edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put. Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Melissa Lee's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 85 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. The question is that David Seymour's amendments set—Willow-Jean Prime: Sorry Madam Chair. You said that the Ayes have it. Party vote. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): My apologies. The Noes have it. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.
Salesa Jenny; Rurawhe AdrianREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Commerce Amendment Bill and reports progress.I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No no we haven't finished the committee stage on this one.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah I'm getting to that one. The Commerce Amendment Bill is set down for further consideration next sitting day. Members the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Thursday)
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. I actually just wanted to clarify something that the Minister said before because I often find that the Minister makes light of comments and made some reference to the fact that I mentioned swimming pools. Well swimming pools was one example and the point I want to make to the Minister is that actually when you're going to make an argument about an industry there are pluses and minuses and I've only heard the Minister make minuses about this industry today and the swimming pool was just one example. It's all very well for the Government to stand here and say We need to fund X Y Z Z and extra with all this money that we could have actually had because we had to clean up after Tamarind". And as we keep saying no problem with decommissioning; we wouldn't have wanted that situation to happen. But for goodness' sake Minister would you please give the industry some credit for the assets that it has built in our communities. You can't make one side of the argument on the ledger without making the other because if you don't balance that equation up the full story's not happening. So thank you Madam Chair."
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. A very quick question to the Minister. She has actually talked about the decommissioning and you know answered some aspects of the question that I actually asked in relation to the responsibility by corporates after they've actually on-sold their business.I'd just like to compare a situation for her and I would like her answer as to whether she actually thinks that that would be fair. A Minister is responsible in setting you know in terms of a responsibility for example the Government's decision to kill off the idea of oil and gas exploration in the Taranaki which killed off thousands of jobs and then basically said that the reason why the Government was actually doing that was to reduce the carbon emission profile of New Zealand and we're actually moving to a greener future for New Zealand. I completely understand what the Government was actually talking about.Similarly an oil exploration company drills got a licence to drill and explore and all that sort of stuff and they've decided that you know they now want to move and actually move on pass on the licence to another company who could actually continue on the job. Something happens like in the case of—maybe Taranaki is actually a terrible example. But something happens and they're not able to continue to do so. Similarly the Minister's idea about going a little bit more green. We want to reduce the carbon emissions and actually kill off oil and gas exploration. But the thing is that the end result is that we are importing more coal from overseas. Does this mean that the country should be sending the Minister the bill for the increase in carbon emissions that now New Zealand is actually facing just like businesses are actually being faced with the bill of the clean-up? No other industry as I actually said previously is responsible so perhaps the Minister could answer whether that comparison is actually fair. If not why not? Because I think it's actually very similar.
Dean Jacqui; Kuriger BarbaraCROWN MINERALS (DECOMMISSIONING AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Part 1CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we turn now to the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and we first debate Part 1—this is the debate on clauses 4 to 7—Amendments to Part 1". The question is that Part 1 stand part.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. Most of what I want to say on this Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is related to Part 2 but what I just did want to say in relation to the bill overall as we start debating the committee stage is that it's a terribly awful piece of legislation. It's completely unnecessary. I sat in on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and we heard the submitters talking about their role in decommissioning something which the submitters from the industry supported and have no problem doing. And this bill is a total overreach where there are some very big concerns around trailing liabilities the retrospective nature of some of the parts of the bill strict obligations to remove infrastructure. You know we're going to get to a stage in this industry as if enough damage hasn't already been done to this industry by the Minister of Energy and Resources that we are going to have directors who are not prepared to put their name up for positions like this until they're at least probably 85 years old because actually the young vibrant people are going to go "Well this is absolutely far too much of a commitment by us to be able to put our names to this."And so all I really want to say right at the beginning of this bill is this is a bad piece of legislation. It is another blow to an industry who we need for energy security in this country. We are importing record amounts of coal due to the decisions that have already been made and the blows that have already been taken by this industry.We will be putting up some Supplementary Order Papers and suggestions when we get to Part 2 because it's a terrible piece of legislation. We certainly won't be supporting it. Thank you."
