edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Court Simon; Watts Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON COURT (ACT): Does the Minister agree with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development which states on its website The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act enables infrastructure projects to be delivered free of local authorities' financing constraints or from charging high upfront costs to developers." The new model—which this Labour Government passed into law—enables special purpose vehicles to fund infrastructure projects that support housing and urban development that are free of local government funding constraints. Minister?SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you. And I appreciate the Minister—I don't think the Minister answered my question. It was quite simple and I'll ask him to clarify. Are the changes that are proposed in regards to the changes that are on the table will that mean that all relevant stakeholders including private property owners and industry users can submit an input into the Te Mana o te Wai statements? Because what the Minister said in response to the question was that there was going to be another process. So I want clear assurance that actually all stakeholders will be able to write Te Mana o te Wai statements because if that is not the case then it is the fact that only Māori will be able to write these statements and these statements impact all aspects of land and water across this country. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you to the member—it's a fair enough question. I was being really deliberate with my language because this is a decision for Cabinet. So I've indicated that it's my intention for other users to be able to submit their priorities in terms of water services to the regional representative group but I don't want to go beyond that. So I want to make sure that users within each district—within each entity—are able to submit their priorities for the consideration of the regional representative group. That's all I can say at the moment I'm afraid.In regard to Simon Court's comments: yes I'm aware that special purpose vehicles have a role to play but that wasn't the question that I addressed. The question was around balance sheet separation which I did indeed answer. The member is incorrect in my view that a special purpose vehicle will solve the issue of up to $185 billion facing this country which without full overall balance sheet separation would fall to ratepayers at a cost that they simply couldn't afford."
Watts Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Minister for coming back on those questions. I want to turn to the aspect within the legislation of the Water Services Entities Act and particularly around the Te Mana o te Wai statements which are prescribed in the legislation in Part 4 of that Act. My question is in regards to in particular the Te Mana o te Wai statements and what if any changes will be made as a result of the announced reset of this legislation. I think it would be fair to say that many New Zealanders out there probably don't necessarily understand much about what these Te Mana o te Wai statements do or ignore the scope of these services. But in simple effect these statements basically apply to all aspects of land and as it's currently drafted within that legislation the only party that can have input into that statement is Māori.And you will recall in the committee of the whole stage of that bill that I actually put a Supplementary Order Paper up in regards to broadening out the people or the individuals that could input into those statements because they affect aspects of all land including private property that they should not be simply restricted to one group. So the question is: what are the changes in regards to that? Will you assure and commit to New Zealanders that all relevant stakeholders including private property owners and industry users can submit on these statements? And what will you do to ensure that there is no disproportionate influences due to the Te Mana o te Wai statements? Because it is fair to say that there is a degree of concern out there in regards to the way in which these are currently drafted in regards to constitutional arrangements. The fact that only Māori are able to write Te Mana o te Wai statements is not even co-governance—it is beyond that. So that assurance in regards to those statements would be appreciated.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair. So I've already made an assurance publicly that we're going to make some changes. And to sit alongside Te Mana o te Wai statements will be priority statements from recognised users within a catchment. They might be a rural catchment group for example. It's really important that their priorities go to the regional representative group so that the broader strategy the broader priorities of the regions within the entities take it into consideration when the independently operational decisions are made by the board.
Watts Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Minister I want to get into some of the details. You've just talked about costs and I won't disagree with you that there are considerable costs in regards to the reform programme that you've undertaken. But in particular the one area that is of interest is in regards to the information services technology (IST) or technology costs in the background in terms of reforming the IT systems across the network into the new entities and you'll be familiar that I've asked you on a number of occasions through written parliamentary questions and I've also requested information from the Department of Internal Affairs over the IST costs for the three waters programme through Official Information Act requests. All access to information has been blocked to date in regards to requests for transparency of that information and the scale of information and my question is quite simple: how much has the Government spent on IST transitioning for three waters? If you're not willing to articulate how much then I want to understand what is the reason for withholding this information because it was nearly a year ago when officials indicated that the quantum of that expenditure could be in the region of half a billion dollars proceeding up to exceed over a billion dollars. This is significant taxpayer money that potentially is being spent or incurred and no one—you know we're not arguing around the justification but actually the transparency around the scale of expenditure is significant and is of public interest. I'm also interested in regards to whether the contract for the new IST systems that will support the new 10 entities has been given yet and whether the Minister will confirm to the committee that any contracts in this space will be subject to an appropriate open and transparent tendering and procurement process. That assurance is important because of the scale of potential spend in this area. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the member for the question. It's my intention to proactively release that information once commercial negotiations are complete. So as soon as that's done we'll be getting that out. To the member's previous question—which I didn't answer before because we were looking for the details—yes we have calculated principal and interest and it does not change our results.
