edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Firstly because as usual the Minister gets up and mischaracterises things that I've said let me be very clear about diversity. Diversity in the police force has been important to them for decades Minister—not just the last five years; for decades—and I can say that I was very proud when I served that we wanted our police service to reflect the community that they serve and we were well down the track in achieving that. So diversity is extremely important not just in our police service but in every agency and I celebrate that.But the point that I was making to you Minister was quite simply this: at that time there were 25 drive-by shootings. I lost young Constable Matthew Hunt from my own patch. He was gunned down in broad daylight. There are important issues that as the Minister of Police you should be razor-focused on. So celebrate policies that have been around for a long time and celebrate the police and the great work that they're doing in that but as Minister—especially as an incoming Minister—acknowledge the fact that unlike the previous Minister who that said there's no increase in gang numbers and there's no gang increase in gang violence in our country at the moment there are levels of lawlessness and there are levels of violence and gun violence that need to be addressed. That was the point that I was making Minister and I stand by that point. The Minister has not responded to my question around response times in urban and rural areas for serious motor vehicle accidents or motor vehicle accidents so I hope that he will get up to respond to that. He hasn't responded to my question about the retail crime unit. He got up again and just talked about recruiting numbers. He still hasn't responded to that and I'll ask him this question on serious crime. There are supposed to be 700 serious crime officers in place; there's 340. There's 340 Minister. The Prime Minister on three occasions and the Minister of Police have misled the country again by saying that we have 700 serious crime officers in place. We don't—there are 340. Where are the rest coming from because by my calculations you'd have to have every officer that's going to be trained from now through to the middle of next year put straight into a crime control unit or a serious crime control unit.So I'd like to hear from the Minister: at a time when organised crime when gangs and gang-related crime is increasing daily why is that crime control unit not got the 700 officers that it was promised and why is it operating at 50 percent of the staffing that it's actually meant to have? Thank you Mr Chair.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister can you assure our communities that you are addressing the seriousness of gang interference in our neighbourhood safety and livelihoods when the word gang" is only mentioned once in the entire Vote Police budget? Where it is mentioned it's in relation to $155 million expected to come in from the proceeds of crime. I'm just wondering what we can tell our communities about—more than just taking money from the gangs but what we're actually going to do to combat the gangs by putting more budget into a spend that will help keep our communities safer."
SpeechCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Thanks Minister. I'd just like to agree with you in saying thank you to the police out there for today and for other protests in the past. I understand you'd have some sympathy for the protesters. I was a policeman here in 1997 during a student protest and I—Hon Chris Hipkins: I know nothing about it.CHRIS BAILLIE: You've hardly changed a bit.I've just got a quick question regarding burglary clearance rates. Given that the average statistic that is agreed upon is that a burglar is caught for one in every 15 to 20 burglaries that they commit with a 12 percent clearance rate and the aim for next year is 12 percent as well—between 11 and 15 percent—would you support legislation aimed to deter these burglars or offenders committing these burglaries and if not I wonder what you've got in mind?
