edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Boyack Rachel; Doocey MattRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I do just have a quick question relating to—Hon Member: Quick question".RACHEL BOYACK: —clause 3. And it will be a quick question. I just note of course that we are in urgency so the need to actually interrogate and ask questions is of vital importance so that we can actually have a strong—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That's true—so ask the question.RACHEL BOYACK: —understanding of the bill. I'm getting there. I want to come back to some questions I asked earlier actually because they do relate to the fact that clause 3 talks about amending the principle Act the Accident Compensation Act. I come back to the fact that we've got these two clauses sitting inside the Accident Compensation Act 2001: one is section 234 around ACC "may charge a reasonable fee to recover its costs of collecting any levy by instalments."'; and the second clause that is relevant is that the empowering provision provides that regulations may prescribe and then I quote "the matters in respect of which fees or charges … payable under this Act including any administration fee payable in respect of levies paid in instalments:" which is section 333(1)(b)(i).Stuart Smith: What's the question?RACHEL BOYACK: Just to members opposite sometimes you need to preface a question. But my question to the Minister for ACC is: did he consider whether amending the Act was the best process by which to go about making these changes? Colleagues have asked about regulations and we had questions on this earlier but I'm bringing them back into the debate because we didn't get a satisfactory answer did he consider testing this in the court? We have noted previously and we still haven't received that information about the legal advice that is redacted within the regulatory impact statement. We are in urgency we don't have an opportunity to solicit a departmental report or to receive advice in private from officials in a select committee process so I'm asking the Minister again just having gone through the sections of the Act that are to be amended whether there was any other option that he considered either through secondary legislation or whether he did look at getting a decision from a court and what was the advice that he received on that?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): In response to the several times I've been asked those questions about options and the court my answer stays the same. When I've been asked previously I've said that I believe there was no need to drag ACC through courts for technical change. Around the options I considered: to the extent that there was an uncertainty it was important to put it beyond reasonable doubt and levy payers are entitled to certainty of their obligations. Due to the uncertainty ACC and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment both agreed legislative change was required."
Belich Camilla; Doocey MattCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I do have a few questions in relation to clause 3 of the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill Principal Act". As you will see it "This [particular] Act amends the Accident Compensation Act".I have looked at the purpose of the Accident Compensation Act just in preparation for this contribution and I have a question for the Minister as to whether this particular bill—although I appreciate it deals with matters to do with the Accident Compensation Corporation and their ability to charge interest on instalment plans. I can't see when I look at the principal Act which is what we're discussing that this particular activity is envisaged by that Act. So what I wanted to know from the Minister is: did he receive advice about possibly having the same needed—I think on the Labour Party at least we agree that this does need to be done but whether he received advice on doing that by some other mechanism? Perhaps under a different Act which does deal with interest payments; which does deal with loans?For the Minister's benefit the aspect of the accident compensation scheme that I was looking at in terms of the primary piece of legislation which is the 2001 piece of legislation it looks primarily at injury prevention and rehabilitation of injured workers and entitlements following injuries. I know this is related—and I'm not saying that it isn't proximate—but what I want to know is: in the design of this legislation in amending this principal Act were other mechanisms looked at? I also wanted to ask the Minister whether in fact he looked at perhaps doing this another way through perhaps regulation instead of amending the principal Act—[Interruption] this is my question. That's my question and it's relevant to the clause that we're discussing.So I'd quite like to know firstly: is it the Minister's advice that it fits neatly within this Act? Was he looking at perhaps other ways to implement apart from an amendment to the principal piece of legislation? If he could just explain it. I mean I think one of the problems that we're having today is that perhaps it wasn't envisaged that the Accident Compensation Corporation would actually be doing these loans and therefore need to charge this interest. So my question really is: are we fitting the correct puzzle piece back into the correct puzzle with amending this primary piece of legislation?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd remind the member that section 266 of the Accident Compensation Act the purpose of ACC is actually to collect levies. I'm also mindful that by people not paying a lump sum then ACC is actually forgoing interest that it would have earned."