Court Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Is the Minister aware that PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) states that special purpose vehicles are intended to hold assets off the balance sheet of an entity—balance sheet separation—and that existing legislation the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act already allows for special purpose vehicles to hold assets to raise the funds to establish a financing model which includes a revenue model which could be sending people a water bill or with their local council establishing a bylaw to apply targeted rates on property say to pay for stormwater infrastructure upgrades like they do in Auckland and that these are all off-balance-sheet facilities? And does the Minister accept it's possible to achieve balance sheet separation to access debt at reasonable rates to increase the pool of funds available for infrastructure without having to go through all of the machinations and subject New Zealand to the most complex form of governance involving 50:50 mana whenua allocation of seats on regional representative groups creating two levels of governance. None of this is necessary Minister. Do you accept what PwC say—a special purpose vehicle creates an off-balance-sheet way of funding and financing infrastructure and that none of this is necessary Minister?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair. A special purpose vehicle will still be seen as part of the council's balance sheet. It may be separate to the council just like a council-controlled organisation (CCO) but it's still attached to the council's balance sheet. And the issue here is that ratepayers cannot afford to pay for the work that is required if they do so through each individual council. They can't afford to do it if councils band together with a CCO; we've seen that in the Wellington region already. And they can't do it if they share services because the scale of the costs that is required to be covered cannot be met alone. There are many creative ways in which you can raise funds for this but it comes down to the cost and individually in the status quo we have 67 councils who are either at their debt cap already or if they are not their community can't afford to pay higher rates. Whether they raise the funds on their current balance sheet or through a separate mechanism if they're doing it by themselves or doing it without achieving overall balance sheet separation it will be unaffordable for ratepayers. We're fronting up to this. That is a fact. We can't get around it. A voluntary CCO proposal will not work; nor will a special purpose vehicle.
Watts Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. I acknowledge the Minister in the chair. I also acknowledge the work that the Minister of Local Government has undertaken in regards to supporting our communities as a result of the disasters that we have faced since the beginning of this year and I know that that work has been considered. I also acknowledge the promotion to acting Hawke's Bay lead Minister for Cyclone Recovery following the exit stage right—or maybe stage left—of Meka Whaitiri today.Minister I want to talk around three waters firstly because I think that is as you know probably one of the most significant reform aspects that your portfolio has been covering of date. My questions are as following—and I've got a number of series of questions; I'll just fire those through and I appreciate if we can engage in some back and forth in terms of those questions.My first question is in regards to the time line and expectations by you around when you expect that that legislation that will be required in order to enact your reset of three waters will be tabled in the House. You've previously stated that the law will be in place before the election and obviously that's less than six months away. So what I am seeking your confirmation on is: is that actually that that bill won't receive the full six-month select committee consideration? If that is the case I'm then seeking your overview in terms of how you justify that that reduced period of select committee consideration is appropriate considering what is fair to say a critical opportunity for the public to have that say in regards to changing that legislation.I think what's also relevant in regards to that process around the new legislation is that we know the debacle that we went through in regards to the process of trying to ram through the three waters legislation previously and the public pressure and the constitutional crisis around the enactment provisions. So again the use of urgency for such legislation passing would be useful.The second element of questioning is in regards to the councils' support for your new reset three waters proposal. I'd be interested to know if you've got any councils that now support the proposal that previously opposed it. Quite simply if you could just name one single council that would be appreciated and if not any reasons on why you don't believe that has changed the view.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you very much. We stand by the commitment that we made to complete this by the election. However the specific details that the member's asking for is yet to be decided by Cabinet. So I can reiterate our commitment to get it done by the election but I can't actually answer those questions yet.In regards to councils that have previously not supported the reform as proposed but subsequent to changes have now supported you can count the Hawke's Bay region and Tairāwhiti region as examples and there are many others around the country also.