Estimates Debate — Local Government
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much. Yeah I think we've got about 2 minutes per my clock. So I thought we'd just come in with a final closing point. The Minister articulated a statement around myth-making just here in the committee now. And it's interesting she makes that statement because it was only a couple of weeks ago when the acting Minister of Local Government used the statement of mischief making" in the House which was basically directed at anyone that was coming up with critique around these reforms. I guess as I go back to that statement of what Castalia said in regards to the underpinning costs and benefits of these reforms: "The reform scenario is based on faulty assumptions and flawed analysis." That is a third-party external agency reviewing data that the Government have used to base these reforms and they make statements like that. Yet the response from the Minister back to those on the other side is myth-making and other responses from other people around mischief making. So I really really ask—and I guess off the back of the fact that overwhelming numbers of Kiwis oppose this reform over 32 councils have continually said they oppose this reform before this Government had not listened you can just categorically see it right now that the Minister continues to use the same old lines to attack those that are trying to be constructive in regards to how we create sustainable water and three waters infrastructure in this country. I'd like the Minister to reflect on those statements and make sure that she still stands behind them."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'll speak as fast as I can—the Hansard folk won't thank me for that so I'll try and make it a good time if not a long time. I'm interested—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well you've wasted about 20 seconds of it! CHRIS PENK: I've wasted time talking about it—I wasted time talking about how little time I have. Oh dear.Hon Paul Goldsmith: He still is wasting it!CHRIS PENK: Madam Chair Mr Goldsmith's had his chance—I'm going to seek a point of order to get my own colleague to stop!Access to justice is a massive problem in this country as I think we'd all acknowledge—no doubt even the Minister would acknowledge that. Huge delays in our court system but including not only the courts proper but also the Criminal Cases Review Commission as set out by this Government having been operating since July of 2020. And I understand via written parliamentary questions answers from the Minister—or perhaps her predecessor to be fair but in any case the Minister of Justice—that the average time taken to dispose of a case is 290 days. Two-nine-zero days which seems to me an extraordinary period of time. In particular when we note that one of the costs of the system is the fact that victims of crime are re-entered into this debate and engaging even without for example a reason for appeal—leave to appeal to be given by a court; that was one of the design flaws that we highlighted at the time. So I ask the Minister to respond to that fact—that acknowledged fact—about the huge amount of time it takes to dispose of a case and ask: has a single case been referred to a senior court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for his question. Yeah look it's been an interesting process to see how that review commission has unfolded over the last couple of years. They are a new entity; they were established there were appointments they've had to develop processes to ensure that they can get up and running and up off the ground. The biggest point—because I did ask this myself to them and they've been in to see me a couple of times—is a huge oversubscription and in terms of the work required to unravel the layers I think that that the amount of work required has been voluminous. So I think that what we've seen now—yes there have been a couple I think. I'm sorry I don't have the number; I don't think it's in my books with me at the moment. But I think there have been a couple of referrals—it's not many but there have been a couple of referrals to the higher courts. I know that they're watching with a close eye on how those will go in terms of the way that they might improve processes etc. and as you rightly pointed out there are many cases that have been referred to them that they are working their way through.
Estimates Debate — Justice
SpeechESTIMATES DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 10 August on the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates. There are eight hours and 12 minutes remaining in the debate. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio so there'll be no sector-specific debates. All votes are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolios only. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Justice the Minister of Local Government the Minister of Police and the Minister of Revenue will be available today. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or a member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister's portfolios. This debate expires after 11 hours at which point questions will be put that the votes stand part of the schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill. The time for the debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis and may be taken as parties see fit during the debate. New Zealand Labour has four hours and 18 minutes remaining New Zealand National has two hours and 30 minutes remaining the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 39 minutes remaining ACT New Zealand has 41 minutes remaining and Te Paati Māori has 11 minutes remaining. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government's current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table. The question being debated is that the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2022-23 stand part of the schedules. Members we start with the Minister of Justice. The Minister is available from—well it won't be from 3 to 4; it'll be from 3.15 to 4.15.
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the third reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill and Government notice of motion No. 1 the interrupted debate on the second reading of the Screen Industry Workers Bill the second reading of the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill consideration in committee of the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill and the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and the second reading of the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill.
Urgent Debate Declined — Kiwibank—Public Ownership
Motions without Notice
Obituaries — Sir Toby Curtis
Visitors — United States of America—American Council of Young Political Leaders Exchange
Speaker's Statements — Dr Gaurav Sharma—Change of Parliamentary Membership
SpeechURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDKiwibank—Public OwnershipSPEAKER: I've received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government's decision to acquire 100 percent of Kiwibank's parent company. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. What is not clear from the application is the element of urgency requiring the business of the House to be set aside today. The application is declined.
Bishop ChrisMOTIONSGeneral Debate—Leave DeclinedCHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. I seek leave in light of other events for the House to hold a general debate after the dinner break this evening—following the normal Wednesday speaking schedule for the Wednesday tomorrow—from 7 p.m. tonight for an hour.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.Oral Questions—Leave DeclinedCHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Again I seek leave for the House to hold a second question time after the ordinary questions for oral answer on this Thursday in light of other events this week.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is.
SpeechPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Shannon Quinn requesting that the House remove GST on fruits and vegetables.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: New Zealand Post statement of corporate intent 2022-25Te Tumu Paeroa Māori Trustee annual report 2022Tourism New Zealand statement of performance expectations 2022-23Framework Agreement Between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of America on Cooperation in Aeronautics and the Exploration and Use of Airspace and Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes together with the Associated National Interest AnalysisTe Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission:annual report 2021statement of performance expectation 2022-23.SPEAKER: I present the report of the Eighth Appropriation Review Committee entitled Eighth Triennial Appropriation Review. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Plain Language Billreport of the Health Committee on the petition of Don Wilson and Kirsty Wattreports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions ofCharlotte AbrialJenna MatchettJohn Dennison andStuart Prossorreports of the Regulations Review Committee oncomplaint about the Cadastral Survey Rules 2021examination of COVID-19 order presented 31 May 2022 andexamination of COVID-19 orders presented between 13 and 20 June 2022.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.
Waititi RawiriRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā tātou e hika mā tēnā koe e te Pīka otirā tēnā tātou i te Whare. I tēnei ra te tangi atu ki tā tātou pāpā ki Tā Toby ko ia tērā kua riro tītapu ki te pō. Tēnei rā te tautoko i ngā mihi ki tērā a tāua pāpā tērā a tātou pāpā kua riro nei. Nō reira e te pāpā e Toby ka roa koe e whawhai nei mō tō iwi Māori. E kore koe e mataku ki te kōrero i ngā kōrero e makere mai ō kupu mai i ō ngutu ki ngā hāmenetanga a te Kāwanatanga ki ngā hāmenetanga a Pākehā ki a Ngāi Tātou i roto i ngā tau maha kua hipa atu. Ko koe tērā e tū rangatira nei mō tō tātou reo mō te oranga o te iwi Māori ehara ko te iwi o roto o Te Arawa noa iho engari ko tō iwi Māori te hao o tō ngākau. Nō reira kei te tangi tonu te ngākau ki a koe. Taku waimarie i whakaeke i te taha o te Kīngi Māori whai muri ake i tōna koroneihana ki roto o Waikato arā ki te tangi atu ki a koe. Nō reira Ngāti Pikiao Ngāti Rongomai nei rā te mihi atu ki a koutou i whakakanohi nei i tō iwi i te tangihanga i te ūhunga tō tātou pāpā a Toby. Nō reira nei rā te tangi e te rangitira. Whoatu rā koe i runga i te ara kōrero kua parangia e te tini e te mano haere haere whakangaro atu rā. Hoki atu ki a mātou ngā mahuetanga iho o ngā tua iho tēnā koutou tēnā koutou kia ora koutou katoa. [Greetings everyone greetings to the Speaker and greetings to all of us in the House. Today we mourn the loss of Sir Toby Curtis who has recently passed away. I support the acknowledgments made to our uncle who has been taken. Therefore Sir Toby you have long fought for the Māori people. For many years you have never been afraid to speak up responding effusively about the transgressions of Government and of Pākehā towards us. You have nobly stood up for our language and for the health of the Māori people not just for Te Arawa but also for Māori as a whole that was your heart's desire. And my heart still mourns for you. I was fortunate to attend with the Māori King following his coronation celebrations in Waikato to grieve at your funeral. Therefore to Ngāti Pikiao and Ngāti Rongomai I acknowledge how you represented your tribe at the funeral and the laying to rest of our uncle Toby. And so our chief we mourn you. Go forth upon the storied pathway forged by the myriads may you rest in peace. To return to us to those of us who have been left behind greetings greetings be well one and all.]Motion agreed to.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On behalf of ACT I would like to join with other speakers in farewelling a mighty rangatira. A man who had the most extraordinary economy of words he was able to say so much using so few words and I think he was able to do it because everybody knew that he had such a deep and good heart down within him. I was lucky to spend the most wonderful evening with him just over two months ago and it seemed it was impossible that he would ever be gone. He was such a man of timeless heart and goodness. I had the enormous privilege of working with him extensively on the previous Government's policy of partnership schools kura hourua and I think that showed the heart of the man—that he had values that were far deeper than any particular partisan cause or any particular political stripe. He knew where he stood where he came from and where this country could best go. To one of the truly great rangatira one of the great men and the greatest hearts of this country farewell Sir Toby.