Jackson WillieHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I'll just acknowledge what the Minister was saying earlier with regards to guarantees obviously in funding. So I accept what she was saying with regards to projections but it is important for us to find out if the Government is going to support specific programmes. Because when I was employment Minister I picked up He Poutama Rangatahi which was actually a National Party initiative that was put on hold back around 2017. So I appreciate and I understand what the Minister's saying in terms of supporting the principle of obviously any programme that might make sure and ensure that young people are taken off the benefit. But we know as the previous Government that specific programmes were able to do that and so that's why we've asked the questions about Mana in Mahi. And I do want to ask the question about He Poutama Rangatahi that saw over 12000 young people engaged in the programme resulting in 77 percent of those young people—77 percent Minister—engaging in employment education or training.I know for a fact that that was a priority for the Minister in her time as Opposition always pushing that area in terms of employment education and training. So it's important to get on record what the Government's commitment is to the specific programme of He Poutama Rangatahi. Also I'm not quite sure if the Minister has answered the question I put forward earlier: does she support community-centric approaches—a community-centric approach like the Whakawātea te ara Poutama programme that targets young people with gang affiliations and criminal history? So I wanted to get on record the Minister's response to that.Also in our time in Government we brought back the very very popular Māori trade-training programme which has been a huge success for Māori particularly through the 1960s 70s—we had so many young Māori who took up the Māori trade-training programme. Again in our time as Government we brought that back and that saw 79 percent of those who participated in that programme gain positive employment outcomes. That's a very significant percentage; 85 percent retaining employment for at least six months. And we committed over $95 million for the fund which delivered 63 Māori-lead projects and will support over 4000 Māori across Aotearoa. Now again I appreciate the Minister can't talk too much about the budgets but will she commit to ensuring—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Willie Jackson is there a question in there? We're on the clock.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah will she commit to continuing these programmes which will continue the positive outcomes? That's the question. But the question is these specific programmes what I would like to get from the Minister is: will she continue with the support of these specific programmes? Thank you Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members our time with the Minister for Social Development and Employment has ended. The Minister for Education is now available for 45 minutes to respond to members' questions.
Andersen Ginny; Upston LouiseHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Speaker thank you. I just wanted to clarify: Te Aorerekura the national strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence has been a new thing for New Zealand over the last few years and has been working very well. In the action plan it stipulates six specific changes. I'm interested to know from the Minister whether she stands by the action plan and those six shifts that need to occur. And alongside of that those programmes in place in the community such as E Tū Whānau and Pasefika Proud that benefit directly from those six shifts—does she stand by and support this programme which has been in place and does she intend to continue the good work that has been occurring in communities to date?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'm happy to speak on the areas of my responsibility. I'm not the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence; that is another Minister's responsibility. But in terms of the two programmes that the member referred to we absolutely want to see emphasis where there is a family violence prevention initiative. Programmes like E Tū Whānau have been under way for many years and what we want to see is continued effort where there is prevention work occurring in communities that are suitable to the community's needs.
Andersen Ginny; Upston LouiseHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to ask a brief question in relation to the good work that the Ministry of Social Development has done in funding some of the youth programmes that we've seen. In particular the multi-agency teams in South Auckland have run programmes such as Kotahi te Whakaaro and also in West Auckland the West Auckland Multi-Disciplinary Cross Agency Team (MDCAT) where we're seeing really good outcomes from there. We've seen that more than 70 percent of children successfully completing those programmes are not re-referred or don't go on to be referred to those programmes. What I'm interested to know from the Minister is: given the success of these programmes what is her view as to the ongoing commitment to see these outcomes in our communities and the ongoing commitment to continue these programmes into the next financial year? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I don't have the data in front of me around the programmes that the member referred to. But if I go back to the comments I made in response to Ricardo Menéndez March's questions: absolutely we need to make sure that initiatives particularly for those on the young parent payment and the youth payment and jobseekers under the age of 25 are getting support in a way that responds best to their needs. That's what we need to ensure that we focus on so that we're able to create greater opportunities for them. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm just interested to know also in a similar vein with regard to the prevention of family and sexual violence: the Ministry of Social Development has over the past six years invested a substantial amount of money into different groups whether they be iwi organisations or women's refuges that have enabled on-the-ground investment into the prevention of family and sexual violence. That is underpinned by Te Aorerekura with the six shifts that are specified in that plan. I'm interested to know from the Minister about the ongoing commitment for programmes that have come under this such as E Tū Whānau and Pasefika Proud. What is the Minister's view as to the ongoing funding of those sexual violence and family violence programmes which have been working very effectively within communities?
