edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look I just want to speak really briefly on why these changes are needed and it comes down to people. As said in the regulatory impact statement Māori Pacific people people with disabilities and women are overrepresented in low-income earners and evidence indicates their groups are likely to be among the hardest hit by COVID-19 economic impacts. Māori and Pacific women in particular are overrepresented in low-wage employment as well as casual temporary and other forms of insecure employment. COVID-19 has only exacerbated the situation for these groups who are also more likely to be in the industries impacted by COVID-19 restrictions.Women with caring responsibilities especially sole parents are also exposed to the adverse effects of economic recessions that can lock in long-term unemployment and poverty including in-work poverty and lead to increased rates of poverty. Changes to the family tax credit considered in this bill provide increases to families with the lowest incomes. They are therefore likely to disproportionately benefit—benefit—Māori Pacific people and women. That is why I support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh thank you Madam Speaker. Just really sad to hear the same old tune from the National Party that the benefits are a bad thing and that supporting our most vulnerable is something that we shouldn't be doing. Well this Government will continue to do it. And because we have picked up four years ago the nine years of neglect of that sector off the National Party we've had a lot of making up to do. This is just one further step in alleviating the abject poverty that the National Party left a lot of people in. And I'm very proud that this small step will lift 3000 more children out of poverty will help 30000 more families and our child poverty reduction targets are all on track—on every measure we're improving it. This is part of it. We'll continue doing it and we will make no apologies for helping those in our society who need help the most. I commend it to the House.
Motions — COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Act 2021—Health Committee Inquiry
Kerekere Elizabeth; Dean JacquiMOTIONSCOVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Act 2021—Health Committee InquiryDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Deputy Musterer—Green): Kia ora. I seek leave to move a motion without notice instructing the Health Committee to inquire into the operation of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Act 2021 together with subordinate instruments made through orders and regulations under empowering provisions introduced through the Act.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill — First Reading
Parker DavidTAXATION (COVID-19 SUPPORT PAYMENTS AND WORKING FOR FAMILIES TAX CREDITS) BILLFirst ReadingDr Elizabeth Kerekere: Point of order Madam Speaker.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I present a legislative statement on the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill.Kieran McAnulty: Point of order Madam Speaker. I'm sorry to interrupt but in the spirit of fairness Elizabeth Kerekere sought a point of order. I don't think Madam Speaker was aware.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. Did the member call a point of order?Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Aroha mai yes. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Apologies. Dr Elizabeth Kerekere.Debate interrupted.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Madam Speaker; thank you. I rise to take the final call on third reading. Just reflecting on some of the contributions in the committee of the whole House yes this does allow for the existence of vaccination certificates but also confirmation—in the committee—around the access to life-preserving services being regardless of vaccination status.The bill clearly has a focus on vaccination. We've heard contributions from members opposite that suggest that some vaccination opportunities actually are only available from 9 to 5. Well we know that that is far from the truth. Actually I find the commentary about general failure coming from members opposite to be absolutely disrespectful—disrespectful to all the hard work that health and community providers are doing to increase vaccination rates. They're working hard around the clock to do their bit to support members of our Māori our Pasifika community to make a difference.This bill will allow greater freedoms as we transition to the new framework. It gives certainty. I commend it to the House.
Leavasa Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa'afetai lava Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this third reading of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill.This bill will help to reopen safely for our whānau and vulnerable communities. Again I want to highlight why we are in this position and that's because of a successful vaccination campaign. Specifically looking at where I'm from in Counties Manukau 92 percent having their first doses and also 85 percent having their second doses. So I just want to say a huge thankyou for all the mahi from all our health providers our nurses our social workers—all the wraparound services—in order to help that rate go up.I always want to look at freedoms. I know everyone wants those freedoms to come about and I know for sure that my electorate of Takanini is also looking forward to those greater freedoms. But we must do it with safety in mind especially when we look to our vulnerable communities. That's why I support this bill to the House. Thank you.