Annual Review Debate — Environment
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Is the Minister going to better resource the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that they can do chemical assessments and reassessments far more quickly than they are given that we were told that they can only do one or two major ones every 18 months?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): We have changed the law to enable them to have regard to information and decisions from trusted overseas regulators which will assist in that process.
Parker David; Salesa JennyHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. In terms of the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment about it being difficult to see the big picture with environmental spending the planning is fractured the spending is hard to account for—has the Minister made any suggestions to the Ministry for the Environment about how they could improve transparency or to Treasury in his associate finance Minister role so that we can get a better picture and better scrutinise whether Government investment in the environment is delivering really good outcomes?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Government will be responding to the parliamentary commissioner's recommendations as we do to all of his reports and that is in process. In respect of the fact that you do separately have policy and on-the-ground work done by more than one ministry—like the Ministry for Primary Industries which is very important in some of this stuff—there will always be some separation but it's always desirable that we report these things together as we have done through Jobs for Nature.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We have less than a minute left. I call on the Hon Scott Simpson.
Bishop Chris; Parker DavidCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Two questions for the Minister. The first is in relation to the housing supply Act medium density residential zone law which the Minister has written to the Auckland Council about giving the council an extra year to comply with the law. My question is why did he not consult with other political parties in relation to that?My second question is in relation the Resource Management Act bills that he's just been talking about. Is he concerned about the submissions from groups like Contact Energy Wind Energy Association—in fact all of the major electricity generators who have made the point to varying degrees of intensity that it will make it harder to build the new renewable generation that we need in this country to achieve our decarbonisation goals?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the first point I'm sorry if offence was taken that we didn't consult with the National Party before agreeing a one-year extension for some of the intensity work in Auckland. From our point of view that was a justified request on the part of the council post the Cyclone Gabrielle events which disclosed a need for some more hazard planning in Auckland which we thought was proper to allow them time to do particularly because they are actually dealing with those issues as we speak but perhaps I should have contacted the member before I did that. To be honest I didn't think of doing so. I didn't think to do so and then dismiss the idea; I actually didn't think of doing so so I apologise to the member for that.In respect of the second issue—just remind me with a word.Chris Bishop: Contact.Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh Contact Energy. Yes well we're updating the national guidance in respect of the consenting of new generation at the moment under the Resource Management Act. That will make it easier to consent community-scale wind. It will also make it easier to avoid accusations that everything's outstanding in an area from a landscape point of view and therefore windfarms should be in another region when everyone needs to do their bit. That will improve things and that will transition into the National Planning Framework in the new system.The other criticism that was made by generators was that we were making it clear that you could get a long-term renewal of an existing hydro consent for the five main big schemes which accounts for 80 percent of New Zealand's hydroelectricity in the country but we weren't doing the same for smaller schemes. That criticism is being considered by the select committee and may be fair but I'll wait to see the select committee recommendation on that point.
Bishop Chris; Parker DavidCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thanks very much Madam Chair; thanks to the Minister for the Environment for his engagement. I wonder if he could reflect on the comments of the Chief Justice in relation to the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill; that the judiciary is prepared for extensive litigation following the passage of the bills and if the Government's concerned about that what extra resources they're planning in order to cope with that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There will always be some litigation following a change in legislation. It's actually inevitable unless you don't change the system and everyone agreed the system needed to be changed; we are changing it.We are endeavouring to minimise some unnecessary change. For example it took many decades for the country to agree that the Resource Management Act should work through a hierarchy of the Act then national direction then provisions of plans which collectively reduce uncertainty if drafted well and leave less uncertainty at the consent decision-making point. That principle is carried forward. I know that the Environment Committee is engaged on that issue in particular because it's a very important issue.The main point of the submission from the Chief Justice was actually a concern that as drafted in the form of the bill that went to select committee it implied that the Environment Court has itself Treaty obligations as opposed to the obligation to implement legislation that includes a Treaty clause. That's something that probably should have been picked up in the Resource Management Act as well because the Resource Management Act as with the new legislation is the legislation that constitutes the Environment Court. So that's an issue that the select committee is paying attention to as am I because we don't want to be improperly conferring Treaty obligations upon the courts as opposed to the courts having the duty to apply legislation which includes scrutiny of whether the people who are making decisions under that like councils are giving effect to the legal provisions in that relating to Treaty issues.