Jackson Willie; Upston Louise; Tuiono TeanauHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Can I thank the Minister for her appearance today. I just have a couple of questions for the Minister in terms of Māori employment. I would just like to know if the Minister supports the community-centric approach like the Whakawātea te ara Poutama programme that targets young people rangatahi with gang affiliations and criminal histories. This programme was very successful when we were in Government and I would like to know is there ongoing support for that? We've got these gang members with criminal histories—it supports them into employment and training. Will she continue to ensure that funding for the programme will continue to support families moving forward?Also to the Minister will she commit to the ongoing funding for Mana in Mahi which has been successful in keeping people from long-term benefit dependency and also has been stated as a major priority for this Government? So just a couple of questions in that area to kick off in terms of the Māori employment area. Kia ora.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): So firstly because this is a debate on the annual review for the financial year 2022/23 it is to the year 30 June 2023 so I won't be answering any questions that take a forward view or indicate what future funding might look like.What I can say of the time in review is that Mana in Mahi was a significant investment to support Māori into employment to ensure that more people were connected with ongoing training opportunities. Of course what we do want to continue to see—given that in the time in review we unfortunately did see an explosion of the jobseeker benefits we want to see programmes that are getting outcomes to support people into employment.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before we continue I've had my attention drawn to Speaker's ruling 147/2. It deals with future-focused questions for annual reviews. The purpose of this procedure is to examine the performance of an organisation not to ask speculative questions that are unrelated to its performance administration or expenditure so let's be clear about that.However there would be value in greater scrutiny of organisations' progress against their strategic intentions and what plans and intentions they have for further progress. So bearing that in mind if you're going to ask questions that are future-focused they must be about the progress of strategic intentions within the scope of the annual review.
Tuiono TeanauANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 31 May on the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported on by select committees.There are seven hours and 33 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has two hours and 40 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has two hours and 12 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 54 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 49 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 37 minutes remaining. Te Pāti Māori has 27 minutes remaining.Standing Orders 356(2) and (3) have been set aside so that there will be no sector-specific debates; instead specific Ministers will be available each day to respond to specific portfolios. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Minister of Education and the Minister of Transport will be available today to respond to members' questions.Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister's portfolios. These speeches should be a non-political report back to the committee from the select committee. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is here first for 45 minutes to respond to members' questions.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 2 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well 30 May has been the gift that's just kept on giving. It's actually given to a lot of other New Zealanders as well which is great. This bill is about a simple technical fix and it's as simple as that. I commend it to the House.
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): I'm taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the second reading of the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill. We really want to see that ACC is able to offer this instalment option for stakeholders—for those who are not able to pay their levy as one amount on an annual basis. With this instalment option those people who have cash-flow issues especially small businesses that the Green member talked about—they can take advantage of it. We really want to see that small businesses are able to afford it and this option is available to them but on the other hand we want to make sure that this is not unnecessarily costing ACC because we want to see that ACC is able to provide the accident compensation services that they provide. So that balance is needed.I do understand the retrospective argument that is coming from that side of the House but in this case we can clearly see that this is not to provide advantage to any one particular individual and in that regard it is quite safe. This has been happening for the last 20 years and I really believe and the ACT Party really believes that this needs to be validated. That's why the ACT Party supports this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Sitting here this evening you understand two things: firstly why the last Government got nothing done because they take so long to get to the point and secondly that this bill is actually pretty simple and if we got to the point we would get it done and be able to focus on the next thing and that is that we just need to commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): A five-minute call—the Hon Jenny Salesa.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I am slightly confused by the previous member Kahurangi Carter's contribution as to whether they do or don't in fact support this bill. However what I am certain of is that I do support this bill and with that I commend this bill to the House.
Unkovich Tanya; Tuiono TeanauTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Look it's important that current legislation is solid and sound and we have seen that there is a need for a technical change to avoid any potential legal challenges on ACC's current practice. So given that New Zealand First will support the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.