Mitchell Mark; McAnulty KieranHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm requesting that my original point of order that I took was never actually responded to or addressed by you.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can the member remind me of his point of order again please?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah my point of order quite simply was that during the period of time when the whip was taking points of order raising legitimate points of order the chief whip for the Government came into the House and made some very negative comments and inappropriate comments directed at our whip.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So if the whip actually said something that was unparliamentary against the Opposition whip can he please withdraw and apologise?KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Let's just get on with things. I withdraw and apologise.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I'll go through this for a fourth time now: the reason that the Government is not supporting the member's Supplementary Order Paper is that we believe that the new provisions inserted in the bill combined with the existing protections of the Privacy Act are sufficient. But for the benefit of the member I'll read the relevant section to her—34A(1)—Despite anything in the Privacy Act 2020 personal information about an identifiable individual that is provided or obtained for the purpose of contact tracing under this Act (such as through QR scans or paper-based forms) may not be collected used or disclosed by anyone except for the purpose of contact tracing under this Act or for the purposes of the Health Act 1956." And it goes on further to say that a person who intentionally fails to comply with that commits an offence and that that offence could result in a fine not exceeding $12000 or six months' imprisonment. So we have a very significant protection regime in there to ensure that the information collected is only used for the purpose for which it is intended. The Privacy Act has comprehensive provisions in it. The overall response to COVID-19 regularly touches on privacy concerns and in fact they were the subject of questioning in the House yesterday when it came to the sharing of people's vaccination information. That has been the subject of court cases at the moment and the law there is clear."
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to start off by thanking the Minister in the previous answer to questions that I had in relation to the example that I provided. So going back to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 85 in my name I just want to ask the Minister noting the new section 34A inserted by clause 25A as proposed by the Health Committee's recommendation how would that section effectively deal with the examples that I provided? And just to update the members I'll repeat them: in August the Indonesia Health Alert Card—and it was reported on Reuters on 1 September—exposed the data of over 1.3 million users due to a lack of a proactive update of the app.The other example I gave was that Singapore—it was reported in the BBC—had allowed COVID tracing data for criminal investigation despite public officials previously explicitly ruling that data would not be used for anything other than the virus tracking.The third example I gave was the Australian state police forces using QR code scanning data in the context of a criminal investigation which prompted a law reform to be passed. So I would appreciate if the Minister could answer how new section 34A could actually address these concerns and whether that will actually fix the problem.There is another thing that I would also sort of like to ask the Minister. I note that in the primary Act the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 section 9(ba) states that the Minister must be satisfied that the order does not limit or is a justified limit on the rights and freedoms in New Zealand's Bill of Rights Act 1990. So why does the Minister believe new section 34A is needed if that is the case as recommended by the Health Committee if he believes it does not go far enough to protect the data?The other question that I have is why has the Minister not supported further subsections to ensure that no order could affect individual privacy and information privacy principles as set out in section 22 of the Privacy Act 2020 that my SOP would protect by amending section 9(ba) with a new subsection (2)? So if the Minister could actually address that and also why has the Minister not supported further subsections to ensure that no order could affect the immunities and privileges that are recognised in Subpart 8 of Part 2 of the Evidence Act 2008 that my SOP would protect by amending section 9(ba) with a new subsection (3)?
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): As I've repeatedly said during this debate the provisions in this bill do not prevent the removal of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) requirements for people coming into New Zealand. They simply state that if MIQ is going to exist then it gives some ability to enforce the MIQ requirements or enhances the ability to run MIQ efficiently and smoothly and consistent with the very best public health advice.It doesn't stop us winding back the MIQ requirement or the requirement for people to go into MIQ when they arrive into the country. As the Government has already indicated that is likely to happen progressively over the next couple of months. We'll be seeing more and more people isolating at home rather than through MIQ. This bill does not in any way prevent this from happening.But I would note for members who simply say we just do away with it completely and do it right now that even when we reach the point where the majority of people are isolating at home or even when we reach the point where some people won't have to isolate at all—it is quite possible in the future that we'll reach that point—there's still likely to be a need for MIQ capacity for people coming into the country of some sort.We have to think about what we do with those who are not vaccinated for example. So if the requirement is for people to be fully vaccinated what about those who have a right to enter the country but aren't fully vaccinated? What about those who are coming into the country potentially with COVID-19 but are entering the country on justified grounds? We still need to have an ability to run a system to support those people.So the continued refinement of the MIQ system—and I've repeatedly said this during the debate—does not mean that it will continue to apply to everybody coming into the country.