edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill in this its second reading. The bill will amend the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act of 2002. It is all about enabling better recovery from those small- medium- or moderate-scale disasters in New Zealand—those that are the most frequent. Some of them are still very much in recent memory and I am sure also that for Mr Deputy Speaker the floods around Whanganui and Rangitīkei are a very good example of that. Some of the key things that these amendments will bring about will be establishing a legislative framework for that recovery management providing a mandate for recovery managers to take necessary actions and equally importantly actually requiring high-level preparatory recovery planning. They do say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that is a very big part of the amendments planned in this bill. One key element at the heart of the bill but also part of the discussion in the Government Administration Committee was about the seamless transition from response to the initial recovery phase. It had been discovered that there were some gaps in terms of the mandated authority of officials and response agencies which meant that there could be quite some challenges in swiftly moving from the early response phase into recovery. This bill seeks to take care of that particularly by empowering officials to do things such as carrying out works to clear roads and other public places; remove dispose of secure and make safe dangerous structures; and also for safety and to prevent injury to people to rescue and remove people or endangered persons from property. We discovered particularly in the Whanganui and Rangitīkei situation that that was not actually legally mandated to be done. So I think this bill will bring about some very sensible changes. It has gone through a very rigorous select committee process one that did work very collaboratively. I think it has returned a much better bill to the House. I commend the bill to the House.
Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill; Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill; and Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill — First Readings
Coates Barry; Tisch LindsayBARRY COATES (Green): As my colleague has said the Green Party gives a broad welcome to these bills which we regard as a contribution to cleaning up some areas of inconsistency and to making regulations fit for purpose. We think the regulations need to be relevant up to date fit for purpose and particularly not significantly burdensome on small companies or on members of the public.We have an ongoing concern that there has been a tendency for regulation to be excessively influenced by larger companies to the detriment of smaller companies which bear far higher compliance costs than they should do. I am particularly talking about the regulatory systems commercial matters aspects of the three pieces of legislation. We do not at this stage have an exhaustive analysis of the proposals and we look to do that at the select committee stage. We will be looking closely at some of the issues: the provision of information from directors under the Companies Act seems to be to us very relevant and in need perhaps of strengthening rather than of just cleaning up; regarding the financial statements of subsidiaries we are concerned about the potential for allowing foreign companies to avoid disclosure in New Zealand; and the notification requirements for listed companies. There are of course other aspects under the Companies Act that may give rise to concern. Under the Commerce Act we are concerned about levies to cover the expenses for the Commerce Commission and the effect that that may have on equity and on the ability to pay. Under the Fair Trading Act we see the revision of the sharing of responsibilities of what falls under the Fair Trading Act and what falls under the Financial Markets Authority. We want to make sure that there is adequate recognition of the fair trading responsibilities within the finance sector and that the split of responsibilities does not diminish those responsibilities. Particularly under the heading of the Financial Markets Authority we welcome the strengthening of regulatory powers under the section and we would question whether they go far enough. We are intrigued to see the Secret Commissions Act 1910 be assigned enforcement power. This has to do with bribery and corruption and has relevance to offences of bribery and corruption within the private sector. It relates to the OECD convention on bribery and corruption and we welcome a far stronger set of provisions around bribery and corruption that would affect the private sector and which would ensure that there is a high standard of financial integrity within the financial sector. Finally we look forward to this bill getting the scrutiny that it deserves from the select committee. We look forward to that process. Like previous speakers we would have preferred longer to be able to look at the details of this bill prior to this session and we hope that that may be possible in the future. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call the Hon David Cunliffe—5 minutes.