Pallett Sarah; Rurawhe AdrianSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. That was interesting! I would just like to thank Mr Seymour for his comments around Dr Tracey McLellan's minute of heaven. I think that one minute of relevant conversation at this point would have been very welcome.I'm rising to speak to the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill at its third reading and I'm delighted to do so because this bill allows us to move forward with clarity together. Because we are together: 92 percent of eligible New Zealanders have received their first dose of the COVID vaccine which is an extraordinary sign of unity that I think we should celebrate. One million people have accessed their vaccine pass which is again another sign of efficiency and unity. And I would just speak to my colleague Dr Elizabeth Kerekere in just encouraging people who are struggling to access their pass to call the 0800 number—which is 0800 222 478—for support if they need it.So with that I would like to commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Simeon Brown five minutes.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Mr Speaker for the chance to say a few words on the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill—it kind of says it what's written on the tin. This bill assists with the implementation of the protection framework. The amendments provide the legal framework that affords us the chance to move into the next phase of our COVID-19 response; one that is less restrictive because it is based on recognising the protection that vaccination has now given most people. It allows for vaccine certificates to be used. It allows for businesses who want to be able to use vaccination certificates to ensure that their staff are in fact vaccinated. As we heard in the committee stage in dealing with the global pandemic you're often dealing with a situation that can change quickly and you need to be able to change and adapt; so by having reasonably broad empowering provisions this bill accounts for that and creates the flexibility that's required. It's a pragmatic bill about vaccinations it's the next logical step and I commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. So looking back to when we entered alert level 4 for the first time last year we had very limited tools in the tool box to protect us against COVID-19 and our alert levels were the main way that we did protect ourselves. But what's happened since then is we've got 91 percent of eligible New Zealanders having now had their first dose of vaccine and 84 are fully vaccinated. So we can start to take advantage of the protections that confers. But I think for me and for many of us that are reading what has been happening around the world reading the stories online is quite distressing but what to me it says is that while vaccination is important we're also going to need other measures if we're going to prevent our hospital systems getting overwhelmed. So what this bill does is provide those tools that can move into the new COVID protection framework.I think as we've already heard from some of the debate while what this bill does is allow the issuing of COVID-19 vaccination certificates so that people can enter into particular businesses or events it also makes sure that such proof of vaccination is not required for some of those essential services like supermarkets like healthcare facilities like pharmacies and like Work and Income services—so basically making sure we get that balance right. And it also makes sure that businesses have the tools they need to assess the risk of COVID-19 to themselves their business their customers. And basically what it means is they can then weigh up whether they should require their workers to be vaccinated. So this is a very very significant bill that will underpin the new COVID protection framework and I commend this bill to the House.
COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill — Third Reading
Bishop Chris; Mallard TrevorCOVID-19 RESPONSE (VACCINATIONS) LEGISLATION BILLRecommittalCHRIS BISHOP (National): I move That the bill be recommitted to the committee of the whole House for further consideration.SPEAKER: There's not an order of the day; it's one of the problems with the approach that we have. There's not an order of the day currently there to be discharged.
COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill — Recommittal
Speaker's Rulings — COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill—Third Reading Debate
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSCOVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill—Third Reading DebateSPEAKER: Members before I proceed to the third reading I have some comments to make. I will explain that during this forthcoming debate I will allow a much wider and looser approach than is normally the case at the third reading stage of a bill.Urgency of this type used to be common. It isn't any more for good reason; it resulted in bad law. Taking a bill one stage per day and using even a truncated select committee process improves the understanding of legislators allows for informed public and specialist comment and generally improves the quality of the legislation.This policy first became public on 15 October. The policy decisions the drafting instructions or an exposure draft of the bill could and should have been made public and preferably considered by a select committee either through reference through the House or using committees' inquiry functions. The failure for that to occur is primarily the Government's responsibility. But I do note that I have enquired of the Health Committee the Governance and Administration Committee and the Finance and Expenditure Committee and no member of the House requested any use of the inquiry functions at any of those committees and therefore it is a matter which has widespread responsibility.Having said that the rules of the House are clear; we will proceed to a third reading. But in interpreting the rules of relevance in particular and repetition if necessary I will take the widest possible approach to allowing full debate.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Look I'm staggered by this Mr Chair. As you'd be aware we're debating the title of this piece of legislation and if you're one of the million and a half people living in Auckland you've absolutely had a gutsful of the uncertainty that we're all now living in.To speak to the title COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill and Hon Scott Simpson alluded to the fact—you tell that to Auckland right now. If you're a subcontractor or a contractor you're trying to make the determination listening to what this piece of legislation will mean for your business notwithstanding the environment is constantly changing. We've got new variants apparently offshore that are due to arrive and we have this expeditious piece of legislation being pumped through the House in a matter of hours. I think it's egregious. I couldn't even imagine what would be an honest title that this bill deserves but I support the member Mr Bishop when he suggested the COVID-19 Response Broad Sweeping Mandates Bill". It certainly fits."
