edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you. So the time line is such that the roll-out doesn't happen on farms until 2023 2024 2025. The work stream that we set up with the industry is essentially an R & D function—that would be one way to think about it—where we're pulling together all of these different pieces of work that have been done by both Crown research institutes and the sector bodies and so on over time to try and knit those together into a sort of coherent whole. But the point of having a reporting deadline is to actually get those systems out on to farms by that time. So if you think about it from the lens that the member was just referring to which is what's happening at the farm level today then by the time we're actually rolling this out in 2023 2024 2025—assuming that there's no additional outbreaks and so on but actually the present crisis will have well passed by the time it gets to that level.There is a steering group for that work programme which includes from memory Beef and Lamb New Zealand DairyNZ Fonterra Horticulture New Zealand Federation of Māori Authorities an iwi representative and representatives from the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for the Environment and they have been meeting virtually—as have we all—over the course of the last couple of months and I haven't been advised by them that they foresee any significant delay in that work programme as a result of COVID-19. I think that's probably a function of the circumstances of the timing where we are. You can imagine for example if the pandemic outbreak had occurred in say 2023 right at the exact point that we were trying to roll this out on farm that it would cause considerable disruption to our ability to do that but it doesn't at the moment. That also by the way I have to say doesn't relate to the bill but rather to that work programme.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you to the Minister for Climate Change for providing those answers. I just have a further question around the mandatory reporting obligations and those time lines. Thank you for explaining to the House that the industry have worked together with the Minister to develop strategies for meeting their obligations. I'm interested to know whether that work was completed in its entirety before the lockdown in the middle of March or whether that work was completed subsequent to the COVID-19 lockdown. Together with that I'm interested to know from the Minister: what are his projections for how long it is going to take the red meat industry to recover from the COVID-19 lockdown and its impacts? I'm talking about things like the bottleneck that we experienced at processing plants during level 4 and to a certain extent level 3 and the subsequent impacts on farming operations from having to hold stock stock losing condition having to buy an extra feed and the subsequent feed budgeting into the spring and then on to the summer all of which I'm sure the Minister will be aware will have an impact on farmers' work programmes their ability to rise to new challenges and just simply getting through the day. So I want to know that the Minister has completed this work with the industry bodies taking COVID-19 into account because my very rough runway for compliance of two years could very quickly shorten up to 18 months to six months.
Doocey Matt; Rurawhe AdrianMATT DOOCEY (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave of the committee that the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill be taken as one debate respectively.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It shall be so.
Rurawhe AdrianCLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE (EMISSIONS TRADING REFORM) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I remind members that the House has agreed to trial the removal of the four-call limit in the committee stage. I therefore encourage you to keep your contributions focused—five minutes is not a target—and relevant to promote good interaction with the Minister in the chair. We have the ability then to take short calls and have a series of questions and answers between members and the Minister. You can be confident that you will get a number of short calls. Can I just add also that if the member on their feet yields to the Minister the member can be assured they will get the next call. Can I suggest the Minister can come closer to the officials if that would be easier? I think it would be.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.
Wednesday 27 May 2020 - Volume 746
Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 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. Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.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.Bill read a first time.
Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill — First Reading
4. Question No. 4—HousingANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 4—Housing4. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What action has the Government taken to ensure vulnerable New Zealanders in need of housing were supported through the COVID-19 crisis? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Talofa lava Mr Speaker. People living rough or in accommodation where physical distancing was not possible were identified as being particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. We recognised that they would need additional support and so as New Zealand moved into alert level 4 we moved swiftly to help them into a suitable accommodation. Government agencies community iwi and Māori housing providers have to date made 1193 places available and 1090 places are now tenanted. We've invested $107.6 million for accommodation and wraparound services which will give certainty to the people we have housed and the providers who are housing them. While this represents an important step to solving homelessness in New Zealand we recognise that there is still more work to be done and that's why this Government is prioritising the implementation of the Homelessness Action Plan announced in February. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What reaction has she seen to the Government's action to support vulnerable New Zealanders in response to COVID-19? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The reaction to the Government's swift action has been overwhelmingly positive. Wellington City Missioner Murray Eldridge says that in Wellington almost the entire street-living community is now housed. Auckland City Missioner Chris Farrelly says this is the closest we've come in a generation to getting everyone off the street. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those that we worked with in achieving this significant feat. These providers supported people in motels by linking them with food checking in on their wellbeing on a regular basis and connecting them with other essential services such as healthcare. This has been a true team effort with tangible outcomes for our most vulnerable. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What is the long-term plan for getting these vulnerable New Zealanders into permanent housing? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government's temporary support will see 1200 places funded until April 2021. This is in addition to the 1000 transitional housing places announced as part of the Homelessness Action Plan in February and this month's Budget announcement of yet another 2000 transitional houses as part of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. I must stress that housing people in motels is not a permanent solution. Our responsibility and challenge as a Government is to make sure that we don't return to how things were before. This is a Government that is getting on with the job of fixing the housing crisis we inherited and while this will take time we are moving at pace to meet the urgent need.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): How will Budget 2020 support employment—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm going to get the member to start again. I'm going to ask the Prime Minister and the shadow Leader of the House to stop interjecting during the question. I'll regard it as one all and I think some people are aware that I ignored an earlier one as well. 2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2020 support employment in New Zealand? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker talofa lava. Budget 2020 established the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund to cushion the blow to Kiwi firms and workers and lay the groundwork for our economic recovery by creating jobs across New Zealand. The fund will deliver major investments in jobs by making critical trade training and apprenticeships free enabling the delivery of 8000 new public houses cleaning up our waterways controlling pests and extending the Food in Schools programme to up to 200000 children—creating jobs up and down the country. These significant investments form an important part of the coalition Government's clear plan to help New Zealand respond recover and rebuild from COVID-19. Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the impact of Budget 2020 investments on jobs and employment in New Zealand? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've been clear with New Zealanders that the path ahead will be challenging and that we will not be able to save every job but Treasury's Budget forecasts show that the Government's COVID-19 response could see as many as 138000 jobs saved in the current period and see employment rise by 234000 jobs over the next two years. Unemployment can be reduced from its peak of around 9.8 percent to even the current level of 4.2 percent on the more optimistic scenario within two years. The Government is committed to creating jobs so that New Zealanders can recover and rebuild better on the other side. Kiritapu Allan: How does Budget 2020 build on the Government's record on jobs and employment? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen numerous reports that show New Zealand was in a strong position going into this global pandemic thanks to the work of the coalition Government. Since coming into office the Government had reduced unemployment from 4.7 percent to 4 percent and increased wage growth to a decade high of just under 4 percent. We accomplished this while also delivering over $12 billion of surplus and reducing net debt to below 20 percent of GDP. The Government has a proven track record of delivering more jobs and higher wages while managing the books responsibly. New Zealanders will continue to see us build on this record through the unprecedented investments we are making in Budget 2020 to help New Zealand recover and rebuild from COVID-19.