Simpson Scott; Tisch LindsaySCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I intend to take just a short call but I cannot resist the opportunity following that member from New Zealand First Fletcher Tabuteau who is a relatively new member of the House. Boy did he show his lack of knowledge and understanding of parliamentary procedure in that last speech. It seems that it is only in New Zealand First that its members are blessed with the power of 20/20 hindsight. This omnibus legislation is a process that is designed to actually enhance and make efficient use of parliamentary time to make amends to some minor technical issues that occur in legislation from time to time. On this side of the House we understand that that can occur from time to time.I want to acknowledge the contribution of the Minister introducing the omnibus bills the Hon Steven Joyce who is the Minister for Regulatory Reform. As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am looking forward to my committee investigating and scrutinising the piece of this legislation that will come before us which particularly relates to the Building Act 2004 and the Unit Titles Act 2010. This is I think a good piece of technical legislation. It is the equivalent of parliamentary housekeeping. This is a good process and I am looking forward to working through it at the select committee. I commend the process and the bills to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Barry Coates—5 minutes.
Tisch LindsayThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Fletcher Tabuteau.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: This'll be good.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I rise in support of these omnibus bills which deal with a series of regulatory changes regarding commercial matters first building and housing second and workplace relations thirdly. Without wanting to repeat the information that has already been given to the House I did find it quite amusing—Mr Lees-Galloway explaining the person the people the corporate entity the trust and the trustee. I found it quite ironic that it was to clarify what was actually in the bill at the moment and the whole purpose of this thing is to make it easier and simpler and clearer for the reader to understand who is liable for what. I found that quite ironic and interesting. Anyway these bills are there to clarify update remove duplication and remove unnecessary compliance costs. As we know regulations are important; we need to have them to ensure people do understand what is appropriate behaviour and the appropriate rules and we need to make sure that they are clear for people to understand. On this side we are always interested in making things more efficient and effective and I would like to mention the Rules Reduction Taskforce which was an initiative by Minister Bennett doing exactly that—looking at ways to tidy things up make things more efficient and hear from the people around what some of those rules and regulations are that are ineffective and are duplications. I would just like to pick up on the changes in this legislation that relate to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. That is relating to pre-term babies. It is quite confusing. It also restricted the mother from the start time of her paid parental leave. This change enables the date to be more flexible and more realistic regarding the actual act of having a pre-term baby. That is a good thing. That is just one example of the clarification of the rules around these bills that is so necessary and so important. The other is of course the area Mr Lees-Galloway attempted to clarify where the person is not actually the company which is normally the accepted practice. It was not the partnership; it was actually the people behind those entities who were in breach or who were liable for the actions of the person per se. With that I commend these omnimus—omnibus bills; there is something that needs to be clarified—Hon Member: What is it?Fletcher Tabuteau: Ominous.ALASTAIR SCOTT: —ominous omnibus bills—to the House.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the regulatory systems amendment legislation put to the House today by the Hon Steven Joyce who is the Minister for Regulatory Reform. Today I speak with particular reference to the portion known as the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill which relates to the commerce and consumer affairs sector. This bill is of course an omnibus bill and one of a package of three bills as a previous speaker has said that contain amendments to legislation that is administered by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. This bill makes amendments in the commerce and consumer affairs communications and energy and resources portfolios and will support the better delivery of New Zealand public services will support productivity growth and will make sure that existing legislation is in fact fit for purpose—that they are regulated by it. This bill will include changes for the financial sector corporate governance and insolvency and will remove redundant provisions in legislation that are no longer needed for the effective administration and enforcement of law. Two significant amendments have been proposed in this bill. The first is to allow trusts to set off amounts they owe against amounts owed to them in derivative contracts thereby reducing the cost of capital; the second is to provide powers of the Official Assignee to better protect the interests of creditors by widening her powers to challenge sham trusts. I particularly welcome that and I look forward to the submissions on these particular elements because I think protecting creditors is actually a very important job that we have. This bill will in particular amend the Companies Act the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act and the Takeovers Act to bring them up to date and to work for New Zealanders. It is important to reduce costs—everybody wants to reduce costs and as you know businesses often pass on to consumers the costs that affect them and I think if there is a reduction in costs for businesses consumers will in fact benefit as a result. It is also an essential part of our plan to see regulatory systems streamlined and to align the law across different entities so that there are no unnecessary hurdles for innovative New Zealand industries to overcome. As the chair of the Commerce Committee I look forward to the submission process and to working constructively with my committee members. I commend this bill to the House.
Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill — First Reading
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call here on the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill this afternoon. Gosh—Success has a hundred fathers and failure is an orphan." is I think a pretty fair assessment of the various speakers today. I do want to comment on David Clark's phenomenal contribution. He spent quite a bit of time actually in his speech—probably about half of it—seeking to create the impression that our Minister Steven Joyce is somehow New Zealand's own rocket man including reading quite an extraordinarily lengthy tome from Elton John's famous song. Well if David Clark wants to be that autobiographical in respect of these sorts of things I suggest he might spend a little bit of time looking at "Space Oddity" because I think it does apply to him particularly the section that says: I am floating in a most peculiar waythe stars look very different todayfrom here I am sitting in a tin can far about the earthplanet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can do. Well I think David Bowie perhaps stretched it slightly. I think certainly in our case New Zealand is blue and there is nothing David Clark can do but I suggest he might just have a look at that. It has some degree of application in his case. But seriously this is a very good bill and I would just like to quickly add my comments to those who have spoken. I would just really like to emphasise David Bennett's comments earlier: it is quite remarkable in many respects that we are having this conversation; that New Zealand has reached the stage through the efforts of Peter Beck and his team supported by this Government—and no doubt it began with the previous Government—where we have a scenario where we have to have legislation enacted to help facilitate New Zealand's contribution to the space industry. Had we talked about that a few years ago it would have been seen as a pipe dream and now here we are debating framework to enable it to happen and not on a faint hope that it might happen one day but because the demand is there the skilled people are already in place and as we have heard the launch site is being readied. This is a phenomenal opportunity for New Zealand and I thoroughly support it and look forward to the deliberations that the select committee will bring to it over the next few weeks. I commend the bill to the House."
Bennett DavidDAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is great to see such uniform support amongst the Parliament for the innovation that is being shown in this bill through the company that basically has set up an industry that many people would not have expected many years ago to be something that New Zealanders would be hailing as one of our export industries and an indication of the strength of our innovative economy—the strength of our people's ability to invest in businesses actually make them a reality and then deliver products on a world stage that in the past truly had not been anticipated as a strength of our country. So this bill the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill is the process that is needed to be followed through to make that business venture a reality and also to create the environment should others wish to engage in such a perspective and take up such an opportunity. It is important for New Zealand as a growing economy to be innovative to be open to new ideas and to be supportive of those new ideas and part of Parliament's role is also to give that legislative support so that the conditions that are needed for this to actually occur are legislated for in this House. This bill is a significant milestone for the development of that industry. It sets up the regulatory regime for launches and the deployment of satellites and it governs high-altitude activities from New Zealand. It sets the regulatory regime for an industry that has grown from nothing has strong prospects and really shows the strength of New Zealanders and their talent and their aspirations. It is great to see this Parliament supporting this bill. Thank you.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to this bill the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill. This bill does indeed allow an exciting new industry to form in New Zealand and takes advantage of some of our competitive opportunities and attributes that we have. Our relatively remote isolation has already been mentioned. We also have a low volume of marine and air traffic and we have a range of orbital inclinations that we can use. This bill joins several other space treaties that New Zealand is already a party to including the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts and the Convention on International Liabilities for Damage Caused by Space Objects. We are also looking to be a party to a newer treaty the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. Fundamentally it talks about the requirements to register objects in space. This bill has been guided in its formation by UN resolution 68/74. The name of that is: Recommendations on national legislation relevant to the peaceful exploration and use of outer space". Our drafters have taken heed of this and the eight guiding principles that General Assembly resolution has. It includes: the scope of such national legislation; that a country should be responsible and should have national jurisdiction for all objects that are launched into space from its land; authorisations—space activities should be authorised; that authorisation should be consistent with UN treaties; that a country should have a national registry of objects; that there should be recourse and liability to operations; and that the transfer of ownership and responsibility when objects in space similarly transfer. We can see the formation of this bill takes many of these into account and where it does not the treaties we are a partner to certainly do. Fundamentally this bill is concerned with launch facilities space vehicles payloads and high-altitude travel. It defines a number of compulsory conditions that actually cover right across the launch vehicles with a launch licence and payloads with a payload permit. Those compulsory conditions include: knowledge of the date location and the intended trajectory of the launch vehicle and the payload; basic orbital parameters; coordination of radio communication frequencies consistent with the International Telecommunication Union; a payload permit; and that you must minimise the risk of contamination of outer space or adverse changes to the earth's environment and take into account other users of outer space. Finally the launch vehicle and the payload must be consistent with Civil Aviation Authority and our international obligations. Our national security interests are also taken into account by requiring the responsible Minister to consult security Ministers. This is a well-thought-out bill and it is with pleasure that we look forward to receiving it in the select committee. I commend it to the House."
