edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Rurawhe AdrianInstruction to Governance and Administration CommitteeHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I move That Hawke's Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill be reported to the House by 11 April 2023.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill.
Hawke's Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill — First Reading
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to add a small contribution in support of the Hawke's Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill. I say to Angela Roberts if she wants to go to the Hastings A & P show don't wait till 2024 if she wants to be there as a Labour MP. So I think Anna Lorck should extend the invitation with all haste. Now I have now got over the crushing disappointment of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill not going to the Governance and Administration Committee the best and most collegial committee of all of them with due deference to my colleagues and I have every confidence that the Governance and Administration Committee will discharge its duties well on this bill.I love getting a little bit of the history of how some of these pieces of land are vested and I was interested to learn that this was actually initially owned by Robert Wellwood who was Hastings' first mayor. The land around what is being considered here was actually a boiling down plant—which is a rendering plant—a railway siding and a number of other things. When the railway siding went in the railway authority gave it the name of Karamū but local iwi decided that they didn't like that name good old Ngāti Kahungunu I would expect and a week later they took that sign down and put the sign Tomoana up after which the Hawke's Bay Herald reported that the board intimated as much to passengers that it would be Karamū but the board remained for some days when the Māoris took it down and put up another name bearing the name of Tomoana. And Tomoana it remains."So there's a fascinating sort of local history of this and there's a real provenance around a lot of our A & P show land which for very good reason cannot be divested without a legislative oversight. But that said this is a good thing to do the proceeds will remain with the trust for the discharging of similar benefits and I know the Governance and Administration Committee will do a good job. I commend the bill."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker—Chris Bishop: This will be a cracker.MARK CAMERON: I'm sure it will be! Thank you very much. As you well know I'm a farmer and I absolutely love going to A & P shows. I have been going to them for almost 30 years—absolutely love them. It's all things rural and it's all things rural community—and the A & P shows that I have been to just this year alone speak to this very reality. I've been to the Hawke's Bay—the Napier—A & P show I've been to the Waimate North A & P show Manawatū and the list goes on. This is so rural New Zealand; this is a really cool story and it's a great piece of legislation. It speaks to the Hawke's Bay region having certainty about not only the history but taking their A & P further by virtue of this legislation and how the legal framework will give them certainty in terms of the liquidation of the land—but equally the continuation of the use of the land for A & P shows. This is an integral part of what we do in rural New Zealand—it brings communities together. And there are a couple of anecdotes I just wanted to share with the House because it's been well canvassed this evening about the importance of this legislation to give the community certainty. The A & P society it says will retain ownership of the Tomoana Showgrounds until 31 March 2023. From 1 April 2023 on 40 hectares of the Tomoana Showgrounds will move to the Hastings District Council. Still great outcomes—the land gets sold but the use has been well articulated for that 10-day period can speak to all things rural and the coming together—the previous speaker Naisi Chen spoke on it—the coming together of rural and urban New Zealand at an A & P show. Some of the other anecdotes that were shared about how this would actually give the community—and this was well encapsulated by the Hastings mayor Sandra Hazlehurst. She says truly fantastic for our community". All things community; what a wonderful quick summation of the certainty that this piece of legislation will give to the community. The council will immediately start the process and have the showgrounds vested as a reserve. A great outcome for iwi for community and for the continuation of the A & P. The 40 hectares will move over to the Hastings District Council—good outcomes for everyone. I know there's a propensity for politicians to pontificate for the sake of hearing their own voice and I certainly won't. This is a great piece of legislation. We absolutely support this and look forward to the Governance and Administration Committee reconciling the small amount of controversy that it may bring; although I don't think it will do. Thank you very much."
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill.Previous speakers have explained very clearly what the bill does. The Hawke's Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society (A & P society) owns showgrounds. They want to be able to sell the property without being required to acquire other land so this bill makes a lot of sense. Obviously this provision goes way way back and it does limit some of the activities that the society is able to invest in in order to achieve the objectives that are set out as a charitable society. The objectives to promote agricultural pastoral horticulture viticulture forestry resources through its various channels are not too dissimilar to the objectives that sit alongside the Green Party's agriculture and rural affairs policy. Very similar points—probably with the Green Party having a slightly bigger focus on environmental protection and regenerative practice but still very much aligned. The showgrounds are to be sold to the Hastings District Council so will stay in public ownership designated as a reserve to be managed by a trust with representatives of the A & P society the council and the nearby marae which is obviously an excellent outcome—but only if this bill passes. It sounds like it's not going to have any difficulty passing.So yep. There's not that much more to say about it. The Green Party supports the bill.
