Category: New Zealand Legislature

Auto Added by WPeMatico

Posted on

NZ must pursue independent foreign policy

Source: Green Party

The Green Party says the need is greater than ever for Aotearoa New Zealand to pursue an independent foreign policy.

“The US election result should be a wake-up call that our country must steer clear of the AUKUS military pact,” says the Green Party Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Teanau Tuiono.

“We cannot be hustled into a military alliance with the US, especially when it’s about to be led by a volatile firebrand with fascist leanings who cozies up to autocrats and dictators, and attacks the rights of women, immigrants, rainbow communities and the most vulnerable.

“Aotearoa New Zealand must return to the independent and principled approach to foreign affairs that we were valued for in the international community. We should use that position to advance climate action, protect nature, advocate for indigenous and human rights, and global justice.

“Advocating for, and working towards, peaceful solutions to the world’s conflicts must be an absolute priority for our country. Unfortunately, this Government is jeopardising our independent foreign policy voice and falling into line behind a march to conflict and great power antagonism that is reckless and unnecessary.

“The current, unstable geopolitical environment calls for cool heads. We should not be entering into any pillar of the AUKUS framework. Even if Pillar 2 is the so-called technology-only part of the agreement, it is still part of the same precarious project fixated on conflict with the west’s perceived enemies.

“The US involvement in the atrocities in Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East should serve as a warning to us that tying ourselves to the military projects of a state that allows or facilitates indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations is unacceptable.

“Let’s remain an advocate for diplomacy and dialogue, and pursue our independent voice in world affairs. That’s what other countries look to us for,” says Teanau Tuiono.

Posted on

Parliament Hansard Report – Wednesday, 6 November 2024 – Volume 779 – 001444

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Finance

1. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Today, Statistics New Zealand released its labour market statistics for the September quarter. This release includes information from the household labour force survey, which looks at people’s labour force status, and the quarterly employment survey, which captures earnings, paid hours, and jobs. The household labour force survey showed that the unemployment rate increased from 4.6 to 4.8 percent in the quarter, and the quarterly employment survey showed that average hourly earnings increased 3.9 percent over the previous year.

Ryan Hamilton: Why is unemployment rising?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Unemployment is rising and has been rising since 2001 because New Zealand has been in a prolonged recession, with monetary tightening used to drive high inflation out of the economy. Sadly, recessions have a human cost. My heart goes out to people who’ve lost their jobs and who are struggling to enter the labour market. Rising unemployment is a reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy is so damaging.

Ryan Hamilton: Was the increase in the unemployment rate as much as expected?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The increase from 4.6 percent to 4.8 percent was lower than forecasters had been predicting. In its August Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank had forecast 5 percent unemployment and the Treasury had forecast 5.2 percent in the Budget update in May. To give some historical context, I would also point out to members that over the last 15 years, the average unemployment rate in New Zealand has been 5 percent.

Ryan Hamilton: What is the outlook for unemployment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today’s results reflect where we are in the economic cycle. Typically, when the economy starts underperforming, the unemployment rate is slow to rise. Then when the economy starts to pick up, it can be slow to fall. In other words, unemployment is a lagging indicator. Now, there are clear indications that the economy has turned upwards, but even so, I would expect the unemployment rate to rise a bit further before beginning to fall. In the August Monetary Policy Statement, for example, the Reserve Bank was forecasting the unemployment rate to rise to a peak of 5.4 percent early next year, then steadily decline.

Posted on

Parliament Hansard Report – Karakia/Prayers – 001443

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2024

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker—Green): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.

Posted on

Parliament Hansard Report – Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers – 001442

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Finance

1. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Today, Statistics New Zealand released its labour market statistics for the September quarter. This release includes information from the household labour force survey, which looks at people’s labour force status, and the quarterly employment survey, which captures earnings, paid hours, and jobs. The household labour force survey showed that the unemployment rate increased from 4.6 to 4.8 percent in the quarter, and the quarterly employment survey showed that average hourly earnings increased 3.9 percent over the previous year.

Ryan Hamilton: Why is unemployment rising?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Unemployment is rising and has been rising since 2001 because New Zealand has been in a prolonged recession, with monetary tightening used to drive high inflation out of the economy. Sadly, recessions have a human cost. My heart goes out to people who’ve lost their jobs and who are struggling to enter the labour market. Rising unemployment is a reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy is so damaging.