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I do not know whether it is appropriate Mr Deputy Speaker but I would seek leave of the House that Dr Clark—his delivery of Elton John's Rocket Man" was so droll could we give him the opportunity to stand and sing Elton John's "Rocket Man"?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fortunately a member cannot seek leave on behalf of another.MARK MITCHELL: I thought I would try. I thought I would try. It is with great pleasure that I stand and take a call on this the first reading of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill. I just want to say that I think that it is pretty amazing actually that we are going to have such a high-tech facility as the one that was recently opened by the Hon Steven Joyce at Māhia. As a kid growing up I spent the lot of time down on the Māhia peninsular camping and surfing and not for one minute did I ever think that we would see a facility of the nature that we have down there now. I want to acknowledge Peter Beck and his team and the work that they have done to bring some wonderful innovation and a new industry to the shores of New Zealand—the fact that they are going to be able to actually deliver payloads into space for about $5 million which apparently is significantly cheaper than it can be done anywhere else in the world. And from what I understand their order book is already starting to fill. I think Minister Joyce also referred to the possibility of space tourism and maybe with Dr Clark's interest in being a rocket man he might even be available for one of the first test runs up into space. I will finish my contribution by just highlighting the purpose of the bill again. The purpose of the bill is: "The Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill … establishes a regulatory regime to govern space launches including both launch vehicles and payloads …"—that is very significant—"… from New Zealand and by New Zealand nationals operating overseas. It also provides the legal framework for high-altitude activities that [originate] from New Zealand;". It is a very good bill. We are certainly looking forward to receiving it at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I recommend it to the House. Thank you."
Urgent Debates Declined — Employment Relations—Junior Doctors' Strike; and Police—Raids on Advocates for Euthanasia
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDDistrict Health Boards—Junior Doctors' StrikePolice—Raids on Euthanasia AdvocatesMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Barbara Stewart seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the strike by junior doctors that commenced today. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and there is ministerial responsibility for the delivery of health services by district health boards. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The business of the House should not be set aside just lightly; there must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. Industrial action in itself will not necessarily mean the granting of an urgent debate. Actions taken to mitigate the effects of the strike will also be considered. I am not convinced that the taking of industrial action in this instance warrants the setting aside of the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.I have received a further letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the police raids on advocates for euthanasia. This is a particular case of recent occurrence; however under section 16 of the Policing Act 2008 the Commissioner of Police is not responsible to and must act independently of any Minister of the Crown regarding the maintenance of order the enforcement of the law and the investigation and prosecution of offences. There can be no administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government for the conduct of police investigations. The House confirmed that by passing the Policing Act 2008. Given that administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government is a prerequisite for the holding of an urgent debate that application is also declined.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to join with other leaders in paying tribute to somebody in Helen Kelly who was fierce yet dignified brilliant yet humble and who spent her life with a deep and compassionate devotion to the service of others. Our regards and thoughts are with her family. May she rest in peace.Motion agreed to.