McAnulty KieranDEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. Do you want to take a point of order? KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I'm sure we all appreciate that by the time that you call in the Chair to resume the committee stage then we will have struck 10 so I therefore move that we adjourn until tomorrow. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I'm sorry I asked the member to help us out. We can't do that because we are in urgency. Kieran McAnulty: But that's all right because I've used up the time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not quite—not quite. You could take another point of order and help. So the House is now in committee for consideration of the Privacy Bill—oh sorry I've turned the wrong page. Let me find the right page. KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I really don't want to point this out but I believe it's not the Privacy Bill that we're about to bring into committee stage there. So I just thought I'd take a fortuitous point of order to give you time to find the right name of the bill that we are about to discuss in committee but actually I believe I may have used up all the time now so I'll just sit down. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. However the House is suspended. I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.In CommitteeSitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): It's a delight to take a brief call on this bill at 5 to 10 in the evening. I would like to acknowledge the work that the Minister has done during this incredibly challenging time. We have heard the word unprecedented" and the reality is that what we're facing hasn't happened since 1918 and I won't use that word. But look it certainly has been a challenging time. Unfortunately a number of people have lost their jobs and this is an example of a Government providing support for people who have lost their jobs due to COVID-19 to provide support for a 12-week period at a rate the equivalent of the wage subsidy. Now we've heard a number of arguments from both sides. Obviously the Government here support it. The Opposition have made their views known but this bill is basically about supporting people caring for people while they're going through difficult times and I'm certainly proud of the work that the Minister has done on this bill. I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechPAULO GARCIA (National): I stand briefly to speak on the second reading of the bill. The issue really isn't whether the extra payment is good to make. The concerns have been raised: the bill creates inequalities it is a doubling up it is something that is on top of something that already exists and it is being considered in urgency without the opportunity to flesh out these concerns. There has been talk about history and the similarities of the efforts to provide extra assistance but could the $590 million be better spent? Maybe it could. I am not an expert but the question is there. Hon Member: No that's right. PAULO GARCIA: Yes I am not an expert and I'm not shy to accept that. The question exists and that is why the truncated process doesn't seem appropriate. In a matter of four days I met with four restaurants two bakeries a medical practice and a small chain of hotels—a total of probably five employees here four there 10 there 100 there coming up to let's say 500 people. Each one each business had been focused on what could be coming to assist them to keep them going to bridge the gap to get to the next stage and keep open. The wage subsidy pays for employees not the business. The Government has said to them Go to the banks." and they have. Banks will not lend when you have zero income and an uncertain future. Then Government loans through the IRD were offered. Businesses could not be approved loans even with the offered guarantees by Government. At least for these businesses that I have been able to speak to—for them they struggle to want to keep going not just for the desire to keep going and keep their people who have been working with them over time for longer but they just wouldn't be able to do so. Is it possible that $590 million could have been used in this unprecedented time a little bit better than the history has shown? That's all Madam Speaker. Thank you."
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I don't see any need to delay this. It's very clear to those watching at home that this bill is needed. It is needed to provide exactly the same provision that the previous Government provided after the Christchurch earthquake. Despite their creative attempts to argue otherwise tonight the facts remain the same: after the Christchurch earthquake there was temporary relief brought in to top up the unemployment benefit for those that were directly impacted by the Christchurch earthquake and yet here we are after another shock to this country proposing exactly the same thing and the National Party because they are desperate for a platform because they are tanking in the polls and let's be honest this has been a shocking week—the saviour has turned out to be a flop—says So we may as well oppose something." The question that the National Party have to answer and the thing that they will need to justify to people when they go back to their electorates at the end of this urgency is why they voted No to prevent those who lost their job as a result of COVID-19 from getting extra support. I imagine that those that are in that situation will take the opportunity to write to their local National MPs and ask them to explain. I have sat here all night and I have seen nothing but political games and empty rhetoric. I hope that between now and when they go back to their electorates and answer those emails they'll have something based on principle and values rather than on just playing silly games. I commend this bill to the House."
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd like to clarify a couple of things so I'll take a short call because frankly there wasn't a lot coming from that side of the House that warrants a response. In response to what Mr Macindoe said when I talked about the stigma that his colleagues have repeatedly brought upon beneficiaries and the most vulnerable who need support it was the words of his colleague Mr Simon O'Connor in this House tonight. He talked about those people as those people"—the people who needed a little bit of extra support. It was about those members' track record of voting against things like the indexation of benefits to wage growth. Those are the things that I pointed to in my previous speech Mr Macindoe when I said that the track record of that party across the House is woeful when it comes to those who actually need support. Now in terms of how this is different to the job loss cover extended after the Christchurch earthquake Mr Macindoe you said that this piece of legislation is unfair because someone who lost their job before 1 March wouldn't be eligible for it and you asked how it was fair that somebody losing their job after that would. Now I'll take you back. You obviously can't remember the job loss cover that your party put in place after the Christchurch earthquakes where somebody who lost their job before the earthquakes wouldn't have been eligible for that specific temporary additional support. It's exactly the same. So when that side of the House says that this is unfair when they did exactly the same thing there's a word for that that we can't use in this House."
SpeechHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Just a small package wrapped up in a bow from the Hon Simon O'Connor. I'm not sure I want to accept the small package but there you go. It's been a very interesting contribution and so what New Zealand continues to need to understand as they're listening to this and watching this is that the Opposition doesn't want you to get support. So that's the basis of the argument from the Opposition—We don't want you to get support." They want to take the $600 million and they want to give it to businesses. Recognising that businesses are getting a whole lot of other supports from this Government we'll continue to support business and we'll continue to support our citizens but the Opposition says "No—shouldn't do it." I understand that the Opposition also said that this is nothing like Christchurch and that Christchurch was a wage subsidy. It was a wage subsidy and it had nothing to do with replacing income after job loss. This is a press release from 29 March 2011. The title of the press release the headline is "Job Loss Cover". Now this is a press release from then—it was the National Government. I am looking for the talent. Mr Muller says that those benches are full of talent; I am looking for the talent. I'm not quite sure—oh Mr Macindoe has waved. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm actually looking for the member to talk about the bill. Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh I am. I am ma'am. So this bill is about an income relief package and how it will be treated as income but up to this point there have been comments by the Opposition that this is nothing like what has happened in Christchurch because that was a wage subsidy and this is actually about people who've lost their jobs. If I could just quote here: "People who lost their jobs and have no option to stay with their original employer will get support as they look for alternative work"—Ms Bennett. Oh dear oh dear. It's always interesting when the Opposition members forget what they did when they were in Government and we're still looking for the talent. We endorse the bill."
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I came to the House early tonight to listen to this debate with a real hope—a real hope—that actually we would have the Opposition's support. I'm dashed. My hopes are dashed. I remember a time back in the 1990s—this is going back a long time I know—when I was a single mum and I remember the mother of all Budgets" and I remember the cuts at that time. I think about that and then I hear the Opposition talk about the fairness and I think to myself "When did they change their spots?" Suddenly today they care about our most vulnerable. It really disappoints me. I genuinely hoped that the Opposition would support. Now we often hear that this is an unprecedented time. Actually it's an overused term but the reality is we are in urgency putting in place support so that people can keep their homes. We are in urgency supporting people to manage a crisis that is not just local. It is not just national. It is across the world and is unprecedented. So I rise to speak in support obviously of this bill. It is a very small bill actually. It makes some technical amendments which have a lot of meaning—that is true. But it is nevertheless an incredibly important bill to give people some breathing room some opportunity to survive a period of time where they are not prepared and have not been prepared and we as a country have had to spend a lot of time thinking. I want to acknowledge my Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for the work that she and Grant Robertson have put in around trying to support people in this situation. Do we want to do more? Of course we do but the reality is that right now we have to do the most urgent and the most important things. We've put in a whole pile of things to help support people across our community and this is just one of those. Now the bill has got an interesting name and I think it's really important that we make reference to the name because this is the crux of the bill really: Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. Under clause 5(2) inserting new clause 8A into Schedule 3 it ensures that a person's income includes a COVID-19 income relief payment received by that person. Essentially it means that those people can earn income as well. So if they have a redundancy payment and if they have a partner then they're able to access this short-term support. We are in unprecedented times. This does not mean that the world is turning on its head. This does not change the way that we think about things but it actually enables at a time in history support for people. It is similar to the earthquake job loss cover provided back in 2011 which the National Government of course put in place and I hear from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni that we supported it wholeheartedly. So therefore I would like to just ask the Opposition: if they really meant that they are not just going to be in opposition for opposition's sake and if they genuinely want to help and support at a time when we are in absolute crisis then just support this bill. Let's get on with it. Let's help people in this country survive a crisis. Thank you Madam Speaker."