New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill — First Reading
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak in support of this bill and I again congratulate my friend and colleague Glen Bennett for bringing the bill. I just wanted to comment briefly on the comments made by my friend in ACT Simon Court because from that recount one listening at home would think that this was an enormous success. Powerco was one of the groups that bought up a whole lot of council assets when they were sold and as a consequence the Queensland Government now own Powerco; alongside AMP Limited. So the Australians now own our major asset in that way—and that's a really sad thing from my point of view. Nevertheless we are here to make things as right as we can and this bill seems to be doing exactly that. This bill will actually support the investment in this community of the money that came out of that; after what sounds like a very rocky time with that money. So it's a way of securing it for that community. And thus I am commending this bill to the House.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. The National Party is supporting this bill the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill in its first reading today. The National Party recognises that the shares that were sold that have built up this fund are tagged for the benefit of the New Plymouth ratepayers and the New Plymouth District Council boundaries and understands the need to ring-fence that and futureproof it in case of any further or future amalgamations.The National Party is very keen to see the assets that belong to ratepayers secured for those ratepayers if it is a perpetual fund like this or their water assets. The National Party believes they should stay in ratepayer control and ownership and so the benefit of that fund is also by the virtue of this bill secured for the people of New Plymouth. So we support the bill. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a brief call on the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill. I have sat through the debate. I want to also congratulate my colleague Glen Bennett who has introduced this bill—is sponsoring this local bill—and for him giving some background to why we have this here today. As somebody who doesn't come from that area it was really helpful for me to know and I was actually thinking about how unfortunately I think in my area we don't have something like this. So how fortunate the residents and ratepayers of New Plymouth are to have this fund. You can see why it is that they have brought the bill here the remedy that they are seeking and this being the avenue to be able to provide them with the ability to do the things that it is that they want to do. What I wanted to particularly highlight this afternoon was that the council considered a number of options but the points that I wanted to raise were really about having considered all of its options including its experience with the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Act 2018. The council resolved on 8 March to develop this draft and draft this local bill and use the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act to engage with its communities on the draft local bill. So they've already done some consultation around this. It is being referred to a select committee to hear further submissions and do further work on it. But through that process through the community consultation which opened on 13 May and closed on 17 June 52 submissions were received. Following consideration of the written submissions the council determined on 26 July 2022 to proceed with a local bill to regulate the Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF). When I was listening to PIF" I was thinking of "TIF" which is another fund which we do benefit from up north that is the Tourism Infrastructure Fund but that is not what this is; this is the PIF and it is specifically for New Plymouth. And so the council considered that the draft bill should require the council to consider the following principles when dealing with the PIF: that it should be used in a perpetual manner; that the capital base may be used if circumstances arise warranting it; and that investments should be independently managed on a prudent commercial basis and to avoid prejudicing the council's reputation. So I want to commend the council for going through that process and then bringing it here also to the member Glen Bennett who has brought it here this afternoon and I wish the select committee well in working through their submission process and coming back with the legislation in the best form that it can be. And with that I commend the bill to the House."