Rurawhe AdrianClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 title and commencement.
Seymour David; Rurawhe AdrianDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order Mr Chair. Thank you Mr Chair. This is slightly unconventional but please give me a moment. I would like to seek the leave of the committee for the committee to return briefly to debating Part 1 in order that an amendment be made after this part is concluded.The amendment is one that I've given to the Clerk but he can't accept without the leave of the committee. It would basically allow employers to use information that they've got about their employees' vaccination status for the purpose of advertising that their business is 100 percent vaccinated or for advertising and communicating with potential replacement employees. Because my interpretation and some quite high level advice I've had about proposed Section 34B is that at present every shop that says that they are 100 percent vaccinated having acquired that information from their staff will be breaking the law. Anyone who says to a prospective employee There's a vacancy because the person that was doing the job won't be vaccinated." would be breaking the law.So I'll give the Government a moment to think about it. But it might be worth unless they are very very sure at least giving the leave of the committee to return to debating Part 1 for the specific purpose of this amendment which I've just tabled with the Clerk and also allowing the Clerk to accept that amendment when we return to that particular part if the leave is given. I understand that the House in committee are masters of their own destiny and there's no reason under the Standing Orders that they couldn't do it. But whether or not they do will be a decision of the Government. If the Government wants an opportunity to resolve this problem with advertising vaccine status then they can allow it right now.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK. I'm simply going to put the leave. The leave is sought for that purpose? Is there any objection? There is objection. Who wants a call?"
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Much of Mr Woodhouse's comments have gone back and forth. He may not agree with the responses that have been given but I believe they have been responded to. I just want to respond briefly to the final point he has made because I can give a specific and quick response to that. Part 9 of Schedule 1 which is new Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1 of the COVID Act that's a transitional provision and so the vaccine pass and the international travel vaccination certificate are considered to be valid for that period. But into the future the appropriate form will be captured in orders. So I think we are largely agreeing with him there that that is the appropriate way to carry it forward.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I will take the opportunity early on in the debate to comment on the two Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled by the Opposition and set out the Government's reasons for opposing both.The amendment proposed by Scott Simpson and I'm not sure if this was his intention—the advice that I've received is that the amendment proposed by him would oust all personal grievances under the Employment Relations Act not just those related to vaccinations. So I'm not sure that that's his intention but that is a relatively big change to be making by way of a last minute tabled amendment in the House. So the Government is opposed to that amendment.In terms of the amendments put forward by Michael Woodhouse similarly that's a relatively broad provision that would mean that an employer can effectively require vaccination without the use of the assessment tool. It means that there is no criteria then. It is completely at the employer's discretion which seems to be again another position from the National Party and not one that they've previously asserted when in fact they've had their own leader saying that she's opposed to vaccine mandates except for those issued by the Government. So I'm not sure what the National Party's position there is on this.But anyway we think that if an employer is going to require vaccination they should have to have a good public health ground for doing that. That's what the tool is designed to do. So the Government is opposed to that amendment as well.
Salesa JennyPart 2 Amendments to Employment Relations Act 2000 and Schedules 3 and 4CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to Part 2 which is the debate on clauses 19 to 22 and Schedules 3 and 4 Amendments to Employment Relations Act 2000"."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm very pleased to see the Minister for COVID-19 Response in a position to answer questions because my question relates to clauses 4 and 10 around the authorised person. But before I do I just want to add my comment to the response by Michael Wood on the support apparently from business and the unions for the framework for the assessment tool. What he basically told the House was that business went to him and said We want more regulation." Well I don't know what businesses he talks to but none of the businesses that I have heard from say "We want more regulation." Actually they don't mind illumination. They definitely want clarity out of this Government but they ain't asking for more regulation. In fact there were protests down the main street of just about every metropolitan and urban area in this country asking for fewer regulations.So with that point made my question is this—and I think this is emblematic of this bill. We are seeing an amendment at section 5 under clause 4 to the definition of an "authorised enforcement person". It means "a person authorised under section 18" and then we go to the change to section 18 which says to replace in the heading of section 18 "Authorised" with "Authorised enforcement". Effectively what we're doing is changing a title because there are no other changes to section 18. Effectively all we're doing is saying "An authorised person is now called an authorised enforcement person." So my question to the Minister is why on earth is this change being made? It feels like one of those Yes Minister moments where a committee of bureaucrats have sat around going "Well we haven't described the authorised person correctly. We want to call them an authorised enforcement person." So the question is this Minister: am I correct in assuming that the only change being made to the COVID response Act is to a title and that there are no other powers constraints or benefits being conferred on a person now known as an authorised enforcement person who was previously described as an authorised person? If the answer to that question is yes for me that sums up the ham-fisted approach to this bill."