Ryan Hamilton: Was the increase in the unemployment rate as much as expected?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The increase from 4.6 percent to 4.8 percent was lower than forecasters had been predicting. In its August Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank had forecast 5 percent unemployment and the Treasury had forecast 5.2 percent in the Budget update in May. To give some historical context, I would also point out to members that over the last 15 years, the average unemployment rate in New Zealand has been 5 percent.

Ryan Hamilton: What is the outlook for unemployment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today’s results reflect where we are in the economic cycle. Typically, when the economy starts underperforming, the unemployment rate is slow to rise. Then when the economy starts to pick up, it can be slow to fall. In other words, unemployment is a lagging indicator. Now, there are clear indications that the economy has turned upwards, but even so, I would expect the unemployment rate to rise a bit further before beginning to fall. In the August Monetary Policy Statement, for example, the Reserve Bank was forecasting the unemployment rate to rise to a peak of 5.4 percent early next year, then steadily decline.

Posted on

Near four-year high unemployment reveals dire need for new direction

Source: Green Party

Today, Statistics New Zealand’s latest labour market report revealed that unemployment has reached 4.8 per cent, the highest rate since late 2020, during the COVID pandemic.

“The Government’s economy for the rich is leaving thousands behind,” says the Green Party’s Spokesperson for Social Development and Employment, Ricardo Menéndez-March.

“We can build an economy that works for everyone and leaves nobody behind by investing in the public services and infrastructure which support our communities as well as programmes like jobs for nature that provide people with meaningful and stable work. 

“The unemployment rate has hit the highest level since COVID, and this is down to the coalition government relying on making people unemployed to lower inflation while prioritising tax cuts, slashing public investment, and undermining the construction industry.

“Losing a job shouldn’t condemn families to poverty, yet successive Governments have set benefit levels below the poverty line and pushed ahead with sanctions that entrench hardship. 

“Instead of punching down on those doing it the toughest and pushing more children into hardship, the Greens will lift all families out of poverty with a Guaranteed Minimum Income. 

“This Government’s punitive approach to welfare and public investment is clearly not working. The Government has engineered an economy that punches down on our communities, one without jobs that simultaneously punishes people for not being able to find work. 

“Poverty is a political choice, one that successive governments have chosen not to address. However, with unemployment rising and households experiencing wave after wave of financial strain, there is no better time than the present to end poverty and introduce an Income Guarantee. 

“This is a policy we campaigned on and will continue to push as disparities in wealth widen and the incomes of people on the breadline stagnate. 

“The Income Guarantee is a commitment to every New Zealander that no matter what, your income will never fall below $390 per week, after tax. For couples, our Income Guarantee will be at least $780, and a single parent will always have an income of at least $750.

“The Greens would support people into work with a supportive welfare system, more training opportunities, and restarting public investment in healthcare, schools, and houses that create good jobs,” says Ricardo Menéndez-March.

  • Statistics NZ data for the September quarter can be found here. 
  • The Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability report can be found here. 
  • The Income Guarantee 2023 election policy can be found here. Rates have been adjusted for inflation.
Posted on

Not too late to abandon the Bill, Christopher

Source: Green Party

The Green Party is urgently calling on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to abandon the Treaty Principles Bill following reports it will be introduced on Thursday. 

“It’s not too late to do the right thing, Christopher. It’s time to abandon this Bill and honour Te Tiriti,” says the Green Party’s spokesperson for Justice, Tamatha Paul.  

“Te Tiriti forms the founding agreement Aotearoa was built upon. It provides the foundations for an enduring relationship between tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti that ensures everybody is looked after and nobody is left behind.

“Te Tiriti is permanent, Governments are temporary. Honouring the Treaty has to come before the honouring of coalition agreements. 

“At Waitangi, Christopher Luxon told Māori that Te Tiriti was our past, present and future. At the tangi of Kiingi Tuuhetia, he spoke to the importance of kotahitanga and the need to honour the legacy of the late Kiingi. If his words are actually worth anything, he would not allow legislation that aims to completely corrupt and defile the defining essence of our nation anywhere near our Parliament. 

“It is high time that his rhetoric matched the reality of his actions when it comes to Te Tiriti. He has stood by and watched as Treaty protections were removed from state care, as the Māori Health Authority was scrapped and as Māori wards were essentially erased. 

“The Prime Minister has two choices: abandon the Bill and honour our founding agreement or unleash a level of division and disharmony that will cut to the very core of our country.