Davidson MaramaHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): It's an honour and a privilege to farewell kaumātua Tā Noble Thomson Toby" Curtis of Te Arawa Ngāti Pikiao and Ngāti Rongomai. Ko tana mate he mate nui mō Te Ao Māori he mate nui mō te ao katoa. [His passing is not only a significant one for the Māori world but the whole world.]A leader orator academic and activist he was humble ki ōna whakaaro waiho mā te tangata e mihi [he believed in humility] never straying ever from wanting a better Aotearoa where Māori and Pākehā aspirations could be achieved through cultural understanding and he fought for those values right through to the very end. It was an honour to attend his tangi in Rotorua on Friday with Labour MPs and Ministers and part of that was because he held us to account as the Crown. He challenged us to uphold our obligations under Te Tiriti and he fought for education by Māori and for Māori that was steeped in Te Ao Māori. Nō reira e te rangatira whāia ko te mātauranga hei whītiki mō te iwi me ngā uri kia toa ai. [Therefore oh chief seek from the fountain of knowledge as a girdle for the people and descendants so they may be victorious.]Kia ora."
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): E te rangatira Tā Toby kei te tangi te ngākau i tō wehenga atu i te pō. Moe mai ki roto i tō moenga roa. Takoto okioki ki roto i te aro i te Ariki haere haere haere rā. [To the chief to Sir Toby my heart grieves at your passing to the place of departed spirits. Sleep the long sleep. Lay in rest before the Lord may you rest in peace.]The National Party sends their thoughts and aroha to the family of Tā Toby Curtis who have lost a father a husband and a mentor from we who remain who have lost a guide a leader and a friend. We acknowledge and thank him for his contribution to education being highly educated himself with a doctorate and the fervent belief he had in the importance of education and being educated. The National Party recognises and thanks him for his contributions to the party's function in times that have passed. Toby's leadership to Māori media was pervasive and for Te Māngai Pāho his chairmanship and leadership was critical in the early days of its inception and that leadership endures today. He shared a love for the Māori language and simply had a love for people. He will be missed. Nō reira e te rangatira moe mai moe mai moe mai rā. [Therefore my chief rest in peace.]
SpeechOBITUARIESSir Toby CurtisTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to recognise the passing of Sir Toby Curtis.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.TĀMATI COFFEY: I move That this House note with sadness the passing of Sir Toby Curtis of the Arawa people a good man who loved his people and who will be beautifully remembered in the hearts of many.At his tangi it was noted the work that he'd done in recognising the impact of colonisation on Māori. At his tangi they also spoke of his beginnings in broadcasting and his work on getting the 1989 Broadcasting Act passed as well as many other influences he had in politics and improving education for Māori. Also noted at his tangi was his determination for co-governance for Māori education and his work for the health of our water. Tā Toby called out cowards who did not understand the need for equity via co-governance. E Tā menemene mai i te pō haere haere haere atu rā.[To you Sir smiling on us from the place of departed spirits may you rest in peace.]
SpeechVISITORSUnited States of America—Council of Young Political Leaders ExchangeSPEAKER: I'm sure members would wish to welcome delegates on the American Council of Young Political Leaders Exchange who are present in the gallery.
SpeechSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSDr Gaurav Sharma—Change of Parliamentary MembershipSPEAKER: Members under Standing Order 36(1)(c) I have been advised by the senior Government whip that the Labour Party's parliamentary membership has changed and that Dr Gaurav Sharma is no longer a member of the Labour Party for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 35(5) Dr Sharma is from 23 August 2022 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes.
Rurawhe AdrianTUESDAY 23 AUGUST 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSADRIAN RURAWHE (Deputy Speaker): 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 ki te Kuīni 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 Queen 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 23 August 2022 (continued on Wednesday 24 August 2022) - Volume 762
Electricity Industry Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we come now to the final debate on clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3 Title" "Commencement" and "Principal Act". The question is that clause 1 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that clause 2 as amended stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that clause 3 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 3 agreed to. Bill to be reported with amendment."