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. The Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill contains minor and technical amendments. It needs to be done. It needs to be done to be able to give the relief that needs to be given. And they laugh and they cackle and they carry on despite the fact that when the Christchurch earthquakes hit they did exactly the same. And here we are only a matter of days after they wobbled and they changed their leader and their leader stood up and said We will not do opposition for opposition's sake" what are they doing a couple of days later? Doing exactly that. We know that this bill if they were in Government at this time would be debated today—introduced by them. It is a classic example of Opposition screaming out for a platform. It's only a good idea if they come up with it and I think it's a shame. There's no point in delaying this any further; it needs to get done and the National Party would do well by themselves for just putting the politics aside and getting behind it."
SpeechPAULO GARCIA (National): Talofa lava Madam Speaker. Good evening. I'm very happy for the opportunity to speak to the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. The finance Minister the Hon Grant Robertson has said on many occasions that the Government cannot save every job or business it wants to—while the Government cannot save every business it wants to make sure people are in the best position to respond and recover and rebuild. But in the proposing of this social security amendment bill establishing a separate benefit on top of the jobseeker benefit for a certain type of people over a certain period of time which is to be debated now in urgency does not really get to the point of making that rebuild that positioning to be able to respond and recover.The issue is not really that the income relief payment shouldn't be made. In fact it's going to be made and it's a good thing. The issue really is that by creating this bill an inequality arises from people who have been receiving the jobseeker benefit and from people who will then be able to receive the income relief payment. The Government estimates that about 230000 people who will lose their jobs due to COVID-19 between 1 March and 30 October this year will get either $490 a week or $250 a week. Also all 305000 people who were on benefits on 29 February will stay on normal benefit rates. The income relief payment is $490 a week tax free but after tax the jobseeker benefit is basically half that—$250 a week. Sole parent support is $375 a week. We all know that these are amounts that are just the basic but that inequality is the one that raises the issue of unfairness. The question really just needs to be asked: why this bill when the jobseeker benefit already exists and why in urgency?Also another issue is that the businesses do not really get support and have not been receiving support. Throughout the week of the recess I had been able to drive through and meet with businesses—medical practices restaurants bakeries—from Wellington down to Auckland. For the average restaurant owned by a couple who both work in it with let's say five workers who have survived through the wage subsidy the business itself gets to a position of not being able to continue. They asked the question of why they have not been given support the same with a medical practice that was established just before the lockdown and while the wage subsidy pays for wages it does not give assistance to the business for it to be able to continue.Finally I would like to just point out also that the migrant workers who are really really really suffering have not received any special payment as well—and just to raise that in this debate. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on this bill tonight. It does appear—I've listened to all the speeches in this debate—that they are actually debating the scheme itself but not actually what this bill is addressing which is that the income relief payment is to be treated as income so that when assessing the other types of support that you might be able to get from our welfare system—accommodation supplements for example—they are actually assessing what people's actual incomes and financial status is. That's what the purpose of this bill is.I do want to commend both the Minister of Finance and the Hon Carmel Sepuloni Minister for Social Development for the introduction of the relief payment. This aligns the timing of that payment coming in on 8 June. So it's important that this bill that we're debating right now passes all stages so that that can be done and the additional support that they may be entitled to can be assessed according to the payment and support that they are actually getting. So I commend the bill to the House.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Well isn't this an interesting evening in the House? As we cast our eyes to our friends in the Opposition there is one thing that is very very telling: that is not the party that John Key and Bill English led. That is not the National Party that John Key and Bill English led and isn't it interesting to see that the member the Hon Paula Bennett isn't in here speaking to this bill tonight? Do you know why that's interesting? Because in 2011 it was the Hon Paula Bennett who—Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you. There's been a long tradition in this House that you can't mention the absence of a member in this Chamber. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh I'm sorry; I misinterpreted it. I thought that the member referred to the other member not taking a call. If you did say that the member was absent then—KIRITAPU ALLAN: I said Wasn't it interesting that the Hon Paula Bennett is not taking a call this evening on this particular piece of legislation?" Because in 2011 it was the Hon Paula Bennett speaking as the Minister for Social Development who in a time of crisis—when the Christchurch earthquake hit what did she introduce and what did that Opposition team lament in this House? It was the job loss cover. And in 2011 who was the member on 16 March 2011 who got up in this very House and said "I am proud of this Government who understand the needs of those that have been impacted and who will provide a wraparound service."? Yes it was indeed the Hon Louise Upston who spoke with such fervour about how the job loss cover a subsidy payment which put $400 in the hands of Christchurch people who were impacted and had lost their jobs—it put $240 in the hands of folks who had lost their job as a consequence of those Christchurch earthquakes. She lamented how significant that job loss cover was then. So too I now turn to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni who at this time as the Minister for Social Development has to respond to a crisis and is doing exactly what any caring and compassionate Government should do: ensuring that we look after the most vulnerable in a time of crisis. She is looking after those that have lost their jobs because this side of the House know that that is the right thing to do. So I commend this bill to the House."