Doocey MattSecond ReadingHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): I move That the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill does two things—for the Green Party—first it amends the Accident Compensation Act to explicitly allow for ACC's charging of debit interest on instalment payments for levies payable to the work account. Secondly it validates the past use and current charging of debit interest on payments of levies by instalments to protect ACC from legal challenge to this practice.Charging debit interest on payments of levies by instalments is a prudent thing to do. ACC forgoes any interest it would have earned from investing the funds when it allows businesses to pay that way. It would effectively be a cost to ACC if it could not charge debit interest.From the point of view of businesses and self-employed levy payers being able to pay levies in instalments is a valuable option. That is especially true for those that may otherwise struggle to pay their levy invoice in a single payment on the due date. If the option did not exist these businesses may have to access alternative sources of borrowing that would cost them more or be unable to pay their levies at all. Debit interest also ensures fairness between levy payers. With it businesses paying their levies in a single payment on the due date may be subsidising businesses paying in instalments. We need to ensure that businesses continue to have access to this instalment plan option when they need to. Charging debit interest is a fair and prudent way to do that. The amendment bill will provide clarity that ACC can charge this debit interest lawfully. The initial rate of debit interest on instalment plans set in the amendment bill would be at the current rate of 2.73 percent for 10-month plans and 0 percent for six- and three-months plans. That means a smooth transition where nothing will change for businesses as the bill comes into force. The rate then could be varied through amendments to regulations as necessary which would only happen after public consultation on the matter. Regulations would also set out under which circumstances debit interest charges could be waived.The bill will also retrospectively validate the historic and current charging of debit interest. Validating the practice of charging debit interest in this way avoids the risk of ACC being legally challenged on its charging of debit interest on instalment plans and the money charged over the last 20 or more years needing to be refunded. This bill is validating something that was understood by ACC to be unlawful and is a reasonable practice that ensures neither levy payers paying on the due date nor ACC are disadvantaged by the offering of instalment plans. But it's open to legal challenge because the Government considers that charging interest is not clearly authorised by the Act.Everyone—ACC and levy payers—will benefit from this issue being clarified in the amendment bill. I commend this bill to the House.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): This bill is a common-sense bill and there is plenty of common sense on this side of the House so I commend it.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to raise that quite unusually in the House tonight I've seen two members in the Chamber using their phones—the phone function on their mobile phones not just looking at their phones which we know happens quite often. I'd just to draw your attention to Speaker's ruling 19/4—Hon Matt Doocey: Have you seen your colleague?CAMILLA BELICH: I can't actually see—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member will finish her point of order.CAMILLA BELICH: It's the phone function Mr Doocey and points of order additionally under the Standing Orders are to be heard in silence as I understand.Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order I didn't know we had class monitors in the House. I think it's getting a bit extreme doing that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That's enough of that.Hon Member: Cell phone ban!ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Calm down. Speaker's ruling 19/3: The telephones in the Chamber should be used rarely and not so as to interrupt the business of the House." And Speaker's ruling 19/4: "Members do not use the phone function of cellphones when the House is sitting. There are a number of members who have phones at their desks for particular purposes—senior members and whips—and my ruling is that members can use those phones but not cellphones while the House is sitting." So please put your phones away members."
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I have particular interest in this bill and therefore I commend it to the House.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look this is a quite simple administrative change. It's something that we very much support—good tidying-up measure—and thank the Minister for ACC for his work getting this done. So with that I commend this bill to the House.
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Mr Speaker thank you. Look this ACC invoice arrives and it's one of those invoices that many business owners forget about and they go Oh geez! I've spent all my money." So it is a very good thing to be able to offer them instalments. All this bill does is it just changes a few technical things to ensure that the legislation is validated so of course it's common sense. We're a party of common sense and of course New Zealand First will support this bill."