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. Just in relation to that last comment by the Minister is he able to give us an indication of what that supervision actually means? Does it mean that a sworn police officer needs to be at that border actively monitoring the community patroller or whoever's there? We've had the situation in the past where the police actually haven't been there. So does supervision mean they have to be there or are they just in charge from a distance? That's something that we need to know. I want to go back to what I was talking about earlier and what Chris Bishop also mentioned as well on new section 32N in clause 22 around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and New Zealanders' rights to come home. The reason that I want to question the Minister around this is because he stated in an earlier answer that restricting Kiwis' rights to come home under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is a justified health response. Chris Bishop's argument was that that may have been the case earlier but is it still the case now? Now the Minister said that he'd had advice that says that it is a justified health response. What I specifically want to ask the Minister is: has the Government has he seen Crown Law advice specifically relating to the case of Bergen Graham who was the woman trapped in America who could not get a managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) emergency allocation because she had a high-risk pregnancy. She couldn't get into New Zealand. She had no ability to have the baby there because she didn't have health insurance and she had no visa to be there. She was there illegally; couldn't get an MIQ spot. She took the case to court with the help of a number of pro bono lawyers and immediately she got an emergency MIQ spot. So the question is: what was the advice? This specifically relates to new section 32N in clause 22 of the bill where the Minister has to take into account the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Has the Minister seen that Crown Law advice on the specific case of Bergen Graham? Because it's very curious that she got an emergency spot very soon after bringing that court case. I suspect that the Crown Law advice to the Government and to the Minister specifically said that the Government are skating on thin ice and in fact that this is in contradiction to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—people's right to come home. This relates directly to new section 32N. I want to know clearly from the Minister: did he receive Crown Law advice on Bergen Graham's case? What did that Crown Law advice suggest? And does that sit with what he said earlier that in fact MIQ is a justified health response in stopping Kiwis coming home in contradiction to their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? I want to know what that Crown Law advice said because we've heard that that Crown Law advice did say that this is no longer legal when it comes to that Act. Has the Minister seen that piece of advice? What did it say? And was that the reason that Bergen Graham was very quickly allocated an emergency spot in MIQ? I think the Minister needs to answer those questions.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): If I could just briefly respond to Melissa Lee's questions earlier. I do acknowledge that people want absolute certainty that their information cannot be used for any purpose other than for which it is collected and the overseas examples that she has highlighted I think do underscore the public's desire for clarity there and that is why the bill specifically states now following the amendment by the select committee that the information cannot be used for any purpose other than that purpose for which it was collected.In terms of the comments raised by Simeon Brown I would refer him to section 22 subsection (5) in clause 12 and the second part of that if acting under the supervision of a constable." These powers will only be able to be exercised by the police and other people working under their supervision. So the police will still be the ones responsible for ensuring compliance. In terms of where they can be used I'd refer him to subsection (3A) "For the purpose of enforcing or monitoring compliance with a COVID-19 order that restricts movement by persons with or without vehicles a constable may stop …" etc. etc. It makes it absolutely clear that it is the police that are responsible for enforcing the orders but at the moment the current practice is to use additional people to help including our military including Māori Wardens including community patrols and including some iwi representatives who have offered to help to do some of that work. But it is ultimately the police that are still responsible for that. Now I think that the provisions in this bill are very pragmatic and sensible because it means the police will still be in charge the police will still be ultimately accountable for what happens the police will still make all of the decisions around enforcement of the orders but it will free up police from some of the more menial processes involved in enforcing these orders so that they can actually do their core job which is to fight crime."
