the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill.
Wednesday 23 October 2019 - Volume 742
End of Life Choice Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
11. Question No. 11—HealthANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 11—Health11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about facilities at Taranaki Base Hospital?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news. Last week I visited Taranaki Base Hospital to announce the Government has approved funding for the next stage of its redevelopment. This $300 million project will see a new east wing built to house a range of critical and acute services that are used each year by tens of thousands of people. This Government is serious about the long-term challenge of rebuilding our hospitals which have suffered from years of under-investment. Funding for this important project will come from the $1.7 billion set aside in Budget 2019 for upgrading our long-neglected hospital and health facilities.Angie Warren-Clark: What services will be housed in the new east wing building?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The new building will feature a new emergency department (ED) which will be twice the size of the current ED and a new intensive care unit. It will include purpose-built maternity services with a new delivery suite as well as a new post-natal ward and neonatal unit. There'll be upgraded laboratory and radiology services and a rooftop helipad which will mean faster safer patient transfers. These modern facilities will make it easier for staff to deliver the high-quality services that the people of Taranaki expect and deserve. [Interruption] Fantastic—as the member says.Angie Warren-Clark: When is the new building expected to be finished?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This is a major project and will take several years to complete. For comparison stage one of the redevelopment of Taranaki Base Hospital the $80 million acute services building was approved in 2007/2008 under the Helen Clark Government but wasn't opened until July 2014. The timetable for stage two is more ambitious. I'm advised that construction of the new east wing building is expected to begin by the end of next year or early 2021 and is expected to be complete in late 2023.
8. Question No. 8—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements around vaccine supply and the spread of measles?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Yes in the context they were given.Dr Shane Reti: Does she stand behind her statements that there has been no shortage of measles vaccines?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. Just to put it in context in the first half of this year—from January to June 2019—over 156000 measles mumps and rubella vaccines were administered. That's more than twice as many as the previous year and more than any single year in which the last National Government was in office. Since then 160000 more have been distributed and 155000 are expected in the next three months.Dr Shane Reti: When she said on 30 August that people under 50 could be vaccinated but then deprioritised 30- to 50-year-olds on 11 September was the deprioritisation due to a shortage of measles vaccine supply?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The Director-General of Health was acting on expert advisory group advice to prioritise children in the midst of a serious outbreak and I'm sure that nobody in this House would expect that we wouldn't prioritise children.SPEAKER: No—I am going to ask the member to answer the question.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I thought I had Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well I'm going to invite the member to ask the question again and the member to answer it.Dr Shane Reti: When she said on 30 August that people under 50 could be vaccinated but then deprioritised 30- to 50-year-olds on 11 September was the deprioritisation due to a shortage of measles vaccine supply?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I take issue with the assertion in the question about me deprioritising. As I said the Director-General of Health made decisions based on advice from the expert advisory group to prioritise children due to the fact that there was unprecedented demand in the first two weeks of September.Dr Shane Reti: Given that answer is the prioritisation of specific groups due to a shortage of measles vaccines?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No. It's to make sure that we could vaccinate all of the children who are the most severely affected in the outbreak.Dr Shane Reti: In light of her recent announcement expanding the immunisation target group to under-15-year-olds is there enough measles vaccine in New Zealand today to cover all of those children?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I've given the numbers on the amount of vaccine that we have and I've been assured by the Director-General of Health and by Pharmac that we have sufficient vaccine to vaccinate all children.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week SEEK released its quarterly employment report for the September quarter showing New Zealand job ad listings have increased by 0.9 percent compared with the same quarter last year. Job ad growth was particularly strong in Marlborough Tasman Hawke's Bay Southland and the Bay of Plenty which is great news for our regions. In addition the nationwide average advertised salary was up by 3.3 percent compared to quarter three in 2018. It is good to see businesses paying higher wages and continuing to hire demonstrating the solid underlying fundamentals of the New Zealand economy.Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the global context for the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week when I was in Chile for the APEC finance Ministers' meeting I received a report from the OECD secretary-general. In it he said Clouds have been gathering over the global economy and the horizon is only getting darker." The secretary-general highlighted the OECD's lower forecast for global growth in 2019 and 2020 due to the high uncertainty created by escalating trade disputes which as he said is having a corrosive effect on confidence and investment. As part of this the OECD has forecast lower rates of growth in nearly every country. As I have previously highlighted based on these forecasts New Zealand continues to outperform many of the countries that we compare ourselves to but we are of course not immune to global headwinds.Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government ensuring the New Zealand economy is resilient in the face of global headwinds?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We all know that as a small open economy we are not immune in this global context. We also equally have to be careful not to talk ourselves into a downturn. Our economy is in fact in good shape and there is a lot to be positive about. We cannot control what happens globally but we can make our economy stronger and make sure we are ready to face the challenges that come our way and that is what this Government is doing."