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I am taking this call to support the first reading of the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill.First I would like to address some of the points that were made by the Green member Lawrence Xu-Nan. This bill is not about including or excluding any injuries. This bill is about simply fixing something that ACC has been doing for a number of years—around 20 years. We want through this bill to validate that because at the moment we know that what ACC has been doing is not covered in any legislation.We know as the member also acknowledged that our accident compensation scheme works really well. It's quite unique and it is the envy of many many countries around the world. We want to make sure that it's able to deliver for businesses for its stakeholders and for that we need to make sure that it is complying legally as well. This is about making sure that people are still able to opt for the instalment option and in the instalment option ACC is able to decide if they want to include the interest in the instalment or not. So we want to give authority to ACC to decide that.The Minister the Hon Matt Doocey has already described what this bill is about so I won't go into a whole description of this bill. This is a bill that we really need. This should pass under urgency. It's a very important bill. That's why the ACT Party is supporting this bill. Thank you.
VoteSPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: Sorry a small oversight on my part. So we've voted on taking the vote on the motion but we voted on the motion. The question is That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be reported to the House by 18 July 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196 and that the committee's powers be extended under Standing Order 295(1)(b) to consider out-of-scope amendments set out on Amendment Paper No 41 in the name of the Hon Simeon Brown. A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 18 July 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): I move That debate on this question now close.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.Camilla Belich: Madam Speaker can we speak to this part?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. As the member for Kaikōura which includes the aquaculture centre of New Zealand and the Marlborough Sounds this will be very welcome. It is a practical solution to an issue that needs to be addressed. And it will be very welcome and it will be great for New Zealand. I proudly commend it to the House.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I support this bill because it helps drive productivity and increase the value of our exports and strengthen our economy. So I commend this bill to the House.
Anderson MilesMILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): It's a sensible bill and I commend it to the House.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I won't apologise for the brevity of my remarks but I just want to highlight a couple of key points of the left—our colleagues on the right of us but on the left of us you might say—constantly lamenting about the wellbeing of the working class. This is an industry worth $700 million—goodness gracious me! How would we not want to support them. The members of that side of the House—I point out frequently—have something called that I would call a grievance culture that somehow a success in an industry is a bad thing. This is nonsense—$700 million that we would not want to consent with some certainty some productivity and investment and by virtue I say to that side of the House outcomes. Outcomes for the working class that you always extol that you care about. This is a great bill. I absolutely support it and we the ACT Party support the National-ACT coalition Government putting it through. I comment it to the House.
Cameron Mark; Brownlee Gerry; McAnulty KieranMARK CAMERON (ACT): I move That debate on this question now close.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to—Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. I'm not trying to be trivial here but the Standing Orders are very clear that unless the closure motion is said exactly right it cannot be accepted. Unfortunately that was not said as is prescribed under the Standing Orders.SPEAKER: I'll just get that checked. Look I've just checked with the Clerk who has confirmed that the correct wording was used.
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well with respect sir I don't think you heard but I was seeking the point of order before he was given the call. So it's not as a response to that; I was seeking it beforehand. SPEAKER: Oh OK.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: So it's come to our attention that the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that has been provided may not actually be the correct regulatory impact statement. The title on the RIS does not match the bill and that I think speaks to the confusion that has been on display throughout the discussion of this. But the substance of my point of order is that Speaker's ruling 115/3 is very clear that if the Minister moving the motion does not provide a reason for this instruction then the House should have a broader opportunity to raise its concerns. That same Speaker's ruling also says that in an instance like we have had today where a Minister omits to provide justification then another Minister can do so. We have had one call from the Government; it did not provide a reason for the instruction. It did not provide a reason for particularly the unusual around the out of scope amendments. All we really require to understand this is a reason and the Hon Shane Jones did not provide a reason. He provided a response to the concerns that we're raising but not to the instruction. Now sir like I said I did seek the point of order. It was before you gave the call to a Government member. This is not in response to their attempt for a closure but I would state that this Speaker's ruling indicates that given the amount of interest in this and the concern around it I would put it that the House deserves further time on this discussion. SPEAKER: Well there is of course the matter of the interest to the House. With all due respect there has been a repeating of pretty much the same sort of objections to the 18 July early report back from across the speakers so far. I'll hear from Arena Williams.
Mooney Joseph; Brownlee GerryJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move That debate on this question now close. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order sir. SPEAKER: A point of order—well OK. There's a question here but I'll take the point of order first.