Obituaries — Helen Kelly
Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Those New Zealanders who have had the opportunity to witness the work and life of Helen Kelly over a great number of years would celebrate the fact that she was a stand-out New Zealander a person of true character honesty and integrity. Clearly she put her cause and the people she served before herself and in doing so enhanced the respect for the union movement in this country. Indeed it could be said that her interactions put unionism on a new level. Anyone who has studied history knows that a good economy and a good society need that sort of representation—and indeed unionism—and that sort of personality leading it.We are a better country for witnessing her professional life and a lesser country for her departure. Our sincere condolences go to her husband her wider family and friends. On these occasions it is so common for speakers to rise and use the most effusive and laudatory language but in Helen Kelly's particular case what is said here today has a very special significance.
Roche DeniseDENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to honour Helen Kelly and the Greens join with others across this House in mourning her loss and offering our condolences to her husband Steve and to her son Dylan to her wider family and her colleagues and to her many many friends.I have worked with Helen a lot over the last 5 years as spokesperson for industrial relations for the Greens but I first met Helen socially—I think it was when she was the General Secretary of the Association of University Staff now the New Zealand Tertiary Education Union. She was in the early days of her relationship with her husband and she used to visit our farm—our vineyard—quite regularly. Others have talked about her fierce intellect and I can attest that she was still able to win an argument after a long night of wine tasting. We sometimes referred to Helen as the union movement's answer to Xena: Warrior Princess because of her staunch advocacy her willingness to enter the fray her ability to win a fight and her cute dimples.Others both here in the House and also through the media—through social media as well—have reflected on her compassion and her work with the families of workers who have been killed at work: the forestry families; the Pike River families; and the family in India of Charanpreet Dhaliwal the young untrained security guard who was killed on his first day at work. There is no doubt that Helen's campaigns for justice for these families gave them some relief. I think that if we were to look at a fitting memorial for Helen I would suggest it would be an overhaul of our industrial relations laws: a health and safety law that actually protects farm workers; a reversal of the Hobbit law"; a living wage for all ordinary New Zealanders; a law that enables New Zealanders to join a union without fear of retribution; the ability to organise for better working conditions; and for someone—someone—to be held responsible for the Pike River mine tragedy and for the bodies of those men in that mine to be returned to their families so that they can have some closure. Those things would be a fitting tribute to this remarkable woman.It is a damn shame that we will not see Helen in this House because goodness knows we need women of that calibre here. Her role as president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions a public figure came at a cost to her family and we thank them for it. Being a public figure responsive to the needs of ordinary New Zealanders would have served her well here. She would have shone. She will be missed. Moe mai e wahine toa moe mai moe mai rā! [Rest oh courageous woman sleep and rest there indeed!]As we go marching marchingWe bring the greater daysFor the rising of the womenMeans the rising of the raceNo more the drudge and idlerTen that toil where one reposesBut the sharing of life's gloriesBread and roses bread and roses"
SpeechRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): The Government joins with the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the motion that he has just presented about Helen Kelly. Helen Kelly did not come from my side of the political fence. There were many occasions when I simply did not agree with her not the least being actually her disagreement with the Government's view that the law should be changed in relation to the definition of a contractor so movies like The Hobbit series could be made in New Zealand.Sometimes the forceful way that Helen Kelly made her arguments frustrated me but she also had my enormous respect. She was passionate she was tenacious she was articulate she was intelligent and she was pragmatic. Underneath all of that she had a great sense of humour and was always prepared to at least sit down and have a discussion to see whether the rights and interests of New Zealanders could be advanced. As Mr Little has just pointed out not the least of this was in relation to the Job Summit where I think the country had genuine concerns about what might happen to workers in this country and she fought to see whether there was a way to preserve their jobs and their entitlements.Helen Kelly cared passionately about those whom she fought for and she believed in them to the end. She died far too young and she had a great deal more to contribute. I think most people know that Helen Kelly was considering a career in politics. If she had not been struck down by such a terrible illness she would have enjoyed I think the opportunity to debate in this House those values and principles that she held so dearly and we would have enjoyed debating with her. But the truth is Helen Kelly did not need an office in the Beehive to make a difference to New Zealand; she made that all too easily through the capacity of her arguments and the way that she articulated them.To her family and friends we pass our deepest condolences. May she rest in peace.Waiata
Thursday 13 October 2016 - Volume 717
Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.