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 233 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 233 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Schedule 1 as amended stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 233 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 3 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule 3 agreed to.
Electricity Industry Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteTANGI UTIKERE (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simon Court's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 233 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Electricity Industry Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Screen Industry Workers Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Salesa JennyASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today.The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Wednesday)
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The time has come for me to report progress which I shall do as we'll adjourn for lunch.Progress to be reported.House resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to carry on if I may from Nicola Grigg's point as in a line of questioning. The mortality rate on-ship was actually lower than the average dairy farm and beef unit in New Zealand. It was so low it was almost non-measurable but none the less it was measured. It was very slight. In the submissions process when we were listening to submitters coming in I was asking questions of veterinarian practices in and around the trade and what animal welfare looked like and the five parameters or metrics that they used. In part of that line of questioning I asked them about dry matter and kilos of live-weight gain and/or condition score—and I'm sure with your farming background Mr Chairperson McKelvie you understand the concept of condition score.When I was querying the palletised food and the overall wellbeing to animals in transit they were telling me that on average half a condition score was gained by virtue of the nature of the sedentary travel. They agreed—many many submitters agreed—with the adoption of the gold standard as proposed: increased storage of fodder a greater metred area per animal purpose-built ships baffled-effluent storage increased ventilation. These animals actually fared better in transit than many of their animal cousins and brothers and sisters here in New Zealand. How can you reconcile that—and these are from registered veterinary practitioners that check the animal welfare pre-departure and post-arrival—because none of what is being presented here today reconciles the facts. The facts speak to that the overall wellbeing and mortality of the animals is lower in transit than it is on the average farm here in New Zealand.
Utikere TangiANIMAL WELFARE AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 2 August.New clause 2A Repeal of this ActCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to further consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I don't need to remind members about the Zoom part but I do need to remind members after the last little session that if they wish to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call it would be very helpful. When we were last considering this bill we'd finished debate on clause 2. We now come to new clause 2A. This is the debate on Nicola Grigg's amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 208 inserting new clause 2A Repeal of this Act". The question is that Nicola Grigg's amendment inserting new clause 2A set out in Supplementary Order Paper 208 be agreed to.TANGI UTIKERE (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for all remaining provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave has been requested for all remaining provisions to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection. On the basis of that the question is that clauses 3 to 12 and the Schedule stand part."
Salesa Jenny; Smith StuartPart 2 Amendments to other enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the part where we debate clauses 44 to 48 and Schedules 2 and 3 Amendments to other enactments". The question is that Part 2 stand part. I call on Stuart Sm—Smith.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair; it is quite a difficult one to get your tongue round! We now know what drives the Minister of Energy and Resources. We just heard it in her last contribution: it's that she is an admirer of Gerry Brownlee's work. I think that it is a pity that she didn't actually support him during the Christchurch earthquake instead of standing on the sidelines and sniping. But we now know that she admires his work so much so that she's included it in this bill. I think that I've really probably said enough on this; we oppose this bill. We think it's actually not—Hon Scott Simpson: Tell us why again.STUART SMITH: Well I can tell you why yes. We don't support the Minister having the power to make regulations over the top of the Electricity Authority. We don't think she is the source of all knowledge on electricity. She would have to have the wisdom of Solomon and I don't think anyone does so—Hon Scott Simpson: The Minister certainly doesn't. STUART SMITH: Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. And so with that I've said my piece on this bill."
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair—good choice. In relation to this particular bill I even called out to my colleague Stuart Smith that the very question I was going to ask in relation to clause 11 he had already asked. But in listening to the Minister I have to say that it was actually not very clear in her answer as to the question that was posed by my colleague. He did ask why this Small Electricity Consumers Agency was going to be formed and I would add further to my colleague's question that it actually says in new section 22A(4) in clause 11 In approving a person or persons under subsection (2) the Minister must be satisfied that the person has (or the persons collectively have) the ability to perform the function of the agency." That suggests that the Minister will appoint and I would like to find out what kind of criteria or abilities these people actually have in the industry that they are deemed better than the Commerce Commission which already performs the function. Does she believe that the Commerce Commission does not do what they are actually funded to do and why is there a need to bring this new agency about? It just seems like it is the Minister who wants to control an agency. The reason I say that is I go to new section 22A(5) in clause 11 and it says "The agency may determine its own procedure subject to any directions given to it by the Minister." So that is completely contrary in the sense that on one hand it is suggesting that it is going to be completely independent but it is not really. It seems really typical of this Government to create a perception that it is supposed to be independent but it is actually not really independent because it is getting direction from the Minister so it will only do what the Minister tells it to do. I mean you would have thought that when they are looking at consumer issues or when they're looking at investigating where there is a fair price being charged by the electricity companies for example and consumers are not being overpriced on their electricity you would want an organisation or an agency or whatever is looking into it to be independent so they are not influenced by anyone. In this particular instance it seems that they are influenced by the direction of the Minister and I would like clarification on that please."