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is really with great pleasure that I rise to take a call to speak to the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill—a bill which shows that this Government continues to invest in our people; a bill that will help to go a long way along with other supports to cushion the blow that COVID-19 has had on people's lives. And all that that side of the House can do is whinge as though we're saying on this side that this is the one single bullet that is actually going to make people's lives better. That's not true. This is an important part of the economic response by the Government but it sits alongside the wage subsidy scheme it sits alongside tax support for small businesses the targeted packages for the most affected industries. It sits alongside the Budget where on this side of the House we've been talking about protecting and creating jobs. So probably the one thing that I agreed with the previous speaker on was the fact that we do need to protect jobs and that's exactly what we're doing. So that should be good news to that side of the House. Maybe that will make them perk up a little bit and be a little less flat.But the fact remains that the beneficiary bashing that we've seen from that side of the House—the fact that when this side of the House this Government indexed main benefits to wage growth which the Children's Commissioner said was the single-best thing we could do to address child poverty that side of the House voted against it. They voted against all the progressive measures that we've taken to make people's lives a little bit better. And this is—Hon Andrew Little: I thought they said we were being unfair.PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: They did say we were being unfair Minister Little. What they want to see is a race to the bottom. That's why they're saying that we are being unfair. The minute we take steps to make people's lives a little bit better suddenly it's all unfair! Why didn't you vote with us then to make the lives of those who were the most vulnerable a little bit better?Now I just want to quickly put on record the fact that the previous speaker alluded to the fact that this is not a temporary payment. That's absolutely untrue. It's for 12 weeks it's for those who have lost their job because of COVID as of 1 March and that has been said time and again. So I'm not sure where she gets her information from but it's not correct.This is an excellent bill. The COVID-19 pandemic that we've seen as many have said is unprecedented. We haven't seen devastation of its ilk since the Great Depression and on this side of the House this Government is determined to do everything we can to help people's lives to cushion the blow from COVID-19. I don't feel the need to belabour the point but I commend this bill to the House.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move That this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.
Rurawhe Adrian; Reti ShaneASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A point of order the honourable—oh sorry—Dr Shane Reti.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I seek the leave of the House to—Hon Member: Should be.Dr SHANE RETI: —you're very kind—table a table sent to me from the clerk of the committee showing the late responses to the Epidemic Response Committee.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK we think it might be the same document. However leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that? There is none. It may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Wood Michael; Rurawhe AdrianMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I seek leave of the House to table a document produced by the clerk of the committee and received by me on 12 May which shows that information requested by the Epidemic Response Committee of the Director-General of Health was received by the dates for which it was requested.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tuesday 26 May 2020 - Volume 746
Business of Select Committees — Epidemic Response Committee—Motion to Disestablish
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the words be disestablished" be replaced with the words "remains for as long as the alert level remains at or above level 2 with consequent restrictions on the operations of Parliament and the COVID19 Public Health Response Act has not been repealed and that the committee continue weekly."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 Epidemic Response Committee be disestablished.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."