12. Police Resourcing—NumbersSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of PolicePolice Resourcing—Numbers12. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Why did she sign off on Police's Four Year Plan on 27 May 2016 that stated there would be no increase in Police numbers?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Of course the plan works with the known resources at the time and because I deal with reality at the time—and not hypotheticals.Stuart Nash: Are 74 percent of sworn police officers wrong when in their latest biennial survey they said that they are dissatisfied with the number of front-line police staff in their district."?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Far be it from me to ever disagree with our wonderful front-line officers and to personally attack them like that member does from time to time. Obviously they are never going to be satisfied and that is because they care about their job and they try to do the very best that they possibly can. I am going to do the very best I can to deliver for them.Stuart Nash: In light of that answer why has she not implemented the promise made by John Key in 2008 that "there is one officer for every 500 people and we will keep this ratio as population grows."?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We can do the very best that we can in the Budget and the $300 million increase in this Budget absolutely did help.Stuart Nash: Is the incoming New Zealand Police Association president Chris Cahill incorrect when he said this morning that "Our staffing on the front line is at crisis point."; if so why?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have been involved with police for a lot longer than that member so I can tell him it has never been described by the incoming president of a Police Association as being anything other than at a crisis point but particularly when the Labour Government was in charge.Stuart Nash: Are the police wrong when 60 percent said they cannot deliver promises made to the public 55 percent said they have undue workplace stress and 86 percent believe that front-line staff are under-resourced?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: These are of course people's opinions and I obviously always support the police. And particularly I think one of the areas where they get a lot of stress is when they get personally attacked as the district commander for the Eastern Police District Superintendent Sandra Venables has been—by that member—on numerous occasions to the extent that the deputy commissioner Mr Viv Rickard has had to go to see Mr Andrew Little about that behaviour."
11. State and Social Housing—Children's Living StandardsMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Social HousingState and Social Housing—Children's Living Standards11. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Social Housing: What action if any will she take to address the deeply held concerns of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in respect of children's rights to an adequate standard of living and access to housing?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: The Government has a comprehensive plan to increase the supply of emergency and social housing to ensure that those in need including children have adequate housing. This is the first Government to directly fund emergency housing. There was $41.1 million in Budget 2016 for 3000 new and existing emergency housing places and to fund a new non-recoverable special-needs grant to pay for emergency housing. Since then another $9 million has been announced to roll out Housing First and other support for the homeless. We are also supporting both community providers and Housing New Zealand to increase the supply of social housing with more than 2500 new places forecast in Auckland over the next 3 years.Marama Fox: Does she accept that filling all currently vacant State houses with wait-listed families who have children and providing them with security of tenure so that they can get ongoing access to long-term services and support is one of the measures she could implement now to intensify efforts to provide safe and adequate housing to all children; if so will she commit to working with the Māori Party to achieve this?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Minister is always willing to talk with the Māori Party about these issues and always finds its input constructive. Housing New Zealand is working to fill any short-term vacant properties as fast as possible because it is a priority to get families in need into our social housing. For example in the Gisborne area Housing New Zealand has taken 13 homes off the market and let them to new tenants. It is doing this in other areas of high demand. We are also reviewing tenancies of those paying market rent to free up houses for those in more need. So far 943 people have left social housing including 120 who have bought their own homes.Marama Fox: In light of her recent announcement about opening up access to community housing providers to give them up to 150 percent of income-related rent does she have any plans to work with the Māori Party to explore the expansion of this policy to extend it to existing community housing tenants as a measure to help eliminate homelessness; if not why not?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are no plans to extend the income-related rent subsidy to existing community housing tenants. Our main priority is to get more people housed and we will do that by providing the subsidy to new tenants not those who already have a house. The extra $24.4 million the Minister recently announced comes on top of the $120 million in the Budget for community providers. This will help them increase supply so that we can get more people housed.