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Minister. I wanted to ask just by way of a supplementary whether at some further point in this debate he might give us some confidence or not as to whether he thinks that his landmark resource management reforms will actually pass during the term of this current Parliament or not. But I want to turn now to issues relating to waste and in particular the waste levy increase. At select committee during financial review we heard that the waste levy revenue is going to significantly increase and that's obvious by the changes that this Government has made. But what we also heard was that the ministry said that they had been preparing to invest the increased revenue from the levy effectively. So what I'd like to know from the Minister is what is his plan from a policy point of view about the increased levy? Where are the dollars going to go; does he have any plan to change the distribution formula for the waste levy which is currently a 50:50 split with territorial authorities; and if he doesn't have any plans to change that why not? In particular I'm keen to know in response to the comment that the ministry officials made at select committee—and I quote from the report. It says that it can be a challenge to decide where to invest the ministry's efforts in regards to waste. I'm interested to know what initiatives and plans he has to invest that new revenue and whether it will conflict or not with initiatives already taking place in the private sector—potentially taken up by territorial authorities that may see that they want to use some of that funding to embark upon their own missions. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of resource management reform it remains our intention to pass the legislation before the election and to make substantial progress on the first version of the national planning framework which is the next layer of instrument. In respect of the waste levy we're not proposing to change the 50:50 split between councils and central government. That would be very counter-productive and you would find the consensus that we have around waste issues currently in the country would be put at risk. In respect of the investment plan that we have for the Government's share of that revenue that is published some of the enabling infrastructure investments that are made possible by the increased waste levy include very sophisticated equipment. I was recently at the opening of a private sector investment that had been supported by the Waste Minimisation Fund which takes a very large quantity of the computer screens and TV screens that go to waste every year and literally puts them through a machine that chops them into little pieces 2 or 3 centimetres long. Optical sorters take those waste streams on a conveyor belt using air and sorting them into the different grades of plastic and glass and separating those different plastics into valuable waste streams that can then be recycled. That piece of kit I think from memory was around a million dollars. We've only got one in the country and we wouldn't have it but for the Waste Minimisation Fund.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I thank the chair of the Environment Committee the Hon Eugenie Sage for her introduction and the Hon Scott Simpson who just took his seat.Job numbers at the Ministry for the Environment peak later this year or next year and they thereafter decline after we have gone through the peak of the big reform projects that we have got under way the largest of which is resource management reform. Resource management legislation is of course cornerstone legislation for the country. Decades of concern that the resource management system hasn't worked properly—concerns have been both that it hasn't adequately protected the environment as evidenced by the very significant decline in water quality in recent decades increasing climate change and emissions and other environmental problems and on the development side house prices that have gone through the roof in part because overly restrictive land markets have decreased the number of building opportunities for people to build a new home. That's driven up effective house prices not just for the new house that's built but for all of the second-hand houses sold in New Zealand.There were reviews by the Waitangi Tribunal the Productivity Commission and a trio being the Northern Environmental Management Agency—it was actually four—the Property Council Infrastructure New Zealand and the Environmental Defence Society. They did a report then some other reports then a report from the Randerson panel contributions from Local Government New Zealand—everyone agreed that the Resource Management Act was past its use by date and that further tinkering wasn't going to fix it. A big reform project—the select committee is in the middle of the consideration of that legislation. Indeed they've done most of the work already and I thank them for that. Enormous hours have been put in hearing submissions.On the development side the cost of consenting infrastructure in New Zealand has been 5.5 percent of project cost compared with benchmarked comparisons in Europe done by the Infrastructure Commission Te Waihanga where the cost there ranges between 0.5 and 5 percent of project cost. So New Zealand costs have been outside the most extreme of the range in Europe and we're addressing all of those issues. It is a big project and there will be hundreds of millions of dollars saved by users of the resource management system in the future as well as better outcomes that will save New Zealanders over time billions and billions of dollars in unnecessary housing costs. We're going to save hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure consenting costs and we're also going to have better environmental outcomes as well.I won't speak any longer at the moment because I know the member has got other questions but the other big projects include Jobs for Nature where for example Ministry for the Environment projects have already seen 869000 hours of work planting riparian margins and doing other good work that supports the efforts to improve water quality.