9. Question No. 9—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 9—Transport9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: On what date did Cabinet last consider the Auckland light rail project and when does he expect to make an announcement as to a preferred delivery partner for the project?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Talofa lava Mr Speaker malo soifua. 4 June and after Cabinet decides.Chris Bishop: 4 June 2018 or 2019?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think it's self-evident because we haven't got to 4 June this year and the most recent 4 June that I'm aware of is in 2019.Chris Bishop: Why has Cabinet not considered Auckland light rail since 4 June—as we've now learnt—2019 when the Government committed to having it built to Mount Roskill by 2021?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because I haven't taken that proposal to Cabinet yet and the reason is that it was due to go to Cabinet in February after the Ministry of Transport completed a rigorous assessment of alternative proposals that Cabinet asked it to do. And at the time that COVID-19 hit the country we've incurred a delay of three months because the Government has been preoccupied with focusing all of its resources on the response to COVID-19 but the proposal will return to Cabinet shortly.Chris Bishop: Is he seriously telling the House that COVID-19 which only really came into effect in terms of Government time lines in the last three months is to blame for three years of inaction on a core Government election promise?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well I completely reject the premise of the member's question.Chris Bishop: What premise of my question does he reject?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That there had been no work done over the last three years.Chris Bishop: Can he confirm officials recommended to him that a refreshed process would have allowed market participants the opportunity to bid for the delivery of Auckland light rail and if so why did he not progress this option?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I can't confirm that but I can confirm that the Ministry of Transport and Treasury advised Cabinet that the twin-track assessment process that the Ministry of Transport completed in the last six months of the last calendar year was justified and the appropriate way to deal with the options that were on the table.Chris Bishop: Is he aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said this afternoon It's not an issue for us because it's not going to happen in the immediate term." and will he now accept that Auckland light rail is not happening?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Discussions among coalition partners are an essential part of Cabinet decision-making. We've had those discussions and they will be reflected in the advice that goes to Cabinet."
3. Question No. 3—Regional Economic DevelopmentHon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 3—Regional Economic Development3. Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How has the Provincial Growth Fund been refocused to aid the post-COVID-19 recovery?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Three particular principles have been refined: one jobs; two pace and time lines; and three visibility. Unfortunately a number of the projects were hampered and hobbled by statutory consent problems. Those will be dealt to by David Parker when he revamps the Resource Management Act and brings a proposal back to the House and then we'll see about the attitude from the other side of the House. One hundred million dollars has been made available to work with regional councils and the farmers who are looking towards the champion of the provinces to assist them with riparian planting and waterways; $60 million for rail investments and roads; and $70 million in direct response to the leaders of our local communities to address issues such as refurbishing town halls war memorials and where appropriate maraes—provided that they're free of iwi ideology.Hon Tracey Martin: How will the projects announced following the refocusing support these goals?Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously waterway improvement is something that society through the last election called for loud and clear. There are sensitive waterways in areas such as the Kaipara Harbour. Regional councils have become hoarse over the previous nine years waiting for assistance and it has now arrived through the Provincial Growth Fund. Further decisions and announcements pertaining to water quality that will augment what we're doing are no doubt going to be announced in due course. Local roading projects which do not require the long-term process of the New Zealand Transport Agency to be observed can start with alacrity and rail projects given that this Government is the saviour of KiwiRail are ready to go and are likely to create hundreds of jobs.Hon Tracey Martin: Why is this change in focus necessary for our provinces?Hon SHANE JONES: These changes will be a welcome source of relief for the breadwinners in the breadbasket of New Zealand otherwise known as the provinces. As those areas were dependent on tourism—and we've seen the loss of foreign exchange earnings into the many billions—we need now to work with provincial businesses and we need to work with those stakeholders to ensure that they are able to make tough decisions that grow productivity. The framework and the relationships that we've created through the Provincial Growth Fund will enhance their ability to perform and they are waiting with great anticipation for the soon to be announced $3 billion infrastructure funds.
SpeechJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. Thank you Minister for your introduction of the bill and outlining the issues. We will be supporting this bill to select committee because I think there are lots of elements to it which I think will improve the regime as the Minister has stated. The issue of course was brought to our attention as the Minister said in September 2018 when the Pohokura pipeline had some leaks and the operator at that point in time needed to investigate that. As part of that process of a planned outage around that remediation and maintenance there became a further issue around a shut-off valve which extended the inoperability or the limited operability of that field. As the Minister said the Pohokura gas field which is offshore of Taranaki supplies 42 percent of New Zealand's natural gas and this became a significant issue that affected not only the spot price of gas but also the spot price of electricity for an extended period of time which I'm sure I'm not going to be able to talk about for much longer as we hit 10 o'clock at night.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to rise and speak on the third and final reading of this bill. I just want to reflect back on the first reading. As I was speaking on the first reading we were coming into winter and I was reflecting on the thousands of sick babies who came into hospital each year for respiratory infections and the fact that those hospitalisations were about twice as likely if their parents smoked.I think back to my previous job where I used to monitor child health and sometimes I used to sit back and you do thousands and thousands of graphs—and thinking about what some of those actually meant and just seeing the huge social gradients in respiratory infections in cot deaths and in a whole range of things particularly for babies and thinking about the effect of the social environment on those babies' lives and the fact that they didn't have any choice in that matter. So before their first birthday they were seeing huge impacts as a result of the environments in which they were living. Thinking through the submissions that we heard from the select committee the ones that stood out to me were the kids that turned up and said We get exposed to smoke in our cars and we don't really want to talk to our parents about that because we just don't want to but we don't like it." I think what this bill does it does two things: one of them is it's going to protect kids from being exposed to second-hand smoke in cars but the other thing is it's going to set the norm that it's actually not OK to smoke in cars with kids. I think both are very very important.So what this bill does—I mean it does allow the police to issue an infringement and that's $50. It's not a huge amount but it is an infringement. The issue is it's not really about the enforcement it's about education. Even if you don't pay that infringement and go to court the maximum fine is $100. So it's not about the money so much as about behaviour change. Police will have the ability to offer a warning or also to provide information or to direct people to some smoking cessation services.The other thing with the bill is it's not going to come into force for 18 months and that's going to allow the police time just to set up the system so that they can work out and set up how these will be processed and work through their systems. In that time we're also going to be having a public health campaign. So basically a social media campaign a big public education campaign because it's about changing the norms.I think people have talked tonight about being stuck in cars with parents that are smoking. I guess my experience of it was when you're young going out and always going to the pub or somewhere else and you come home every Saturday night absolutely reeking of cigarette smoke having to change your clothes. That was just the norm and we've changed that and we can change this as well. So this is a really good bill. It'll protect children from second-hand cigarette smoke in cars and I therefore commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time."
Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fa'afetai mo le avanoa i lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. Thank you for this opportunity honourable Speaker. It is an honour and a privilege to stand here to contribute to the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. I just want to take this opportunity to thank the honourable Minister: fa'afetai tele lava Minister Salesa. Afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai. I have to respond to the last speaker Nicky Wagner criticising the Government for what we're doing yet the Māori Affairs Committee a decade ago had made a recommendation to that side to change the law and we're here 10 years later talking about it. So it is rich to point fingers. But I want to acknowledge the current Health Committee who brought the voices of children to this House in their report and I have to read it out because I want to acknowledge the organisations who support the voices of children to be heard in this House. Quickly I want to acknowledge the Cancer Society Northland Wellington Community Justice Holistic Action Sustainable Health Through All Generations Hāpai Te Hauora: Māori Public Health EMPOWER Tāngata Trust the Office of the Children's Commissioner Meremere holiday programme Invercargill City Youth Council and the students of Wainuiōmata Intermediate School.It is Samoan Language Week this week and the theme of the Samoan Language Week is Tapena sou ōso mo lau Malaga which means in English: Prepare yourself a gift for your travels." This is a gift that we're preparing for our whānau and for our tamariki for our rangatahi for our young people: a smoke-free environment. It is enough tautala here in this House. We've spoken too much about this. I want to commend this bill to the House. Let's give our young people a smoke-free environment. Fa'afetai tele lava."