McAnulty Kieran; Salesa JennyKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I take the next call can I warn members that the issues and the questions being raised are beginning to be repetitive—since last night.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I do appreciate being given the opportunity to take a call. There are a couple of questions and matters that I want to ask Ministers in relation to this legislation. One relates to the beginnings of a conversation that was started by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse last night. It's around the word engaged" in clause 4(1) of the bill where it says an " 'affected worker' means a worker who is employed or engaged by a PCBU to carry out specified work". The question really relates to the definition of "engaged". That is a word that has quite potentially wide ramifications in terms of definition and I'm keen to know from the Minister his interpretation of what engaged might mean. Does it for instance include contractors? Does it include people who may be delivering product or services to a premises? Although the Minister attempted last night to give some kind of indication he really ended up—[Knocks over a glass of water]—just making more confusion than he did anything else. And as is often the case when you have a glass of water there appears to be about 10 gallons of water in half a glass of water but that's just the way it goes—[Barbara Kuriger passes paper towels to Hon Scott Simpson] Thank you very much to my colleague Barbara Kuriger. So there we go. The second matter that I wanted to raise relates to clause 6 which sets out some changes to the principal Act under section 11 of the principal Act. These are the provisions that require people to "stay in a specified area place or premises or refrain from going to any specified area" and then also to "refrain from travelling". Now these are matters that are of deep significant importance to constituents and people in my part of the country in the Coromandel. Of course the Auckland border has now been in place for several months and it's very clear that there has been an impact not only on Aucklanders wanting to travel to the beautiful Coromandel but also upon people living and doing business in the Coromandel who have not had the benefit of visitors coming and spending time and money in the region.So these are two clauses that make changes to the principal Act and what I'm keen to know from the Minister is why the changes are necessary and what particularly are they. They seem to be broadening the already very wide parameters that the Government has and the ability that the Government has to enforce people to stay in a specified area place or premises and that is obviously in relation to managed isolation and quarantine facilities but it's the refrain from travelling that is of concern. So what I'm keen to know from Ministers is: what is the reason for the change and how has the principal Act been amended? What are the differences and why? Those are the principal questions that I have—while I sort out the water issue Mr Chair."
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to seek some more details from the Minister regarding some comments he made around my colleague Simeon Brown's tabled amendment that the House of Representatives release all advice that was considered in making an order particularly in relation to a health order. We in the South Island feel incredibly abandoned by this Government. If I just go back in time a little bit when Delta first hit we complied and got on board. We had absolutely no cases in our community whatsoever. We sat through the level 4; we complied. We sat through the level 3; we complied. Inexplicably we have been languishing in a level 2 environment for two months now. We the National Party's South Island MPs wrote to the Prime Minister and asked her to release the technical advice that she'd been using to base this decision on bearing in mind we had no community cases. We had not had any community cases for over a year. The Prime Minister never responded to us. She transferred the inquiry on to the Minister himself who did respond—thank you Minister—about a month or so I think after we'd written. We received this most extraordinary letter from him that was just so incredibly vague saying something along the lines of Cabinet had been looking for evidence of the effects of the measures on the economy and society more broadly."Well let me tell you something for free Minister: the effects have been extraordinary. I say this with deep appreciation and sympathy towards all the businesses in Auckland that have just literally gone through hell but businesses in the South Island are going through hell as well. If you're a hospitality business you are being requested to double your staff but halve your patronage. I tell you now hospitality businesses throughout Christchurch have liquidated in their droves. There are about 500 businesses—members of the Christchurch Central City Business Association—that want to know why we are still in level 2.I refer to the bill; yes I understand we are changing the framework. We're heading into the "red light orange light green light go" framework which absolutely nobody understands. But Minister you did comment before to my colleague Simeon Brown that you would release this health information in future and we do very much appreciate that but we'd also like to know: with what regularity? Is it going to be proactive or are we going to have to make an Official Information Act request? Is it going to be on Friday at 4 o'clock in the afternoon or will you be free and frank with the advice on which you are making this decision to keep us in lockdown so that we know so that we can get on board with it—so we can get on board with our businesses and get on board with our lives?"