Lee Melissa; Hipkins ChrisMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It seems quite a long time since I've actually stood in this Chamber to deal with the committee stage of a bill and what a particularly apt piece of legislation to contribute in. I'd like to commend to the committee an amendment in my name Supplementary Order Paper 85. Although there are many things that I could contribute in this particular bill I'll leave it to my more learned colleague on this particular issue Chris Bishop and his other colleagues in the Health Committee. But I'd like to focus mostly on the privacy of contact tracing data. As many people have mentioned publicly and in the media as well apart from everything else with COVID there are many who actually do not use the contact tracing app because they're quite concerned about how secure that data is and what that data could be used for by the Government. So I'd like to put it to the Minister: is the Minister satisfied that he has addressed the concerns of over 120 lawyers public health leaders academics and privacy advocates who wrote to him in September concerned about data privacy protection and the COVID-19 tracer app? If so can the Minister please explain to the committee how he has done this? Secondly are there any concerns have not been addressed and does the Minister plan to further amend the bill to take account of data protection and privacy concerns relating to the pending digital vaccination certification or pass system?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In answer to the member's question I'd simply draw her attention to pages 21 and 22 of the bar 2 bill as reported back by select committee and clause 25A which inserts new section 34A Protection of contact tracing information". That does make it absolutely explicit that no information collected during the contact tracing process or collected using the NZ COVID Tracer app the QR code system can be used for any purpose other than the purpose on which it is collected which is contact tracing. That provides an additional layer of certainty. The advice that the Government has had is that this provision isn't actually necessary because the existing provisions that are in place already make that clear. However we have heard the concerns from others that they would like to see that explicitly stated in the Act. That is the reason why we have agreed with the committee's recommendation to insert these additional provisions.In terms of the member's Supplementary Order Paper I have received some advice that suggests that some of the provisions in the member's Supplementary Order Paper may not achieve the goals that she sets out to achieve and may in fact contradict the very goals that she's setting out to achieve. The Government won't be supporting it."
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I thought I'd briefly respond to some of the issues that have been raised so far. I can confirm that there are no provisions in the bill that relate to oil and gas exploration no provisions in the bill that relate to commercial leases and no provisions in the bill that relate to the Ministry of Health's procurement of saliva testing.With regard to the requisitioning of lab consumables I note in their minority report that the Opposition criticised the Government for a lack of contingency planning around different scenarios with regard to COVID-19. In fact these very provisions that they're now criticising are part of the contingency planning.We do have to be aware of the fact that the global pandemic is not over and we could face another public health crisis at some point in the next year or so as a result of for example a vaccine resistant variant of the virus emerging which is a very real scientific possibility and one that we need to be prepared for. And we are absolutely committed to being prepared for that. If we found ourselves in the midst of such an outbreak we would need to make absolutely the best use of every resource that was available to us and the ability of the Government to come to the Parliament to seek support for any measures that might need to be taken could be limited as it was during the course of the first significant outbreak that we dealt with last year when Parliament was not meeting during that time.So this is part of contingency planning. It does refine the emergency powers available to the Government and they are just that; they are emergency powers and would only be used in such an emergency. But it would be important if we were dealing with a large-scale outbreak of a vaccine-resistant variant of the virus—as an example as an illustration—that we were able to make the best use of all of the testing capability that was available to us because that would be the way we would have the best chance of getting on top of the virus again bringing the outbreak back under control.So that is what these provisions are designed to do. In terms of the compensation clauses within it the compensation clauses mirror existing provisions within the Health Act in terms of public health responses. When things are required for public health responses there are existing compensation provisions in the Health Act around that and these provisions simply mirror those.
Tuesday 23 November 2021 - Volume 756
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 35New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10. Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2)—Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
12. Question No. 12—ConservationWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 12—Conservation12. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Conservation: What progress has been made on establishing a marine mammal sanctuary in the Bay of Islands?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): On 17 November I announced that a marine mammal sanctuary will be established in Te Pēwhairangi the Bay of Islands coming into effect on 15 December. The sanctuary has been established after a public consultation process and aims to not only reverse the decline in the numbers of bottlenose dolphins in the area but better protect visiting orcas and fur seals as well. By designating this area as sanctuary we are creating an environment where the human/animal interaction coexists rather than disrupts while also protecting an amazing taonga for future generations.Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the sanctuary being established?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The bay's bottlenose dolphin which are a nationally endangered species are known to spend an average of about 86 percent of their daylight hours with at least one boat nearby. They are cheeky little things and extensive studies have shown that the near-constant presence of people in boats disrupts the normal behaviours critical for their survival. They like to play so they don't get as much rest and kai as they need. The new speed and distance restrictions where people in boats are interacting with marine mammals aim to protect the mammals while also providing sustainable tourism opportunities through maintaining one of the major drawcards for visitors: the presence of the dolphins in the bay.Willow-Jean Prime: What public feedback was received on the proposal?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Public consultation has been a big part of the process over the last six months and I want to acknowledge the 645 submitters and note that over 66 percent of those submitters were in full support. In particular I want to acknowledge Ngā Hapū o te Pēwhairangi who have been constant guardians of this project and who have worked in an exemplary way with the Department of Conservation on our collective journey to protect the dolphins. I also want to acknowledge the local boaties who will continue to use and enjoy the beautiful waters of Te Pēwhairangi over the summer which includes fishing throughout the area because there are no restrictions specific to that sanctuary on fishing and will do this in a way that allows our marine mammals to thrive.
10. Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and SafetyIBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety10. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How is the Government supporting businesses to get their workforces vaccinated?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Vaccine requirements in the workplace are a common tool in many countries around the world that are being used to stop the spread of COVID-19 to protect their workers and customers from the virus. Today we have announced we are supporting businesses—SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt. There are two members over there one of whom is slightly louder than the other and the one in front is slightly more frequent than the other but they've both been very noisy today. I don't understand the reason for it but I'm just asking them to wind it back. Michael Wood can you start again please.Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Vaccine requirements in the workplace are common tools in many countries around the world being used to stop the spread of COVID-19 and to protect workers and customers from the virus. Today we have announced that we are supporting businesses to help get their workers vaccinated and keep people safe by providing them with a new vaccination tool a clear legal framework to help them make decisions about when vaccines might be reasonably required in the workplace. The tool will specify four key factors at least three of which must be met before it would be reasonable to require vaccination for particular work.Ibrahim Omer: How will this benefit business?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We've had calls from both businesses and unions to make the process around worker vaccination as clear as possible. This simple four-step tool will make it much easier for businesses particularly small businesses without large legal and HR support. This new process won't override existing risk assessments that businesses have already done under existing health and safety guidelines and businesses will continue being able to choose which one they use—either the new vaccination tool or health and safety risk assessment processes.Ibrahim Omer: How was the tool developed?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Over recent weeks we have worked collaboratively to develop the new vaccination tool to ensure that it's well informed and is able to be used in a very practical way on the ground. We have consulted extensively including with Business NZ and the Council of Trade Unions; we've taken public health advice; and we've worked closely with WorkSafe as the regulator in this area. As such I have real confidence that the vaccination tool is going to be of significant benefit to businesses and workers in providing much needed clarity.
7. Question No. 7—Economic and Regional DevelopmentNAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic and Regional DevelopmentQuestion No. 7—Economic and Regional Development7. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What reports has he seen on the state of the venture capital industry?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Last month PricewaterhouseCoopers the Angel Association New Zealand and New Zealand Growth Capital Partners released a report that showed New Zealand has a start-up ecosystem that is more self-sufficient and sustainable than at any point in the past. It demonstrated not only resilience but an increase in maturity. New Zealand Growth Capital Partners administers a $300 million Elevate fund and an $80 million Aspire seed fund on behalf of the New Zealand Government. The report stated—and I quote—Interest in New Zealand startup investment did not diminish in 2020 despite some dire predictions early in the year as COVID-19 struck. $158 million was invested into 108 deals and this is the third year of $100 million-plus of investment in startups and also the third year of more than 20 percent year on year growth in dollars invested."Naisi Chen: What role has the Elevate and Aspire funds made to the successes of the venture capital industry? Hon STUART NASH: To date the Elevate fund has made total commitments of $157 million in crowded and over $430 million of private capital including investments from New Zealand Super Fund and Kiwi Wealth. This has resulted in almost $600 million available to invest in promising New Zealand companies at the venture capital stage which is by far and away the largest amount we have seen invested in the New Zealand venture capital stage in the last 10 years. The Aspire fund invested $10.8 million into 14 new investments in the 2021 financial year a notable increase on prior years.Naisi Chen: What are examples of the types of firms helped by Elevate and Aspire? Hon STUART NASH: One example Kiwi start-up EnergyBank raised nearly $2.7 million in an oversubscribed seed round led by Icehouse Ventures New Zealand and the newly created fund Nuance Connected Capital which Elevate backed this year with a $17 million commitment. EnergyBank aims to develop a new technology for storing energy which it claims is better than pumped hydro or lithium ion batteries and could help decarbonise electricity grids in 42 countries within 30 to 40 years. Another example deep tech company Aquafortis has developed a technology that uses a fraction of the energy of thermal systems to separate waste water into dry mineral salts and clean water."