“We call on the Prime Minister to do the right thing and uphold the dignity, meaning and integrity of our founding agreement,” says Tamatha Paul. 

Posted on

Coalition Govt’s expensive tunnel vision for Wellington comes at the expense of the regions

Source: Green Party

A second Mount Victoria tunnel, a duplicate Terrace tunnel alongside highway widening will dump more traffic in the centre of Wellington and result in more pollution. 

“We know urban highway widening does not solve the problem. It’s a 1950s-style solution that makes traffic and pollution worse,” says the Green Party’s spokesperson for Transport, Julie Anne Genter. 

“The only way to ensure more people can move easily around Wellington in the future is to substantially invest in rail, public transport, and active transport. If the Government eventually brings in congestion pricing, people will want and need those alternatives – so logically, they should be the priority.

“If the Government is going to spend a few billion dollars on a road, it would be better spent in the regions where it will actually make a difference – not just a few kilometres of an extra lane in the centre of Wellington.

“The cost of these projects has not yet been publicly disclosed, but it will easily be more than the $3 billion deemed ‘unaffordable’ for the crucial inter-island ferries project, or the Dunedin hospital. 

“It’s outrageous that the Coalition Government is prioritising billions of dollars for a few kilometres of an extra car lane in Wellington, while cutting rail and public transport improvements that would deliver more for our people and our climate.

“The most concerning aspect is the use of the Fast Track Bill, which means local government, communities and the environment will not be considered in the least. This is a classic example of the Government dodging democracy to implement policies and projects that are bad for both people and planet. 

“Wellingtonians deserve to have a say on a project that will have such a monumental impact on the outlook of our city and its future,” says Julie Anne Genter.

Posted on

Parliament Hansard Report – Tuesday, 5 November 2024 (continued on Wednesday, 6 November 2024) – Volume 779 – 001441

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I really take the Minister’s comments about wanting clarity with this bill, and I would love to hear from the Minister whether he would consider the adoption of this amendment to clause 14. Now, this is clause 14(2A), which seeks to replace the word “dishonestly” from (2A). So this is “A misrepresentation made dishonestly must always be taken as showing lack of reasonable care.” Now, the Green Party proposed to replace this word with “fraudulently”. We’re doing this because the word fraudent—”fraudulently”, if I can get that out properly—sets a more appropriate, clear, and specific standard for policy holders to actually show reasonable care. Now, these policy holders—we know that they have this duty of reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when actually entering into these insurance contracts. And an honest mistake, really, I don’t think, should be grounds to deny insurance cover. The bill actually previously stated that misrepresentation made fraudulently must be taken as a lack of reasonable care. However, we really disagree with the select committee’s change to this to replace “fraudulently” with the weaker and vaguer term of “dishonestly”.

What we’re really clear about, when it came to submissions that came before select committee, was the submission from the Insurance Council of New Zealand, and they argued that fraud and dishonesty are really different concepts. They stated that—and this is a quote from their submission—”Dishonesty and fraud are related but distinct concepts. Dishonesty is a broad term that refers to actions that are not honest or lack integrity and can manifest in many ways, including lying, omitting important information, or otherwise misleading someone.”, whereas they say, “Dishonesty does not necessarily involve a deliberate attempt to deceive for personal gain.” Now, this is really serious definition content, and I think it’s really important that we take the advice of the experts in this field and actually clarify these definitions. So I’d love to hear from the Minister whether he would consider the adoption of this amendment to improve the clarity.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Yeah, thank you. Again, we’ve actually traversed this statement. I’ve discussed it before, but just to reiterate what I covered previously, it is an important definition, and the member’s right to raise it, but there are different tests, and they’re quite distinct, and one has a criminal implication; one has a civil implication. Fraud is used in civil compared to criminal cases, so the meaning is much less clear. The criminal standard of fraud describes crimes for personal gain or depriving someone of something by deceit. This implies criminal behaviour proved to a criminal standard of proof, which is different from civil, by the way, and which would not be appropriate here. The civil law standard of fraud, which we have focused on why it is in civil law. It’s been quite deliberate why we’ve used this definition, because the test is different and it’s actually much, much more appropriate, because we’re not talking about criminal stuff; we’re talking about a civil thing. And, actually, like the bill, the UK legislation uses “dishonestly” to discourage deliberate wrongdoing. So, again, I’ll just reiterate, we have covered it, but it is quite a deliberate approach.