Stanford EricaHon ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to take a very quick call. Just for the clarification of the House I just want to speak to the Amendment Paper alongside the bill. The Amendment Paper proposes interim changes to the Water Services Act. The amendment would mean that the Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management would not apply when Taumata Arowai sets wastewater standards. Now I hope this clarifies things for the House.
Jones Shane; Brownlee GerryHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): I'll just take a short call and apply some air freshener after that most recent contribution. Can we direct our attention to what actually is written down. It makes reference to some bog-standard Standing Orders—nothing at all different. It also identifies Amendment Paper 41 which we have already ruled upon. [Interruption] No more aerating from that side of the House. What we've proposed through Simeon Brown handing it on to my colleague has turned into unnecessary ventilation. Mr Speaker I plead with you to bring us back to the essence of what is in front of us because there's no new material that's being served up.SPEAKER: Well that is certainly the case following that speech as well so we are we are coming to the end of this discussion. I'll hear from Ingrid Leary.
Parker David; Brownlee GerryHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take another point of order. It is the duty of all members of this House to assist the Chair. I heard in the debate that this was an instruction of the House to allow the select committee to consider out-of-scope amendments generally. I have now read the motion—the motion was dropped on us under urgency—and I see and that is how I described it in my earlier points of order that it was instruction to consider out-of-scope amendments. Actually what is proposed in the motion is to consider the out-of-scope amendment that has just been discussed in the House which is a specific one here rather than a general one. I accept sir that on that basis my earlier submissions to you were incorrect because they were on the false assumption that it was a general abrogation of the rule as to scope. I would though—because I think your ruling did purport to say that the House is always the master of its destiny and even without leave could by majority allow a select committee in a motion to consider all out-of-scope amendments not just ones listed like this and in the precedent you cited. With all due respect sir that's not a ruling that you need to make today because it's not the issue that is before you. The issue is where you have narrow-scope amendment such as this in a Supplementary Order Paper put to the select committee; I accept that is within the remit of this House and does not override the Standing Orders and I would encourage you not to leave on the record a more general ruling that you can through a decision in the House on the floor as this was happening have a more general one. So I apologise for my earlier mistaken understanding that this was a general referral and I think that the general referral would be outside of the Standing Orders but I accept that this one is within because it goes to the specific as I now discovered.SPEAKER: Can I just acknowledge the contribution there by the Hon David Parker. I know that he does take the procedure of the House very seriously and I think that is a safety in our democracy. If there was any misunderstanding here I apologise to him also but I was well aware that the statement that is right in front of me was for that paper No. 41 and I think that may have caused some confusion in some of our conversation earlier. It's not my intention to rule that there is capacity for the House to generally allow out-of-scope on any old bill any old time". That would be quite unparliamentary.I do think that the situation might not have arisen had there been a little more explanation of this at the time that the motion was moved but time moves on. We are where we are."
McAnulty Kieran; Brownlee GerryHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker—a new point of order. That is a comment that you have made now on a number of occasions in response to a range of points of order now. You've referred to the instruction having been voted on by the House; it has not. So for you sir in response to these serious and genuine points of order to say that the instruction has been voted on by the House the instruction stands the decision of the House stands my concern is that—if indeed that were the case fine. But it isn't thus why we are raising these points of order. The motion has been made but we are currently in the debate. It hasn't been voted on. This is the appropriate time to raise these concerns. SPEAKER: Yeah no—look you're quite right. I do apologise for that. The vote is coming up. But the fact that there is a vote is also the answer to the suggestion that Standing Order 300 is coming into play. All members will have a say on this matter.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have a new point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you. My next point of order is that Standing Order 300(1) says Except as otherwise provided in this Standing Order a select committee may recommend only amendments that are relevant—SPEAKER: Sorry can I just ask you again what—Standing Orders or—Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I'm reading Standing Orders yep. Standing Order 300(1) says "Except as otherwise provided in this Standing Order a select committee may recommend only amendments that are relevant to the subject matter of the bill"—that's scope—"are consistent with the principles and objects of the bill"—that is scope—"and otherwise conform to the Standing Orders and the practices of the House" which go to scope. Unless it can fall within one of the exceptions that are listed there which include—as the Hon Duncan Webb has said—orders of the Business Committee I can't see how anyone has authority to override the Standing Orders. We could change Standing Orders through an Interim Order—if the Government wants to do this through a Sessional Order it could change Standing Orders but it hasn't done. I would suggest that this is unprecedented and particularly under urgency I would ask you to protect the privileges of this House and not to change Standing Orders on the hoof.SPEAKER: We're not going to go too much longer with this. I have actually been pretty firm in what my thoughts are so you're now persuading me against that. I'll come back with some more to say. In the meantime we'll hear from the Hon Kieran McAnulty."