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill. I'm really pleased that I'm able to make a contribution and I want to acknowledge my colleague—member Glen Bennett—for bringing this private bill to the House and specifically to highlight the importance of this bill for the residents current and future living in the New Plymouth district and the Perpetual Investment Fund and why it is important that there is protection and preservation of this Perpetual Investment Fund. So I'll just call it PIF because it's a little bit of a long term.I'm really pleased that across the House other representatives can see the benefit of the PIF for the community that it has been derived from. We know that as a result of investment decisions back in the 1980s and the closing of the Powerco company there was the enablement and the commencement of the New Plymouth PIF Guardians in terms of securing in the continuity of the benefit in the New Plymouth District Council.I just want to quickly highlight in my contribution that the principles for this fund are really important: that the community have got the supports because these funds are for local ratepayers and local purpose of community activities. You could somewhat call it a nest egg in that the current residents in the New Plymouth district know that the guardians that are appointed to the governance of the group know the local residents understand the local community and can also weigh up in their governance decisions why this fund is protected and preserved for that.So just as I wrap up: it provides the sustainable future good principles on collaboration the understanding of the council to the local New Plymouth PIF Guardians who will make good decisions. It is important that when you do have a governance group who very quickly do understand local activity and local communities that they see the benefit for future populations. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you. The Green Party is pleased to support the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill and congratulates Glen Bennett for his work with the council and others on bringing it to the House. As others have said—and I won't take a long call—this bill is because of the issues during the global financial crisis when the money that the fund paid to the council to offset against rates and reduce the rates cost was too much given the returns that the fund was making and so it didn't continue to grow the capital of the fund. So the bill seeks to redress that and it is certainly also ensuring that any of the benefits of the spending of the money is ring-fenced. I notice that the council did do community consultation and has invited people to have their say on what was being planned and there has been some debate locally because at the moment the fund does help the council reduce its rates but it does mean that renters and others potentially don't get benefits from the fund revenue and the way that it is invested. So there was a strong call for things like social housing to be invested in by the council to ensure that the wider community benefits. The bill is good because in terms of the purposes for which the funds can be applied for it does provide for the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of current and future communities of the New Plymouth District." I think there will also be a debate potentially in submissions about some wanting any depletion of the fund below what is provided in investment revenue to only be in emergencies. The bill provides a more generous ground where the council "considers on reasonable grounds" that it will benefit the wellbeing of current and future communities more than "maintaining the real value of the capital". So obviously submissions on that may improve the bill but it does seem to have been through quite a thorough process by the New Plymouth District Council in looking out for the welfare of its current and future communities in how these funds which resulted from the sale of its shareholding in Powerco back in 2004 are best invested. The Greens are pleased to support it."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to speak on the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill first reading. I want to acknowledge the member of Parliament for New Plymouth Glen Bennett who has brought this bill to the House on behalf of the New Plymouth District Council. National will be supporting this bill through to the select committee process.As the member Glen Bennett has noted I also want to recognise Mayor Neil Holdom for his contribution along with his deputy mayor and councillors in regards to this process. What we are dealing with here is a bill and a local bill that in effect provides additional protections to protect a capital fund that results from the sale of Powerco a power entity by this community in the past. This perpetual fund has grown in size from around $249 million to now in the region of $346 million. And that fund provides revenue which is used to mitigate the costs that are incurred by that local council and in effect provide a revenue stream to maintain rates at a level of which is appropriate for that community. It's a really good example of local communities taking responsibility for local issues and that is a principle that on this side of the House we very much support and hence why we are supporting this bill.What has been done here by New Plymouth District Council in the past was to create this fund and there were as the member articulated some challenges and issues post the 2008 global financial crisis in which the way in which the fund was managed would lead to the fact that the capital amount did drop to levels that were deemed unsustainable. As a result of changes within that council that amount of investment fund has now been rebuilt and built back up to the amount that it is today. I think no one can underestimate the scale of that investment fund and the benefits that are at play. It's also good to see that this Government are supporting asset recycling and the concept of recycling of assets and using that capital investment in order to benefit local communities. Because in effect this is what this investment fund does. The provisions around the changes in this bill ring-fencing it to ensure that it stays very much in the bounds of the boundary of the New Plymouth community is one that is sensible—it is their asset and that asset should remain in community control.The other changes that have been outlined in the bill I think in particular are reasonably administrative. But in terms of the concept in terms of supporting that capital for the New Plymouth community into the future it is something that we very much support and we look forward to this going through the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): That description of Asparagopsis was said with such ratiocination I have to say so I commend that member for her diligent description. Before this bill was being discussed by Rachel Boyack in the Governance and Administration Committee sidelines I'd never heard of Cawthron—and I feel a little bit embarrassed about that given the journey that I've gone on now to see quite how much they have contributed. My friend the Hon Gerry Brownlee tells me that lovers of mussels in this country have a lot to thank Cawthron for because of their research endeavours into that and many other seafoods. But I want to touch on something that Glen Bennett—accidentally I think—applauded and that is the importance of private wealth because this fantastic institution exists because of the generosity of a gentleman who donated the equivalent of $127 million in today's dollars for research. He didn't steal it; he gave it away. He earned it from his own endeavours and then he became a benefactor for a very good cause. And I think there are a number of people in this House who risk demonising success—clearly this gentleman was a very successful business person and he turned those creative and entrepreneurial endeavours into generosity that this country benefits from over 100 years later. I think we owe a great debt to people like Mr Cawthron and many many others over the generations who have made this country better for their generosity. So in considering this bill a very sensible bill that is appropriate—it's not going to the Governance and Administration Committee is it Ms Boyack? It's going to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and I'm sure they'll give it due consideration. But let we not forget that enterprise endeavour entrepreneurialism and professional success created the conditions for the benefit that we see over 100 years later.