Posted on

Parliament Hansard Report – Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Second Reading (continued) – 001440

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak in support of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. This bill represents a crucial step towards securing our energy future as we head to net zero 2050. Let’s be clear. The 2018 ban on oil and gas exploration was shortsighted policy that has hampered our nation’s progress. It not only stopped exploration needed to identify new energy sources, but it also discouraged investment in further development of our existing gas fields, and the result is that our annual natural gas production has peaked and has been lower than we ever predicted, putting our energy security at risk.

Also, let’s be clear. If we don’t use gas until we have renewable energy, we will have to rely on coal. The other side of the House seems to be happy with this, or maybe they’re trying to mask it with their virtual signalling, but the reality is we need thermal generation until we can get our renewable energy on track. When we’re looking at emissions—and we’ve heard cries of flooding in Spain and the effects of climate change—when we burn coal, it emits up to 75 percent more carbon dioxide than if we do gas. That means, if we look at it, 93 to 103 kilograms of carbon dioxide per thermal unit if we use coal and 53 kilograms if we use gas. Some might argue that this bill is a step backwards in our climate change efforts. But let me reiterate: if we burn coal, we are producing 75 percent more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced. Natural gas does produce carbon dioxide, but it’s a vital transition fuel that will help us achieve our ambitious goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

We need to work to double our renewable energy, and I think nobody is disagreeing with that. But that is why we need the fast-track legislation. Because we’ve seen this winter, when the lake levels are low, the sun isn’t shining, the wind isn’t blowing, that we actually need a back-up source. Gas provides a reliable source of energy to supplement those renewable energies. Without gas, we risk the increased reliance on coal, which is a more polluting fossil fuel, or we face switching off our power altogether.

Posted on

Parliament Hansard Report – Contracts of Insurance Bill — In Committee—Part 2 (continued) – 001439

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I really take the Minister’s comments about wanting clarity with this bill, and I would love to hear from the Minister whether he would consider the adoption of this amendment to clause 14. Now, this is clause 14(2A), which seeks to replace the word “dishonestly” from (2A). So this is “A misrepresentation made dishonestly must always be taken as showing lack of reasonable care.” Now, the Green Party proposed to replace this word with “fraudulently”. We’re doing this because the word fraudent—”fraudulently”, if I can get that out properly—sets a more appropriate, clear, and specific standard for policy holders to actually show reasonable care. Now, these policy holders—we know that they have this duty of reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when actually entering into these insurance contracts. And an honest mistake, really, I don’t think, should be grounds to deny insurance cover. The bill actually previously stated that misrepresentation made fraudulently must be taken as a lack of reasonable care. However, we really disagree with the select committee’s change to this to replace “fraudulently” with the weaker and vaguer term of “dishonestly”.

What we’re really clear about, when it came to submissions that came before select committee, was the submission from the Insurance Council of New Zealand, and they argued that fraud and dishonesty are really different concepts. They stated that—and this is a quote from their submission—”Dishonesty and fraud are related but distinct concepts. Dishonesty is a broad term that refers to actions that are not honest or lack integrity and can manifest in many ways, including lying, omitting important information, or otherwise misleading someone.”, whereas they say, “Dishonesty does not necessarily involve a deliberate attempt to deceive for personal gain.” Now, this is really serious definition content, and I think it’s really important that we take the advice of the experts in this field and actually clarify these definitions. So I’d love to hear from the Minister whether he would consider the adoption of this amendment to improve the clarity.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Yeah, thank you. Again, we’ve actually traversed this statement. I’ve discussed it before, but just to reiterate what I covered previously, it is an important definition, and the member’s right to raise it, but there are different tests, and they’re quite distinct, and one has a criminal implication; one has a civil implication. Fraud is used in civil compared to criminal cases, so the meaning is much less clear. The criminal standard of fraud describes crimes for personal gain or depriving someone of something by deceit. This implies criminal behaviour proved to a criminal standard of proof, which is different from civil, by the way, and which would not be appropriate here. The civil law standard of fraud, which we have focused on why it is in civil law. It’s been quite deliberate why we’ve used this definition, because the test is different and it’s actually much, much more appropriate, because we’re not talking about criminal stuff; we’re talking about a civil thing. And, actually, like the bill, the UK legislation uses “dishonestly” to discourage deliberate wrongdoing. So, again, I’ll just reiterate, we have covered it, but it is quite a deliberate approach.