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. It gives me great—support as well for Mr Ian McKelvie for this very fine bill that he has brought forward in the member's bill process. Now Ian is very lucky in his drawing of member's bills and this is his second one I think that he's done in the last year that's been effective. So well done to him and for his fine speech and also to Kiri Allan for her support in her speech as well. As we can see it's quite a simple process that the bill is going to go through. What it does basically is it takes a number of these cases out of the court process through the use of community magistrates and JPs to hear those offences rather than to have them take up too much court time. I think anything that speeds up the process of court so that we get victims' rights to be heard in making sure that those who have committed serious offences are brought to justice and those that haven't committed an offence get the freedom that they deserve is something that should be supported.Also within the farming community—I think it's going to be important in rural communities as well. Ian McKelvie's had a very strong interest in rural communities. With the Primary Production Committee that has a very strong approach to rural issues and works together I support this bill through the House. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd just like to first of all acknowledge the proponent of this bill a fine member of the National Party caucus Todd Muller who has done an excellent job in bringing this bill forward; my good friend here and neighbour Hamish Walker who has also supported it in the Primary Production Committee; and all the members of the select committee that have been part of this process.The bill that we've got in front of us may seem quite a minor amendment to the companies legislation that governs many cooperatives in New Zealand but when we look at the value of those cooperatives going forward the shares will become immensely important. If we look at the kiwifruit industry for example the valuation of kiwifruit shares is now very high and they are an important asset for many farmers. The Fonterra shares also have such a role but have lost that valuation in recent years but I'm sure it will come back in the future. So when we look at this bill it actually does have an impact on the future prosperity of many in the farming sector but it also gives options to those in governance around how to utilise best use of resources to make sure that the farming sector achieves its purposes and there is that ability going forward.So when we look at replacement section 53(2) set out in clause 4 that's the crucial part of this bill. It introduces the requirement that there is now no prevention on the constitution of a company providing for differential dividends in the circumstances stipulated in the constitution. So that gives that ability and clarification to the various boards and organisations that may be cooperative in nature but looking at being able to have a differential share base and dividends for some of those shares in a class. So that's a very important part of this legislation and I recommend it to the House. I'm sure it will pass and with full support and will be a small but important change in making sure we give more choice and options to those cooperatives that have to deal with shareholders in the future.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Mr Muller for introducing this bill. There are a few issues I'd like to raise and I'm wondering first if some lobbyist has perhaps twisted your arm a bit hard in trying to get this bill passed by the look of you today. But the real question I have is really in terms of the real need for this bill. It strikes me that there are two principles that underpin the Companies Act which in some ways David Goddard QC touched on. Of course he's now been appointed to the Court of Appeal so I put considerable weight on his opinion. Whilst he actually did support this bill he did make it quite clear that his view was that in fact the law fell on the side of permitting the dry and wet shares and he was a drafter of the Companies Act so he should know. The primary thing he said was that the drafters of that Act—him Jack Hodder and others—always intended to give flexibility in terms of a company constitution and that where rules about dividends are set in the constitution it isn't fair to say that it's the directors or the board which are discriminating. In light of that it would strike me that there's a lot of weight to be put behind that. I'm also curious as to why if there is uncertainty we haven't essentially left it to the courts to clarify it. I'm pretty confident to back Justice David Goddard and say that it would fall on the side of being permissive there.The other kind of underlying principle in the Companies Act which I think arguably answers this question is really about shareholder discrimination and minority shareholder rights. There's a very strong jurisprudence which requires directors to treat minority shareholders or groups of shareholders equitably and fairly. Now that's not touched on by now Justice Goddard but I think it's the other thread in the Companies Act which really lends weight to his view that were this matter to come before the courts it would very much fall down in favour. Of course there's the pragmatic argument as well which is: this is what cooperative companies and indeed some other companies do day in day out. So in light of that I'm really curious as to why it was thought to be such an important use of this House's time and indeed an important use of your valuable ability to put a member's bill before this House for a very small arguably unnecessary tweak which some cooperative companies might have liked.Now whilst I can see that now it's before the House we'd be foolish—or churlish even—to oppose it I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it that led to this bill coming before the House. So whilst supportive of it now that it's here I'm interested—and perhaps for the record—to know how it is that we got to this point notwithstanding the opinion of someone of the standing of Justice Goddard that said that this really probably was a problem that didn't need to be solved. Thank you.