O'Connor GregVOTINGCorrection—Extended Sitting MotionDEPUTY SPEAKER: Members when the vote was announced on the extended sitting it was incorrectly announced as 73 in favour and 40 against. The correct vote was 76 in favour and 40 against.
Visitors — Oireachtas Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group for New Zealand
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Thursday 8 December for the third reading of the Water Services Entities Bill; consideration in committee of the Electoral Amendment Bill the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill and the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.
Rurawhe AdrianURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDCyber-security—Incident at Ministry of JusticeSPEAKER: Members I have received a letter from Nicole McKee seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 a recent cyber-security attack involving the Ministry of Justice. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible—Speaker's Ruling 200/4. It is not clear from the member's letter what Government action she wishes to debate. That is a central requirement of an urgent debate application—Speaker's Ruling 200/4 and 205/5. The application is declined.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: 2021-22 annual reports for:Diversity Works New ZealandWorkSafe New Zealand2022-23 statement of performance expectations for WorkSafe New Zealand.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Rurawhe AdrianVISITORSIreland—Oireachtas Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group for New ZealandSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Senator Barry Ward and Senator Gerry Horkan members of the Oireachtas Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group for New Zealand who are present in the gallery.
O'Connor GregWEDNESDAY 7 DECEMBER 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 6 December 2022 - Volume 765
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 41New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 41New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 40New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment deleting Subpart 4A of Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 310 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 104New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Water Services Entities Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.Waiata
Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill — Third Reading
1. Question No. 1—Economic Development Science and InnovationMELISSA LEE (National) to the Chairperson of the Economic Development Science and Innovation CommitteeQUESTIONS TO MEMBERSQuestion No. 1—Economic Development Science and Innovation 1. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Chairperson of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee: Is the report date for the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill currently before the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee still 26 January 2023?JAMIE STRANGE (Chairperson of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee): The answer is yes; the full six-month period for submissions as instructed to the committee by this House.Melissa Lee: How many times will the chair call the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee to meet to consider the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill during the summer recess before the report-back date of 26 January 2023?JAMIE STRANGE: That is a matter for the committee.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Without disputing the chair's answer actually that's not a matter for the committee. Only the chair can call a meeting.Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order: in fact the committee may call meetings at its meeting for the next meeting and chairs can only call meetings if the committee doesn't itself call a meeting.SPEAKER: Both members are correct. The committee or the chair can call a meeting.
7. Question No. 7—ForestryJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of ForestryQuestion No. 7—Forestry7. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Forestry: What announcements has he made on transforming the forestry sector?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Forestry): Last week at the Forestry Hub at national Fieldays I launched the Forestry and Wood Processing Industry Transformation Plan which provides a detailed road map to increase wood processing in New Zealand and grow a low-carbon high-value industry. The Government has worked closely with the industry to develop the industry transformation plan that will both boost the value of our forestry sector and futureproof it to provide greater economic security for all New Zealanders through good times and bad.Jo Luxton: How will increasing onshore processing boost New Zealand's economy?Hon STUART NASH: New Zealand is currently the world's largest softwood log exporter. Today roughly 60 percent of our harvest is exported as logs to a small number of markets. We want to create a future for the forestry industry that doesn't just rely on exporting logs but one that opens up domestic opportunities. More processing in New Zealand will create jobs drive growth and provide more wood residues to support the growing bioeconomy.Jo Luxton: How will this transformation plan help drive down emissions?Hon STUART NASH: The first goal of the industry transformation plan is to reduce carbon emissions by 6.9 million tonnes by 2030 and by 54 million tonnes by 2050. This will be achieved through for example using wood fibre to help decarbonise transport and process heat and using wood products to replace high-emissions materials in construction.Jo Luxton: What other investment has the Government made to support the forestry sector?Hon STUART NASH: The Government supported the forestry sector with $385 million in Budget 2022 to help transform the sector. This includes support to increase woody biomass supplies to replace coal to develop long-term carbon sinks and to create a resilient and diverse sector.