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to in my opening comments thank the Environment Committee chair the Hon Eugenie Sage for her I think very comprehensive overview of the financial review hearing that we had in relation to the Ministry for the Environment and other agencies. I've got a series of questions and I'll go through them in sort of short bursts if I might and hopefully get responses from the Minister in the chair as we go.I want to pick up on a comment that the select committee chair made in reference to staff numbers and the percentage of the ministry's budget that is allocated to staff. It came very close to a hundred million dollars—nearly 60 percent of the ministry's total funding allocation went on staff; it was $99.9 million. So that's a serious lump of money in anyone's books. But for that we've seen a doubling—in fact more than a doubling—of staff numbers within the ministry in the last four years. It has gone in excess of 800 staff members. The question I really have for the Minister is: notwithstanding the work that the ministry is undertaking from a policy development point of view I really want to know whether the Minister feels that they've been able to produce any tangible outcomes in a way that has meaningfully benefited our environment. There's been a lot of work a lot of talk a lot of meetings a lot of consultations a lot of planning a lot of staff hours and an awful lot of select committee time I have to say but actually very little in tangible output.So I'm keen to know from the Minister whether he feels that the current staff numbers are going to increase any further. When are we going to start getting some tangible results from the significant investment of public money on a department that was actually much smaller previously? And when does he think that we're going to start seeing some benefit from that investment?
O'Connor GregANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 2 May on the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments Offices of Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. There are seven hours 30 minutes remaining for this debate. Standing Orders 356(2) and (3) have been set aside so 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 the Environment the Minister of Local Government the Minister of Immigration the Minister of Police the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and the Minister of Housing will be available today to respond to the members' questions. Time for this debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis. 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. The Minister for the Environment is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members' questions.
Appointments — Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner
Parker David; Rurawhe AdrianAPPOINTMENTSDeputy Judicial Conduct CommissionerHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move That under sections 7 and 8A of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Mary Elizabeth Ollivier as Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner for a term of four years. Motion agreed to. SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.
Speaker's Statements — Hon Meka Whaitiri—Independent member
Visitors — National Diet of Japan
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.
Rurawhe AdrianVISITORSJapan—National DietSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Asao Keiichiro and Mr Ito Shintaro from the National Diet of Japan who are present in the gallery.
Rurawhe AdrianWEDNESDAY 3 MAY 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Tuesday 2 May 2023 - Volume 767
Grocery Industry Competition Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Grocery Industry Competition Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 63; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 73New Zealand Labour 63; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.
Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill — In Committee
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 63; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 63; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 73New Zealand Labour 63; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
8. Question No. 8—ImmigrationIBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 8—Immigration8. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent reports has he seen on worker and visitor arrivals into New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I have some excellent news to share with the House in response to the member's question. New Zealand has welcomed over 1.6 million people to visit study or work in New Zealand since our border fully opened in July of last year. We've approved 110000 workers to come to New Zealand including nearly 55000 workers on the Accredited Employer Work Visa and around 54000 working holiday makers. We're also seeing encouraging numbers of tourists choosing to visit New Zealand: 1.2 million people from visa waiver countries have been granted a New Zealand Electronic Travel Authority to be able to travel to New Zealand and an additional 220000 visitor visa applications have been approved.Ibrahim Omer: What is behind the strong figures we are seeing in these areas?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: These figures show that New Zealand remains a highly desirable destination location for both workers and tourists. This is reflected in the OECD's recently launched Indicators of Talent Attractiveness index which ranks the ability of countries to attract and retain different types of skilled migrants. New Zealand ranks number one for highly educated workers. It's good to see that after a period of transition as we implemented the immigration rebalance after border closures we are now successfully attracting people with the right skills while at the same time boosting investment in domestic skills and training and prioritising the lifting of wages and stamping out of migrant exploitation.Ibrahim Omer: How will this benefit our economy?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: This is incredibly important at a time when there is a global labour shortage and these additional workers are invaluable for New Zealand businesses to thrive. This will also be welcome news for our tourism and hospitality sectors and will add a much-needed boost to many businesses around the country.Ibrahim Omer: What steps is the Government taking to ensure immigration settings remain fit for purpose?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Our Government's approach in immigration remains to continue to listen and work with key stakeholders—including employers unions and the immigration professionals who work in our sector—to help to meet our reconnection and rebalance objectives. We have shown that we are pragmatic in implementing our policies. We'll continue to carefully monitor our immigration settings to make sure we have the visitors skills and workers that our sectors and businesses need to sustainably grow their businesses and our economy. We'll also keep working to make sure that migrant workers are paid well and treated fairly.