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Can I start by acknowledging the member the wonderful Todd Muller for his work on this bill. Despite the very complex name of the bill which is the Companies (Clarification of Dividends Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill it's a very simple tweak. The tweak is really looking around dry and wet shares.Now you might ask What on earth is a dry or a wet share?" Well we're not talking about a wet share in a bar here or Copperfields—or a bar in Tauranga for the previous speaker Clayton Mitchell—but a wet and a dry share is around a line to supply. So a wet share is where you have a supplier who currently supplies like a kiwifruit grower to the co-op and a dry share is a kiwifruit grower that may have retired five or 10 years ago.Now there's some confusion in the Companies Act around section 36 and section 53. One states quite clearly around dry shares but the other section states the opposite. So this is really just simplifying what's in the Companies Act.Once again I just want to acknowledge the member in charge of the bill Todd Muller. A very sensible MP he's doing a wonderful job—especially for the rural sector across New Zealand. With that National supports the bill."
Mitchell ClaytonClauses 1 to 4CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and actually on behalf of our deputy leader Fletcher Tabuteau who's spoken on this bill on a number of occasions and I know has had a lot of engagement with the member who's put this bill forward Todd Muller who has put some serious consideration into this piece of legislation. New Zealand First will be supporting this moving forward although questions really are around the issues of how wide this perceived issue is—and I'll get to some of those questions a little later on.The intended issue which the bill is stated to fix is the ambiguity in the Companies Act—and some of the legal profession consider that there is conflict between section 36 and section 53 as to whether a company constitution can be provided for with dry shares and also to return dividends. A small number of cooperative-style companies in the agricultural sector may encounter the conflict as they use both wet and dry shares in the Companies Act where shareholders are current or former suppliers to the company.This may to many back home seem a little bit tedious in consideration but the number of cooperatives in New Zealand is significant. They make up quite a large proportion of our export sector and as we all well know our export and primary industry sectors are very important to our economy. So any minor technical ambiguities that we can take in the Chamber today through this member's bill to tidy up New Zealand First would be certainly happy to take part in that.Notwithstanding that I have to also acknowledge the integrity of the member that has put this bill forward and that carries certain weight when we are looking at the validity and the outcomes that we are trying to resolve with some of the issues.Some of these companies have generally been able to institute suitable arrangements within the current provisions. However the need for this bill has not been established by the member. Legal opinion is divided which has come up in the committee section. We had four submissions to the bill the legal opinion was divided as I've already mentioned and we consider that the current framework does not appear to be a significant impediment to the current commercial operations" is what some of the submitters had said.Mr Layburn wrote in his submission: "it is logical that only if section 53 is an irrevocable rule which cannot be overridden by the constitution—that there is a problem that [does need to be fixed]." In his expert view section 53 is not an irrevocable rule. So any of those queries that Mr Layburn has noted if the member could rise and tidy that up for us that would be most helpful.This is born out of the fact that the companies particularly in the rural sector are already providing for these changes but we understand in certain circumstances that that might need some further clarity. So we will be supporting this bill through this committee stage we look forward to it progressing. I just put those questions to the member. Thank you."