6. Question No. 6—FinanceANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 6—Finance6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Has he sought advice on the number of businesses that may be forced to close once current financial support is reworked as part of the traffic light system; if so how many businesses?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government moved quickly to put financial support in place for businesses as the COVID-19 pandemic spread around the world and we have supported hundreds of thousands of businesses to get through and to keep their employees working. In terms of the specifics of the member's question I reject its apparent premise. The advice I do have is that all businesses have the ability to operate under all three levels of the COVID protection framework. Andrew Bayly: Which businesses will be eligible for financial support payments under the new traffic light system?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I signalled on 22 October when we announced the framework it is our intention to move away from board-based supports under the protection framework and move towards more targeted support looking particularly at specific sectors. We'll have announcements to make about that in due course.Andrew Bayly: Why a month after announcing the traffic light system has he still not provided details about what financial support will be available to businesses at each colour—and particularly red and orange?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've just said in my earlier answer on 22 October I outlined the fact that under the green and orange levels we did not expect there to be widespread support for businesses. Under the red level we would expect it to be much more targeted. I'll have more to say about that in due course.Andrew Bayly: Will the financial support under the traffic light system specifically address the 46 percent of Auckland businesses who can't afford to pay their rent?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've had increasing levels of support under the resurgence support payment. We've indicated that there will also be a transition payment. Any future support under the red level we will announce in due course.Andrew Bayly: Will he be introducing any initiatives to reactivate hospitality businesses—as strongly advocated for by organisations such as the Heart of the City and Restaurant Association—so that they can rely on trade not Government financial support?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well the member seems to be highly confused because all of the supplementary questions up until that point had been asking for more Government support. I have met with the Restaurant Association. I have met with Heart of the City. They are aware of the fact that we have heard their concerns. And we'll have more to say in due course.
2. Question No. 2—EnvironmentHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 2—Environment2. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he consider that trees in our cities and towns are appropriately protected; if so why?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Speaker. I agree that the protection of mature and ecologically significant trees in urban areas is an important consideration and the Government is actively considering this as part of the reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA). It's also important that protections don't create excessive compliance costs for routine pruning or the removal of smaller trees. I'm advised that prior to the changes to the RMA that occurred under the last National Government there were an estimated 4000 to 5000 resource consents required to prune or remove trees per year which is around 10 percent of total resource consents issued. In addition many people thought the rules requiring consents were sometimes absurd and ignored them bringing the RMA into disrepute.Hon Eugenie Sage: From a climate perspective is he concerned that in the Waitematā Local Board area alone at least 12879 trees were removed in the 10 years from 2006 to 2016?Hon DAVID PARKER: From a climate perspective no. You know a few hectares of trees elsewhere would more than offset that.Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he consider that increasing housing density and protecting urban trees are complementary changes that enable livable cities?Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes.Hon Eugenie Sage: Will he commit to urgent action to protect urban trees on private land as denser housing is developed so people can enjoy the benefits urban trees provide including sequestering carbon creating shade reducing the urban heat island effect—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member's got quite a few questions in there.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well those decisions are delegated under the Resource Management Act for councils to take. Sometimes they have to take difficult decisions. When they go through a process and they consider it and then they give an authorisation for a tree to be felled—for example for a new housing development—then that process should be respected.Hon Eugenie Sage: What tools is he considering providing councils to enable effective urban tree protection on private land and how is this work being prioritised?Hon DAVID PARKER: The work is being progressed as part of the reform to the RMA through the Natural and Built Environments Bill which we propose and I'm working with Minister Twyford on that issue as an Associate Minister for the Environment. The ministry is I'm aware working with councils not just in Auckland but also across the land to try and land this in the right place.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government has provided significant support to businesses and workers in response to the Delta COVID-19 outbreak. I received a report yesterday that told me that we have paid out over $6 billion through the wage subsidy scheme and resurgence support payment since August when the outbreak began. Under the wage subsidy scheme 1116851 applications have been approved totalling a payout of $4.3 billion. For the resurgence support payment the payout has been $1.76 billion. We know that it has been particularly tough for those businesses in Auckland and as we move to the new COVID protection framework we will ensure that we provide support to businesses through this transition.Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand reported that seasonally adjusted retail sales fell by 8.1 percent in the September quarter due to the Delta outbreak and higher alert levels. The decline in spending affected all categories other than groceries while Auckland experienced the largest fall by region. On an annual basis however retail sales rose 8.6 percent. ASB's economist said the fall was not as sharp as had been feared and it highlighted the New Zealand economy's resilience. Westpac's economist noted that while retail spending did take a knock in September the slowdown looks temporary. They pointed out that spending has recovered since then and that they expect it will firm heading into the Christmas period.Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the impact of the recent change in alert levels on retail spending?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Auckland retail sector experienced a boost in spending with the easing of restrictions at alert level 3 step 2. Kiwibank reported that the number of credit card transactions in Auckland rose 35 percent over the first five days at step 2 with the value of spending rising 62 percent. The BNZ reported that for the week ending Tuesday 16 November card spending rose 27 percent on the previous week which brings it 7 percent higher than pre-Delta levels. Economists say the lift we have seen in retail spending indicates that a solid rebound in activity will occur as the country moves into the COVID protection framework in the next few days.David Seymour: Has the Minister of Finance seen any reports about New Zealanders increasingly concerned about the cost of living in New Zealand; and if so what is he doing to get inflation under control?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Throughout my entire time in politics and in this Parliament I have seen people concerned about the increasing cost of living. On this side of the House we have continued initiatives throughout our period of time to support low-income New Zealanders particularly and I look forward to the member's support for any upcoming minimum wage increases.
COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. And I'll apologise to my colleague the Hon Louise Upston who actually had quite a lot to actually say no doubt—like most of us.It seems a little bit ironic me standing in this House to debate something in the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill because it is almost like Groundhog Day where we are actually dealing with certain things that I thought were apparently dealt with completely and utterly 100 percent securely last week. But we have new legislation which actually fixes something that we apparently passed last week.So I have a question for the Minister: does the Minister stand by his statement to the New Zealand Parliament during the committee stage of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) that and I quote The advice that the Government has had is that this provision isn't actually necessary because the existing provisions that are in place already make that clear. However we have heard the concerns from others that they would like to see that explicitly stated in the Act. That is the reason why we have agreed with the committee's recommendation to insert these additional provisions." These relate to my speaking in the House in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper 85 and my concerns regarding data protection and privacy concerns related to the bill that was actually passed last week.So I'd like to ask the Minister if he actually stands by his statement. If so why? If not why not? There are also a couple of other questions that I'd actually like to ask. In terms of that I note that the new legislation will amend the recently inserted section 34A of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 that was only just debated last week as I said Groundhog Day. In particular it amends subsection (1) to add the following further subsection as new subsection B and I quote "enforcing the Act or a COVID-19 order (including for the purposes of proceedings against a person for non-compliance)". Why does the Minister actually believe this new section is in fact needed when he said we didn't need to actually amend anything last week?Also did the Minister make a mistake when he informed the House that new section 34A of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) provision isn't actually necessary as he said last week? When the Minister stated during the committee stage of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) in this discussion of new section 34A that he wanted to "underscore the public's desire for clarity."Why is he now further confusing the public through additional amendments under urgency just one sitting week later? Does he believe that he made a mistake last week; if not why not?"
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you Madam Chair. It may assist members to know that I'll answer as best I can any questions on this bill but I also have my colleague the Hon Michael Wood who is also one of the Ministers named in this legislation and he is also available in the Chamber to answer questions on those provisions in the bill that relate to his portfolio as well.With regard to the last question that Mr Bishop raised—which is irrelevant I think—to the top of page 5 which is the COVID-19 vaccination exemption criteria this formalises something that the director-general has already been doing. Perhaps if I could deal with—actually maybe I should deal with an earlier question that he raised first which is why we have on pages 6 and 7 those provisions set out in new sections 11AA and 11AB and it does relate to some signalling by the courts I think it would be fair to say where in recent court cases they found that vaccination requirements were justified and the case of some challenges to those vaccination requirements but sent a reasonably strong hint I think to the Government that they would prefer to see those vaccination requirements mandated in primary legislation rather than under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act as it existed.So it was the courts' view—and I can't remember which of the judgments it was in off the top of my head but I can certainly recall reading it. There was a signal there from the courts that they thought it would be better if there was a specific provision in the Act that related to vaccination mandates rather than using the more general provisions of the Act which is what the orders have previously been made under. And therefore these amendments and the one that I mentioned about the vaccination exemption criteria formalise arrangements that have already been put in place using the more general provisions in the Act but make those more specific and make the legal footing for those more specific.