5. Question No. 5—PoliceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 5—Police5. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made on supporting small businesses to tackle retail crime?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Last week the Prime Minister and I announced an extended package of measures to combat retail crime with new initiatives to partner with small businesses and local councils. While overall youth crime is now much lower than in the past the risks and harm from ram raids and other retail crime is concerning communities and creating victims. Shop owners and workers feel targeted and the Government recognises that. The range of initiatives that we announced last week make the most significant direct support crime prevention financial package in recent memory and it backs up the work that the police have been doing through supporting crime prevention measures and undertaking other measures to help business owners stay safe.Ginny Andersen: What further details are available on these packages?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The measures that we announced last week include a new fog cannon subsidy scheme where the Government will provide $4000 to small shops and dairies in New Zealand who want to have a fog cannon installed; a new $4 million fund to support local councils in Auckland Hamilton and the Bay of Plenty with crime prevention programmes; and extending the eligibility of the existing retail crime prevention fund.Ginny Andersen: What changes will be made to the retail crime prevention fund?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The retail crime prevention fund was set up for small shops and dairies earlier on this year as offending shifted to ram raiding. Last week's announcement has seen the expansion of its eligibility to small businesses who experience an aggravated robbery including those committed in the past 12 months. Police are already making good progress on the number of stores accessing the fund. More than 100 shops now have installations approved and there are 431 security measures under way.Ginny Andersen: What work is the Government doing alongside of local government to help support small-business owners?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As mentioned the $4 million has been targeted to support local councils with local crime prevention measures. This will be made up of $2 million for the Auckland Council $1 million for the Hamilton City Council and $1 million for the councils in the Bay of Plenty which will be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by those councils. These partnerships will be focused on crime prevention through environmental design measures in geographic areas where small retailers are commonly targeted and that can include things like street lighting CCTV cameras and planter boxes. Conversations have already taken place between police and Government officials and the Auckland Council Hamilton City Council and the Bay of Plenty councils to identify opportunities that can get started soon.
3. Question No. 3—HousingANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 3—Housing3. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What progress has the Government made in delivering public housing? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): We are rebuilding public housing in New Zealand by building more public housing renewing our existing housing stock faster than any Government since the 1970s. Since we've come into Government we have now added 10763 public homes and delivered over 4000 new transitional homes. Kāinga Ora has delivered 9133 new warm dry public houses with 743 or 77 percent being new builds and 11.5 percent of the current public housing stock—or over one in nine of our current public homes—has been delivered during our term in Government. But we know we cannot do it alone and this is why we have also been working closely with community housing providers (CHPs) to deliver public housing places too. Angie Warren-Clark: What contribution have community housing providers made to the public housing programme? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are now 11785 public housing places provided by our community housing providers. This has more than doubled since 2017 when there were less than 5000 places provided by community housing providers. Community housing providers bring strong community connections knowledge and expertise in delivering housing for vulnerable New Zealanders but of course it requires the Government to partner with them and deliver the funding for income-related rent subsidies. Angie Warren-Clark: How has the Government supported community housing providers? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Community housing provider stock as I said has more than doubled since October 2017 as a result of our Government's record investment in housing. This has been possible through the Government significantly increasing the funding available to our community housing providers through consistent recommitments in successive Budgets. In the financial year ended June 2017 total funding for CHPs was just $95 million. As of June 2022 the annual figure was $535 million in operational funding for our CHPs—an increase of 463 percent. Angie Warren-Clark: What notable community housing provider - led public housing projects has the Government supported? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government supported Auckland City Mission to open their HomeGround facility the largest project that they have ever undertaken. HomeGround is an 80-unit housing and social services facility that incorporates a detox facility a medical centre and education services. The whole-of-life funding the Government is putting into HomeGround is expected to total $114 million. CHP housing delivery is not just happening in our city centres. In the past few years because of changes we have made to operational funding we are now seeing community houses being delivered outside of our cities.