10. Social Enterprise Sector—Government InitiativesPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary SectorSocial Enterprise Sector—Government Initiatives10. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: How is the Government working to enable growth in the social enterprise sector?Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): On Tuesday evening I officially launched the new report Social Enterprise and Social Finance: A Path to Growth. Social enterprises are organisations that trade as a business to support their social or environmental mission. The new report commissioned by the Government and authored by a strategic group proposes a range of actions to enable social enterprises to grow and unlock new sources of capital. It is a sector that has existed for decades but is now growing into a significant economic social and environmental force. It outlines a range of actions for the Government and other sectors to consider in order to build the capability and contribution of social enterprise. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Table it.Paul Foster-Bell: How is the Government working to enable growth in the social enterprise sector in particular in Wellington?Hon JO GOODHEW: This report is an important step spelling out the potential role of social enterprises in innovation entrepreneurship and regional economic development. Organisations such as the Wellington-based PledgeMe will be better able to realise their financial potential. The 2014 Government Position Statement on Social Enterprise outlined the Government's commitment to facilitate further growth of this sector. That commitment has taken another step forward with the launch of the report. The report will also provide a useful basis for conversations about how to further grow this sector in the lead-up to the Social Enterprise World Forum 2017 to be held in Christchurch next September. I want to alert the House to the fact that this is easily found as the member opposite has asked for this report to be tabled. It is easily found on the Department of Internal Affairs website if the member chooses to look.
7. Offenders—Employment SupportNUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentOffenders—Employment Support7. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding support for offenders into employment?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Last week along with the very able corrections Minister Judith Collins I announced the launch of a new initiative targeted at improving the employment outcomes of people released from prison. Work and Income case managers and professionals will work with offenders before and after their release to help them prepare for find and stay in employment. We are investing $15.3 million over 3 years for the trial which will see up to 200 clients at a time develop an individual plan to get them into employment and access education and training financial support services health services and social and housing support.Nuk Korako: What are the benefits of offenders being in employment?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We know that there are significant benefits from being in work and especially so for this group of people. Data shows us that around 80 percent of released prisoners are still on a benefit 12 months after release and many stay on a benefit long term. This Government is committed to breaking the cycle of long-term welfare dependency. We also know that if people are in employment they are less likely to commit crimes. This Government is focused on reducing the reoffending rate and this initiative will go a long way to helping us achieve this target.
Coates Barry; Mallard TrevorBARRY COATES (Green): It is my pleasure to speak to the second reading of this bill. The Green Party supports the bill. My colleagues on the Primary Production Committee have engaged in the select committee stage and we welcome the improvements that have been made. We appreciate that different grade standards have now been included in export marketing strategies and we agree also with the changes to the tiers of the licence. We also think that the bill will contribute to a number of Green Party policies that support farmer- and industry-led initiatives. It helps diversify our primary production away from dairy products. It supports value-added activity and potentially leverages our clean green reputation. We note the variety of products that are included—avocados blackcurrants boysenberries buttercup squash nashi pears summer fruit and tamarillos—and we recognise that these are only some of the fruits and veges that New Zealand produces that are suitable for export. We welcome the fact there has been a huge increase in revenues from the Horticulture Export Authority from $50 million to almost $300 million in 2015—that is a mark of the progress that has been made.We would say that it is about time that this bill has been introduced. The latest report from the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority notes that five previous annual reports have highlighted the need for an amended New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act to provide more flexibility to the sector and appeal to a broader range of sector groups. Given the potential contribution of this sector to boosting primary sector exports we think it is a wasted opportunity that the Government has not moved faster to introduce this bill especially since as has already been pointed out the Government has been failing to meet its export targets. We note that a review of the Act—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption on the next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well as has already been said the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill—what is not to like about it—is an enabling piece of legislation. It enables an industry that is already doing very well despite the lower dairy prices. I am pleased to see the dairy prices moving in the right direction but despite that this industry in particular has been one of the industries that has done some of the heavy lifting. Exports have gone up tremendously.I think one of the