7. Question No. 7—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does she agree with the NZ Herald report on 30 April 2023 that there is a nursing shortage and has she asked for advice on whether giving new nursing graduates in their first five years an effective pay rise of $4500 a year by making student loan repayments for them would attract more Kiwis into nursing?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question I agree New Zealand needs to recruit and train more nurses. In answer to the second part of the question no I have not commissioned advice on expanding the existing Voluntary Bonding Scheme. Dr Shane Reti: Is there a crisis in the nursing workforce?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There is one person who is desperate to prove that there is a crisis in the nursing workforce and resorting to misrepresenting nursing figures; when I told him that the numbers we had were not fit for the purpose he then used them for.Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm that she had no idea how many of the 19000 nurses she said had left employment in the public health system over five years were later reemployed and if so why then did she claim on One News That's the number of nurses [who have] changed jobs in the last five years"?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is inclusive of the number of nurses that have changed jobs. So yes that statement was correct. As I have said repeatedly in my answer to written parliamentary questions from him that data is the number who have left jobs either to change jobs within our health system or to leave. He has got himself into this mess.Dr Shane Reti: Why when many report there is a crisis in the nursing workforce won't she support National's policy to give nurses student loan relief in exchange for bonding for five years?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There is already a Voluntary Bonding Scheme in place open to nurses and midwives. It is targeted. But I want to point out that there are gaps that National needs to address in their proposal if they are to stand by their claim that students are better off by $22000. National has long opposed the Government's fee-freeze policy. That means the net benefit to those students would be much lower: $13000 and equivalent to the Voluntary Bonding Scheme that already exists.Dr Shane Reti: How many New Zealand - trained nurses have moved to Australia in the last five years?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We do not have that data but we do know—we have some very clear facts about our nursing workforce. We know that the number with annual practising certificates is up and at its highest ever. We know that we have achieved historic increases in nursing pay. We have increased the pay for graduate nurses by 35 percent and more than 40 percent for senior nurses. I'll tell you what Dr Reti if you want to give nurses a pay rise give them a pay rise."
6. Question No. 6—FinanceCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 6—Finance6. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he think that the wealthiest New Zealanders are paying their fair share of tax?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I think there are always things that we can do to improve the fairness of our tax system.Chlöe Swarbrick: How is it fair that teachers midwives and checkout operators across this country pay more than double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The information that the member is referring to came from the high-wealth individuals tax report. I want to acknowledge Minister David Parker and the Inland Revenue Department for the work that they did on what is a world-leading study in that regard. I welcome the fact that it is creating debate on the issues that the member is raising.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with revenue Minister David Parker who said—and I quote—If income earned from capital is taxed at a lower rate than the tax people pay on their income from salaries and wages then that tax advantage will be concentrated at the top end. This study proves [that] that is what is happening in New Zealand."?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is a factual statement.Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he comfortable with an Aotearoa New Zealand where the wealthiest 311 families hold more wealth than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm not comfortable with the level of inequality that I have seen in New Zealand and one of the reasons I came to Parliament was to address that issue. What we have done while we have been in Parliament is we have taken great strides towards that and to making sure that we do have a fair tax system and that we have a fairer society. As I said in answer to the primary question I believe there is always more we can do.Chlöe Swarbrick: Would he like to see someone with wealth in excess of $276 million pay a greater effective tax rate than 8.9 percent where a nurse for example earning $80000 has an effective tax rate of 22 percent?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said in answers to earlier questions there will not be major tax changes in the Budget. Obviously consideration can be given now to the report that has been produced.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think that the revenue from a wealth tax or a capital gains tax would allow Aotearoa to better address our approximate $100 billion infrastructure deficit in transport health housing education and climate action?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm extremely proud of the fact that this Government has increased year-on-year expenditure on infrastructure. We inherited a massive infrastructure deficit caused by nine years of under-investment and we have increased that by billions of dollars. We now have a $64 billion infrastructure programme over the next few years. I believe that investment is appropriate. I would like to see that investment continue."