Smith Stuart; Salesa JennySTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister. It is a good bill the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and the National Party certainly supports it. One of the areas in which I had a concern—which you'll be aware of Minister—is that the insurance companies would get 18 months clear to introduce their new pricing and systems to comply with the new bill. My first question would be: will this be able to be achieved? So would we need the third reading by the end of the sitting year?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I thank the member for the question which is a very good one. It is going to be the will of the House as to whether we get that far through. But I do want to thank members for allowing this to be taken as one debate which I think will enhance greatly our chances of getting that through. I think all of us in this House do want as much time for the implementation of this scheme as possible so that the adjustments to IT systems and other things—which is a concern I know the National Party raised in committee—can be taken account of as this legislation is progressed and then implemented. So it's my sincere hope that it will get through this year but again it will be the will of the House. And I want to thank members for their cooperation in at least setting up that possibility.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members I must report progress on this bill.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Natural Hazards Insurance Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. Members the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
Salesa Jenny; Bennett GlenNATURAL HAZARDS INSURANCE BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. Members we come now to Part 1.GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is there any objection to the motion? No objections. We will take it as one debate. The question is that Part 1 to Part 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
SpeechSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much Madam Speaker. It's with enormous pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill at the second reading. I want to join some of my colleagues in sharing praise for our chair Tangi Utikere and of course to our enormously courageous Minister the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall who has brought this legislation into the House which is going to be an extraordinary move that will be a world-first in reducing smoke harm. I also need to thank the clerks and officials who worked so incredibly hard and of course my colleagues on the Health Committee a very hard-working committee as we've heard.In part I'd like to begin by acknowledging the 1956 written submissions that we received. We heard 84 of those as oral submissions. They broadly fell into two categories both of which I actually have a great deal of sympathy for. The first primarily were submitters that spoke extraordinarily bravely about loved ones they had lost to smoke-related harm whether through direct cigarette smoking or second-hand smoke exposure. Extraordinarily moving—we heard submitters who brought members of the committee to tears—and they brought home to us the realities of what we are in fact talking about here today. To quote Professor Hoek Tobacco is the only product that kills people when it is used as intended." It kills 12 people every single day in Aotearoa New Zealand. So you'll forgive me if I agree with the position of the Minister the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall that we need to do something and do it swiftly. Twelve people's lives are hanging on this decision. The second category of submitters were people whose businesses would be significantly impacted by this legislation. We heard nine submissions from the tobacco industry who unsurprisingly expressed a negative view of the bill except for the manufacturer of low-nicotine products who supported it.Now submissions of evidence presented to support arguments are in fact an exercise for us in assessing credible research. One of the most important factors when we're considering whether research presented to us is credible or not is bias. You always have to ask yourself who stands to benefit—who stands to benefit? Minister Verrall stands not for corporate profits but for the 12 people every day who die from entirely preventable causes. The bottom line is that you can come back you can reframe a business model that relies on a product that kills 50 percent of its users—it is no small thing; it is not a small ask; it is challenging and difficult and we acknowledge that but it can be done—but there is no coming back from the dead. I commend this bill to the House."
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Fa'afetai tele lava Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to be able to take a call on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill.I'm not on the Health Committee but—Chlöe Swarbrick: Great committee!BARBARA EDMONDS: A great committee I understand. But I do want to bring you into this debate very shortly Madam Speaker because actually you set a lot of the standard that is within the current Act around making sure that cars and children in cars are smoke-free. So I acknowledge your contribution for that work.The reason why I'm standing to take a call is because I am a mother of eight children who are all under the ages of 18. I've just come back from the New Zealand Tag Football Incorporated Junior Tag Nationals—45000 people walked through the grounds of Bruce Pulman Park in Papakura this weekend. I also managed to see the Condor 7s which was held—the National Secondary School Rugby Sevens competition that was held at King's College in Auckland as well.Right throughout these two heavily attended events—which was littered with children under the age of 18—there were really strong messages around This is a smoke-free environment. Tobacco and vaping is not welcome within these grounds. If you want to participate in that you have to leave the grounds."And to be fair I didn't really see many people outside of the grounds smoking or vaping because they were missing out on their children's activities and were not wanting to leave the fields or the grounds.Now I want to