key things in this particular industry and this legislation is that it is about scale. It is about industries being able to aggregate or producers being able to aggregate their products and sell them in a market. When the exporter attempts to sell their goods overseas in the export market the first thing the purchasers are going to look at is the quality of the goods; they will look at the price they will look at the ability to supply and they will look at scale. If you do not tick all those boxes then it is very difficult to sell to a producer.So although on a small scale at the local market the producer of avocados can sell quite easily beside another avocado producer going into an export market simply will not work because the purchaser does not want to buy New Zealand avocados from 10 different suppliers; they would like that volume from one. So this legislation enables that very thing to happen. It is not just that supply issue; it is about a more integrated system for the quality of the goods the size—all of those issues. That sort of thing is what a purchaser wants. There is no doubt about it that this legislation in fact deals with all of that.We had 10 submitters who came before the committee. It was fantastic. They were all absolutely wanting this bill across the line as quickly as possible because they see the benefits of it. Rino Tirikatene mentioned this before in his very good speech about the boxes that had to be ticked. Having had quite a bit of experience in this area myself I say that the fact that you have to get 60 percent of the producers—and those votes have to represent at least 60 percent of the goods produced both from the producer and the exporter—is quite a high bar to get across. But if you have not got that level of support then perhaps you should not really be doing it. So I support that. There was some angst I guess in that and the committee considered that and I think made quite rightly the right decision.I also think that before a regulation an Order in Council is passed having the Minister take into account and consider all of the evidence before him—and it is all documented—is a very good step and very sound. This is a great bill its time has come and it is a great pleasure for me to commend it to the House. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to stand in support of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its second reading. The main purpose of this bill is to update a 60-year-old outdated regulatory regime so that patent attorneys can have a modern licensing regime. It is the most important part of the bill which has been missed out. It is going to benefit patent attorneys significantly with time and cost savings through the establishment of a single trans-Tasman registration regime. It will allow them to seamlessly practise in both New Zealand and Australia. That is important because the Government has been working for a long time to ensure that businesses get the opportunity to do their business in a better way and to reduce red-tapeism and paperwork so that it can be helpful in growing their business.This bill helps to build our economy and we have an understanding with Australia that we will have many more opportunities to reduce red-tapeism. This bill aligns our patents system more closely with Australia's building on our close economic relationship by integrating a trans-Tasman relationship. It is important to understand that businesses should be allowed to do what they do best—not do paperwork. With these words I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take a call on the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I just want to point out a small irony somewhat tongue-in-cheek with the last speaker who has been very concerned about a supposed U-turn around the single patent application process (SAP) and the single patent examination process (SEP) but has also indicated that New Zealand First has done a U-turn and is voting from having supported it to not supporting it.This is a good piece of legislation. It is a small change but obviously it is significant for those who practise as patent attorneys. This is something that has come about—well I think it is about 60 years I understand since there have been changes—and fundamentally at the heart of this is to work out a cooperative model between Australia and New Zealand and why as we heard from other speakers this could be of a concern. Actually it sits on a background of a closer economic relationships between New Zealand and Australia over a long long time. In fact I would argue that it would be rather odd for us not to move towards a single framework or system in this area in the way that we have done with many many others.I note too in some of contributions that there was great concern around the officials. It is all well and true for people to voice what they feel and I am not going to change that. But I was struck by one line that was put out earlier which I thought was quite indicative: to say that we did not get the answers we wanted". We heard from the Opposition that "we did not get the answers we wanted". I think that is an insight there shall we say: that receiving answers is not about whether you want them or not; it is the answers that were given. I suppose that is where some of the debate has come from.The other thing I just want to draw the House's attention to and certainly of anyone who is listening is this whole SAP and SEP thing. It is always very easy at times to have a whole lot of acronyms but it can sound a little bit daunting. SAP refers to what they call the single patent application process and SEP is the single patent examination process. The long and the short of it is that these were proposed and now have been withdrawn for the simple reason that actually the ground has changed. The situation has changed. I think it would be foolhardy for any Government to maintain a system whose time has come. I know it has become almost a singular obsessive focus of the Opposition. Again it is completely up to them. But I see it as quite prudent as once again the Government continues to adapt to modern times. I look forward to the progress of this bill."