4. Question No. 4—EducationANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 4—Education4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made on reducing class sizes for years 4 to 8?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Last month I announced that this Government is reducing class sizes in the latter primary and intermediate school years to improve education outcomes for kids. By the beginning of 2025 class ratios for years 4 to 8 will move from a ratio of one teacher to 29 students to a ratio of one teacher to 28 students and this is a meaningful start. With an extra 320 full-time teachers in primary and intermediate schools around the country half of these teachers will be in classrooms from next year.Angela Roberts: Why is the Government focusing on reducing class sizes for years 4 to 8?Hon JAN TINETTI: Years 4 to 8 are critical learning years for our kids with research showing that this is a time when maths and literacy achievement can begin falling behind. The 2019 National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement found that in writing 63 percent of students were achieving at the expected level in year 4 dropping to only 35 percent achieving as expected by year 8. For reading the corresponding numbers were 63 percent at year 4 dropping to 56 percent by year 8. That's why we are targeting these years with more teaching resource to help turn this around. Angela Roberts: How does this support the Government's work on lifting rates of maths and literacy?Hon JAN TINETTI: Reducing the number of students in each class will take some pressure off teachers and allow them to spend more one-on-one time with each student. It means they can focus on what they do best: teaching our young people the basics well so that they can go on to succeed.Angela Roberts: What further work has been done on class sizes?Hon JAN TINETTI: Alongside the Government's immediate commitment to reducing class sizes a ministerial advisory group will also be set up to look at class sizes over the longer term. Reductions in class sizes are resource-intensive so we need a deeper understanding of the key areas where change is most needed and what the costs are. But we have heard from the sector that this is urgent so I've set up this group—made up of experts—to do this work at pace.Erica Stanford: What would she say to the principal of a primary school who contacted me to say that under her proposal he will gain 0.2 of a teacher for 300 students but will lose a staffing allocation of 0.15 of a teacher through the loss of the inquiry time staffing allocation—which she is disestablishing—which gives him one teacher for two weeks per year in two years' time?Hon JAN TINETTI: That is completely incorrect. As the member has been told in the answer to a written parliamentary question schools do not get the inquiry time; that goes to Kāhui Ako. That is actually not correct.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. It's lovely to rise and take a call on this piece of legislation. I didn't quite understand everything that the previous speaker Simon Watts was saying because it just seemed like the usual rah rah that would go on from that side of the House. We do have support on this tonight. I'm glad to have worked alongside our new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the Hon Duncan Webb and obviously being a member and being a keen engaged member of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee it was a pleasure to be on there—Andrew Bayly: Very keen—very keen.GLEN BENNETT: Measured and thoughtful there Mr Bayly. Always considered in what goes on. This is good legislation. This is legislation that is going to be transformational for people in New Zealand. Communities like mine in Marfell in New Plymouth will benefit from this. So I commend this bill to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity. I first want to acknowledge the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the Hon Dr Duncan Webb because I know that he is particularly passionate about this as we've heard earlier on. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee because I remember them being very passionate about this landing on their table as they thought about the opportunities that it provided them to make a step in the right direction.I think we have to always remember that at the heart of this bill is the fact that the Commerce Commission found that New Zealand supermarkets make in excess of $1 million in extra profits over and above what we'd expect if there was appropriate competition.This bill as other contributors have mentioned earlier acknowledges that you can't run a supermarket on empty shelves. It gives a leg-up to the likes of those smaller retailers those smaller players in the market to give them a hand in terms of that competing on an equal footing and to do something about that duopoly. It also means that other retailers will be able to sell a wider range of groceries at better prices.For those reasons I think this bill is a really good idea. I think it does something tangible and something really important for every day New Zealanders and I commend it to the House.