Muller Todd; Dyson RuthTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. So we can now have a wide-ranging debate on the totality of this bill.
Muller ToddCOMPANIES (CLARIFICATION OF DIVIDEND RULES IN COMPANIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClause 1TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair. While it is somewhat surreal to stand and take a call on the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill here at committee of the whole House stage it really does talk to the remarkable diversity of issues that get debated in this House. I don't think you could get a bill quite as different in form and function than what we are talking about now from what we have been talking about for the last three or four members' days. But in its own way this is an important bill particularly for those who are wanting to run a business—nearly always in an agricultural context—who want absolute clarity that they do have the ability under Companies Act legislation if they so choose under their constitution to treat the shareholding and the dividend regime for shareholders who supply the company different to those who do not supply the company.This is a very minor technical amendment. Essentially—Angie Warren-Clark: We love it Todd.TODD MULLER: Thank you for that Angie Warren-Clark. Currently section 36 and a literal reading of section 36 of the Companies Act suggests that the provision for dry shares can be made in the constitution of a company. However section 53 of the Companies Act as read can in a particular reading negate that right of a company to set themselves up via the constitution in such a way.I know from experience that particularly companies who are involved in the agriculture sector who like the framework of the Companies Act but want to be able to treat their shareholders differently with respect to dividend rights if they provide the company with share-backed supply relative to those shareholders who don't want the legal surety that there isn't a problem in the reading of the Companies Act for them to treat those shareholders differently with respect to dividends. This is an issue that I know companies in the Bay of Plenty particularly larger ones like Zespri and smaller ones that I have had some connection with have had some challenge and have had competing legal advice over the primacy of which one of the sections of 36 or 53 should be held up as the most important.So this tiny rather technical amendment seeks to clarify the fact that if a company's constitution so desires to be able to treat shareholders differently based on whether those shares are backed with supply or not then they can but the normal protections that also exist in section 55 are maintained and enhanced. That is essentially it; not much more than that. We had a very successful and interesting conversation over a number of weeks and months of the Primary Production Committee and I appreciate the fact that this has had the House's support to this time and I would very much like to see that continued through this evening. Thank you very much.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Look I'd just like to respond to that excellent speech and try to help Willie Jackson. I say to Willie Jackson that I'm also a strong advocate for minority rights and if you doubt that look at the polls. I actually think there's something in that. You see this bill is for everybody. People who have a wide range of very complex circumstances people who look like their lives may be over and who miraculously recover from the most improbable circumstances people from all different types of cultural backgrounds races and creeds—it's for all of them. Many of them will chose not to use it but some will and when you're faced with complexity and a wide range of different circumstances where people find themselves with imponderable situations the only solution that anybody can stand by on a principled basis is to give choice. Willie Jackson is right: there is division within the Māori community. I watched a debate down in Ashburton. Nuk Korako stood up and said that this legislation is alien to Māori. Well what he didn't realise was that there was a scholar from the University of Canterbury—a scholar in tikanga—and this guy got up and told the history of tikanga and his whānau and the history of Māoridom and what happened? Well the whole crowd changed their view and the whole crowd decided that actually tikanga was a fluid thing and that there was no one single view and that the way to deal with complexity and the way to do it with empathy was actually to give people choice.Then I come to the question that Willie Jackson talked about which is the question of whether a referendum is fair for minorities—and I agree with him. As I say I'm also an advocate for minorities. I am wary of what might happen to the rights of minorities faced with the tyranny of the majority and I know that the problem that people might face is they find themselves outvoted. That's when you need representatives in Parliament. It's true that if it had been a simple plebiscite we might not have Kate Sheppard on our $10 note but the process here is not a simple plebiscite. This is Parliament passing a law and if it passes then whether or not we have a referendum in effect is giving the majority one last chance to veto that choice. That's what effectively happens. If this bill was to pass with no referendum then we would find ourselves in a situation where the majority—at least of parliamentarians—had chosen a law for everybody. What we're doing by having a referendum is giving an opportunity for the majority to veto this bill should they so choose.I wanted to respond at length to Willie Jackson because I know that he's thinking hard about this and I want to assure him that when it comes to the referendum when it comes to complexity actually voting for the referendum and having choice are the ways to defend those values. So I hope that with that I can sway him over. I know I can get you Willie—please vote for this bill.