Salesa JennyELECTRICITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come first to the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. Part 1 of this bill is clauses 4 to 43 and Schedule 1 Amendments to the principal Act". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Salesa JennyHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill and the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I remind members that you are able to participate remotely. If you are on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also be able to use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I'll advise members so that they can refresh the House Papers page to see the new amendment. Finally it'll be helpful if members ask multiple questions if you have them so that the member in charge can take the call and answer your questions all in the one block."
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): There was a chap out the front of Parliament yesterday looking for new recruits for his party and I think with that previous speech he may be tapping on his door—Mr David Bennett's—as a potential recruit.I think I'm the only speaker today who was actually a member of the select committee who dealt with this bill. As you will see there have been considerable changes made to it because it was very much a collaborative effort. It was a group of people that got together and who wanted to make this as good as they could. I think it's important to actually remember there are two sides to everything and getting a balance is right. I know as a young man working on building sites about correcting the work that had been done by some pretty dodgy subcontractors and so I had some sympathy for the main contractor in that case. On the other hand I remember sitting and having breakfast with a person who had just put air conditioning into a major hotel project in Wellington and when that contractor went broke he was contemplating a loss of $250000 because his retentions had gone. At that stage I had spent considerable time with the previous construction Minister ensuring that we were doing something about this to ensure that actually people did get the protection that they required.So this is about getting the balance right. I think we have achieved that and I'll give credit to those—I'm just trying to think now; it was a wee while ago—whom I remember were on the select committee with me. It was probably as collaborative an effort on a select committee as I have been on and I think we have pretty much got this right. The assurance now is that when a contractor does know that his money has been retained he or she will have that money sitting there and—most importantly—it doesn't become working capital because that is generally what has happened in the past and that's where the problems have arisen. So it's a good piece of legislation on its way to I think—as the previous speaker did mention—a time when there is going to be considerable pressure on the construction industry. I think that it is very timely that this bill will be giving that necessary protection. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
SpeechDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take this short call on the second reading of the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the previous Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Poto Williams for her mahi in bringing this bill to the House as well as the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for getting the bill to this point.I just want to echo my colleague Helen White's messages there around Labour supporting our subbies. This bill will improve outcomes for all parties particularly our subcontractors who make a significant contribution to our construction industry. As small businesses they have a lot of skin in the game. With that comes a huge amount of anxiety and uncertainty and we need to ease that as much as we can. So amongst the technical aspects of this bill there is a human component that needs to be recognised and it is for that reason that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is a great piece of legislation which recalibrates the balance of power between David and Goliath if you like; some of the large contract holders with the small subcontractees. I don't have too much to say about it just to point out that the select committee process was obviously robust. There are 22 changes that have been accepted at select committee. To talk about one of them: there were submissions made that weren't brought into effect and that was submissions from local government wanting an exemption for government around the trust requirement. I think it's great to see that this was not accepted because it came down to a matter of principle: that the risks that small businesses and subcontractors face are the same regardless of who is the head contractor whether it is private enterprise or whether it is the public sector. So this is really a principle-based piece of legislation and the Transport and Infrastructure Committee quite rightly in my opinion said that no matter how small the risk—and it will tend to be smaller with public entities—the principle still applies and therefore that change should not be made. So I thank the select committee for what was obviously a thoughtful process and I commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill. We love our subbies too and it's good to hear the recognition of the position that those subbies are put in because they're often small players working with big players and they're vulnerable in that situation. That's led to a pretty shameful situation where the money that has been set aside—and in fact I was interested to see in the briefing a discussion about how this is a voluntary payment. It might be voluntary but it's voluntary where you've got a big player and an actual practice of retaining this money and those subbies have been put in a position where that money has been there and it's been a bit tempting and people have intermingled it and they've used it for other purposes. So now that won't happen any more and if it does it's not just the companies that are going to be liable; it's the directors. I'm very pleased to see that because I think it's what a good director should never be afraid of. That's their job to make sure that things stay straight and if they don't they can be fined $50000 a pop. That's an important change that we've got here. So I'm extremely pleased to see a piece of legislation responding to reality not ideology—reality. We are protecting our subbies and I think we're doing a good job here. I commend the bill to the House.