Webb Duncan; Brownlee GerryHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I'm aware of Standing Order 298 which talks about the instruction to the select committee but it gives only a general statement of any special powers or instructions and they're the kind of things that the first part of the motion refers to. In terms of the scope of the select committee consideration that's actually set out in Standing Order 300 and it does set out in Standing Order 300(2) the process for extending scope—the Business Committee may determine that a select committee's powers are to be extended or restricted in respect of recommendations or amendments to a bill.The point of that of course is the strong convention that the Business Committee only does things my near-unanimity or overall consensus rather than by the majority of the Government. So taking that it would seem to me that had the Minister wanted an extension of scope he should have come to the Business Committee as another member of this House did and seek an instruction from the Business Committee accordingly.SPEAKER: That would be correct if in fact the Business Committee held more authority than the floor of the Parliament itself and it doesn't. This instruction was moved by the Parliament itself.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well I must say I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister comes to the House and wants to have a carte blanche from this House to throw extras in in out of scope amendments. It's basically saying  It's being done on the hoof and I don't know what but I'll probably want to throw something else in."—select committee's do do that and that's fine; but something else not captured by the original framing of the bill.Ingrid Leary: Kitchen sink.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That's absolutely right Ingrid Leary it is the kitchen sink. What it shows—this is all within six weeks.Now if the Minister has got—and the Minister does get a chance to reply—amendments that he's working on then he should preface them he should tell us what they are. Because it's only appropriate that the House is given some idea of exactly what he's after. What this really shows is lazy and irresponsible work by this Minister.Hon Shane Jones: Efficiency! Efficiency!Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There's clearly a number of lazy irresponsible and loud Ministers in this House. Now the fact of the matter is that the Minister doesn't know yet but what he does know is that he's rushed it so much that his parliamentary counsels and advisers are going to come to him and say "Oops we should have included this." Or perhaps even worse—because "out of scope" captures pretty much anything—it could be something entirely unrelated not just outside of the clear confines of this legislation but something entirely outside. Might want to pick up something—I don't know—under the Resource Management Act. Might want to pick up something in the commerce portfolio—his old portfolio. Might want to pick up something in the justice portfolio. That's the permission he's asking.So I would suggest to the Minister that he at least amend his motion or at least give us an assurance from the floor of this House that these out of scope amendments will be directly related to the purposes of the legislation he's tabled in the House in this urgent session. Because the permission he's asking for—and this is the kind of thing that any good legislator would do. I'd be surprised if he's got the support of all of his colleagues across his chaotic coalition—or "coalalition" as our Green friends call it which is quite nice—because this is really showing just poor quality.Time and again throughout this period of urgency I've alluded to the fact that this Government in its Budget is spending tens of millions of dollars on a ministry of regulation to try and do good lawmaking. Then time and again we've got thrown in our face terrible lawmaking terrible process. So I'm asking the Minister to give us some indication some guidance as to exactly what those out of scope amendments will be and then I'll come back and address some of the other matters."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.SPEAKER: The question is that the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary—Celia Wade-Brown: Mr Speaker I wish to speak to the referral motion.SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? Celia Wade-Brown: Apologies Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Don't interrupt quite like that. We'll just procedurally set ourselves again and I'll say That the question is that the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to. Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): Keep it local deliver water services get it done do it well. I fully support this bill and seeing local water done well.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look I support this bill because Hawke's Bay—where I'm from—has a plan. The Hastings District Council Napier City Council Central Hawke's Bay Council and Wairoa District Council have a plan and are very supportive of Local Water Done Well. So I absolutely commend this bill to the House; it is about local democracy.