acknowledge as part of this bill The Hashtags. Some of The Hashtags are actually within Wainuiōmata. They are a group of wāhine toa who play for Ngā Hau e Whā which is a rugby league team based in Wainuiōmata. In September I was due to accept their petition on strengthening the vaping regulations—on the vaping amendments. I was due to receive their petition but I was unwell with the flu at the time so I acknowledge Ginny Andersen who did accept that petition. What they were asking Parliament for was to strengthen the vaping regulations.So it is such great news for me to be able to pick up the bill off the table today to flick through to get through the back of the bill in Part 1B clause 20M that those regulation-making powers are now within this bill. That's exactly what The Hashtags asked for; that's exactly what a number of young people even throughout Porirua have asked for. So I commend the Minister for putting that future-proofing regulation-making power within this bill. That is what will strengthen this for future generations.The failure to support this bill from the other side of the House is disappointing because what it fails to recognise is that the generation coming through wants these changes. They want to strengthen the vaping laws; they want to be a smoke-free generation. I'm so proud of the side of the House and the members from the Green Party who are also commending this bill to the House and I commend this bill to the House."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): It's a pleasure to take the last call on this matter. I wasn't on the Justice Committee and I've listened to these speeches really with very fresh eyes and I'm really disappointed in what I've heard from the Opposition. What I've heard is accusations of things like a lack of freedom of expression because you can't put your cash on the table at $15000 without putting your name on it. I've heard accusations of wokeness and I've heard accusations of left-wingness which apparently is some sort of crime.This isn't a communist plot; this is something that cuts both ways. This is all about democracy and transparency. This is something that everybody should be supporting in this House today because $5000 is a lot of money. And quite frankly if I was a person sitting out listening to this I'd be thinking Do I want to know that my politician is being supported by perhaps Shell Oil or they're supported by the National Rifle Association or they are supported by perhaps even the unions? I want to know those things because they're the context." And yes there is an attempt here to prevent some of the soft lobbying that can happen. It's a very insidious thing when somebody gives you $5000. It's actually quite a thing and we want to know. Actually our voters want to know that kind of thing. And yes it's a pain in the neck writing out all that information for people when we are bringing down the amount but it's very very important because our democracy is actually quite delicate.That is something that struck me over many years—that we often think that we are safer than we are in our democracy. It's this sort of thing this sort of adjustment that makes the difference. It is something we can get complacent about. I for one don't want to be complacent.I like this piece of law because it's sensible. I don't believe that privacy is something that we should be so concerned about when people are actually donating $5000 or $10000 or $15000 or $20000 or $30000—I'd want to know that if I was a voter. I'm glad we're going to know that. I'm glad we're including the people from overseas who've been outside of the country but have a very real stake in it. I'm glad we're doing that before the election. I'm glad we're doing this. And I hope that this kind of thing which has got nothing to do with being left-wing or right-wing—it's got to do with being democratic and aware that we're in a world where people trust each other less and less when it comes to this sort of thing. It's got to do with being democratic. This is an important fundamental step and I'm proud to support this bill. I commend it to the House."
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you Madam Speaker. I too will just take a short call on this. I have been listening to the contributions in the House this evening and it is really concerning me actually that there's such I think—as the previous speaker just said—vociferous opposition to this. So what is it that they are worried about? I think as the member that just sat down said you can draw your own conclusions.I want to just highlight you know one of the reasons for doing this was the public support that there is for making these changes. One of the earlier contributions was that this is hardly the most important issue on people's radars right now—and that is true there are much bigger issues out there facing our country and we are dealing with those too. But there is public support for what is proposed in this bill and I just want to highlight that a survey undertaken by Victoria University of Wellington in 2021 found that almost 70 percent of respondents indicated they did not have a reasonable amount of trust in party funding.The Ministry of Justice undertook public and targeted consultations from 3 December 2021 to 21 January 2022 and the feedback from the consultation generally supported the changes to the Electoral Act to increase transparency. And the committee received 42 submissions the majority of which were supportive of the bill's objective to support the delivery of and participation in elections to maintain public trust and confidence in our electoral system. I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Madam Speaker. It's always good to take a call unexpectedly when the Māori Party choose not to speak on a matter which I must say I find unusual given the importance of this. This is a simple bill and the crux of it is that there are two kinds of donations: there are open donations that everyone knows about and there are secret donations and we want to shift the needle away from secret donations and towards open and transparent donations. Given the noise that comes from the other side of the House on transparency I'm surprised that they're so vociferously opposed to this bill—draw your own conclusions. We support this bill.