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): There are times in our lives when we are faced with difficult choices and I find myself facing one today because I do not believe that this bill should go to a referendum but I do not want to see this bill fail. I've followed this journey with an open mind. I believe in the principle the fundamental ideas behind end of life choice. I was concerned around the detail of the bill as we all should have been. It all comes down to what is written at the end of the day. I expressed those concerns to the sponsor of this bill and they were addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper that he put forward at this committee stage. So now I support the bill wholeheartedly because people do deserve to die with dignity and I believe they deserve to have the right to do so by their own choice. Despite the fact that I do not believe that this should go to a referendum for many reasons which have been expressed today—I don't agree with all of them but many of them have been expressed today. I don't think such a complex issue that many of us have had experts coming to us explaining the details of the ins and outs—and yet MPs despite having access to information that many of the public will not get are still torn on the issue. I think of other issues that have faced this country over time: the right to give women the vote for example. If that was put to a referendum that probably wouldn't have passed. The Homosexual Law Reform Act: if that was put to a referendum that probably wouldn't have passed. The MPs in this House have been given a job. It is our job to show some leadership and make decisions on those we represent and for that reason in a perfect world I would have voted No to a referendum. But what I need to weigh up is in sticking to that principle which I believe in can I then in good conscience see this bill fail? I cannot. So I will be voting for this referendum because I am a bookmaker and I know how to count and I know that if the referendum Supplementary Order Paper fails so too does the bill and in good conscience I can't let that happen.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Chair. It is my first opportunity to speak on behalf of—Hon Tim Macindoe: No it's not. It's the first time you've chosen to.MARK PATTERSON: Well it's the first time I've taken the opportunity to speak on this End of Life Choice Bill in this committee stage and I do so to speak on behalf of both Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of Jenny Marcroft particularly 287 and the referendum. But I too would like to endorse her earlier words as this has been the first opportunity to commend the proposer of the bill David Seymour who has put this forward with great skill and determination. We thank him for his cooperation.In terms of New Zealand First this isn't just a policy of ours the referendum; this is actually one of our founding principles. We're in our 27th year. It is one of our 15 founding principles that these sorts of conscience votes go to the people of New Zealand. I heard Chris Penk before talking about the tyranny of the majority but it's actually the wisdom of crowds. I think a lot of the commentary I have heard has totally underestimated the ability of the New Zealand people to digest the information that'll be coming at them and to make an informed decision. That is exactly where we stand and I certainly support that.Just to be crystal clear because I know that this vote is on a knife edge obviously New Zealand First will be voting for these SOPs under the name of Jenny Marcroft but we will also be voting en masse against the bill should those SOPs not pass and a referendum not be forthcoming. I think it's important to the committee that we articulate that clearly. For us this is a matter of absolute principle. This is one of our founding principles. It is totally consistent with everything we've always stood for. The people that voted for us voted for us knowing that this is our principle. The New Zealand public will make an informed choice particularly in this particular issue because it is the ultimate question. We are asking people: are we prepared to cross a Rubicon and be prepared to take another person's life? So the New Zealand public will engage with this and they will make a wise and informed decision and I hope that the House will give them the opportunity to do so.I don't want to take up any of the committee's time; I just wanted to make that crystal clear so that everyone knows it is a matter of principle for us. For some of us that means going against our own personal beliefs but we believe that we have been put here under a set of principles and we will adhere to them. Thank you.
Fire — New Zealand International Convention Centre
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I'd like to support the sentiments of my colleagues expressed here in the House today particularly for workers and residents who at the moment have no certainty about the safety of their ordinary days and the gridlocked nature of where the city is at at the moment from this event which is concerning to all of us.I would just like to put on record: I was asked by the public to check in on where the people who live rough on the streets of Auckland City are able to go to and whether their wellbeing considering the smoke danger is being monitored. I have reached out to organisations like Lifewise and Auckland City Mission to check in on that and I just wanted to let the members know that there is monitoring happening for all residents including those for whom the actual streets are also their home. Thank you.