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe; tēnā koutou e te Whare. This is a straight-up common-sense and well-scrutinised bill so it may come as a shock to members of the Opposition but I will not be gunning to fill my 10 minutes of time in the Green contribution today.I do however need to acknowledge the Minister and former Ministers who have contributed to this mahi to get this bill in front of us as others have contributed in their statements this morning. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Julie Anne Genter who actually originally had a member's bill to address this issue. And this issue as others have gone to the core of—some in greater complexity and detail—is around retention money. Retention money is a security for performance of party B's obligations under a contract held by party A. As others have well canvassed there has historically been a number of issues where for example that retention money has been mixed into other money from that contractor or those assets and then unintentionally—or intentionally—spent particularly in instances where party A has ended up becoming insolvent. As actually members of the Opposition have put forward in their contributions this morning talking about some of the complexities around potentially contracts or litigation or otherwise that those who may be involved in the trades or the construction sector might not necessarily want to get involved or busy themselves with just wanting to get on with that construction. That is the point of this legislation; it is to simplify the regime that applies to retention money. So to that effect this bill strengthens and clarifies the regime for retention money to ensure that subcontractors get paid—that's a good thing; it sounds as though every party in this House is in favour of it. I must say that despite it being really simple at that high level it is by no means necessarily simple in practice. So I want to applaud as others have the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their thorough scrutiny of those criteria and some of the recommendations and changes that have been applied throughout that process. So it sounds like everyone is in support of this legislation. It sounds like we don't need to waste any more time in getting on with it so the Greens are proud to support this legislation today.
SpeechTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Talofa lava Mr Speaker. And as always it's an honour and a privilege to speak on this the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill certainly as a member of the hard-working Transport and Infrastructure Committee.I know it's already been said that the purpose of this bill is to strengthen and clarify the existing retention money regime in the Construction Contracts Act 2002 and that the retention money is money that is held back from payment under a construction contract as security to ensure a solo contractor's performance. We know that at the moment it is voluntary—well that's the current status. It is voluntary to retain the retention money and it is often used we know by some of our head contractors to make sure that subbies do a good job and that's not the purpose. We know that we've seen things like the fall of the construction company Stanley Group and what that looked like for our subbies not getting paid. So this is a good bill to make sure that we look after our subbies and for that I commend the bill to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my privilege this morning to speak on the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen and clarify the existing retention money regime in the Construction Contracts Act 2002. I acknowledge the work of both Minister Woods more recently but also the Hon Poto Williams and the preparatory work that she did in her capacity as the Minister for Building and Construction. I think particularly as one of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee members when we heard oral submissions and read the written submissions and I go back to one particular organisation based in Wairau Valley one of the largest subcontractors in New Zealand's commercial construction sector—and both payees and payers of significant retentions—a local business on my side of the bridge in Wairau Valley Thermosash has shone some light on what this bill would mean in their business. I remember quite vividly a quote from their submission that Thermosash has over the years lost large amounts of money due to main contractor failures including the Ebert receivership which had a significant impact on them. So there are some challenges there. When I look over to Mr Bayly's question that he asked the House—of why it has taken so long for this Government—he also acknowledges that the Hon Nick Smith had concerns back when they were the Government nine years in waiting. But you know typical of National—no action National—particularly when it comes to infrastructure and building. So thank you Mr Speaker this is a great bill and I commend this bill to the House.