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thanks Mr Chair. The question that I have is on something that the Minister raised earlier today. In the legislative statement that the Minister presented to the House it said In addition the Bill amends the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 to:"—one of the bullet points says—"require vaccination where the Director-General for the Ministry for Primary Industries has determined this necessary in order to facilitate access for specific products or classes of products to specific overseas markets." The question I would like to ask the Minister is: there's nothing specific in this bill that works the Ministry for Primary Industries or in fact the director-general's decisions in here—it's a health bill rather than a market access bill. I know that the Minister talked before about orders that sit underneath this bill but I would require a bit more explanation from the Minister as to how he sees this happening because it's very difficult to actually explain that when it's not in the bill. I would be really appreciative if the Minister could please give us an explanation on that one. Thank you."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I would ask the Minister if he's able to confirm in response to a point that Chris Bishop made in his last contribution that this legislation does not purport to override the inherent jurisdiction of the courts that even if it tried to it would be very hard to achieve that by legislation—and we certainly wouldn't want to—and that indeed the Government through the Attorney-General is trying to enable to the courts to control these processes through their inherent jurisdiction to control their own court spaces in part because the rights of people who are being tried are very very important and if they believe that their trial is unfair at the behest of anyone including a judge we want them to have appeal rights to higher courts so that the courts can consider these issues through those normal appellant processes rather than through the executive trying to determine all of those things through executive orders.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Once again we get yet another contradictory position from the Opposition who have spent the last couple of weeks demanding that the Government move quickly to give people more freedoms and are now saying that we should slow down that work so that the select committee can pontificate about the contents of the bill. In fact the bill is required in order to move to that situation where people get more freedom and where people are able to go about their daily lives with a great deal more flexibility than they have under the current alert level framework. So I'm not really entirely sure what the Opposition's position is—whether we're moving too fast or too slow—because they seem to be arguing both of those things simultaneously.In terms of the issues around the courts: as I indicated no decisions have been made around the courts. The bill allows for decisions to be made around the court. None have been and the very dilemmas that the member Chris Bishop raised are ones that we need to work through including for example whether it would be a fair and representative jury pool if we were to exclude either unvaccinated or vaccinated bearing in mind that if you require people to be vaccinated you're excluding the unvaccinated and if you require that unvaccinated people are in there some vaccinated people will choose not to be. So those are issues that are quite complex and that we will need to work through quite carefully and I don't think that this is necessarily the place where we are going to get measured argument and debate about that. But I think the judiciary need to be involved in that discussion as they will be. So no decisions have been made. So let's be very clear: no decisions have been made about that.In terms of the other question that was raised before about whether under section 34A personal information is still private or will this be used for prosecution the bill is very clear: contact tracing information can only be used for contact tracing for ensuring compliance with COVID-19 orders or those made under the Health Act. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner I can also say has been involved in the drafting of those clauses.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair and thank you Minister for being in the Chamber to answer a few questions. The two areas that I want to get into are in regard to clause 4 Section 5 amended (Interpretation)" in Part 1 of the bill and in particular the term "vaccinated". Why I ask about that I say to the Minister is in regards to the fact that the requirements under having to be vaccinated for individuals says that the term "vaccinated" is something that the Director-General of Health will specify. I think most Kiwis out there will be thinking that "vaccinated" means having two doses right? Yet under this legislation it is now for the director-general to define the term of whether someone is vaccinated.I think that poses and interesting question because we're obviously aware of the need to be double-dosed and that but we are also now aware of subsequent booster shots that may be required for certain individuals. So taking into account that this legislation is not time-boxed—it is open-ended—and the fact that the reality of the future in terms of the way in which we're managing COVID within our communities from a vaccination point of view is initially a double dose but then subsequently potentially follow-ups how is this definition of "vaccinated" going to be interpreted by the director-general and I guess how are we going to avoid this being confusing because as has been referred to quite a bit throughout that is one of the big challenges. So that's the first question I have for the Minister.My second question is in regards to clause 14 "Section 34A amended (Protection of contact tracing information). I guess why I raise this is that to date the provision of the private and personal information that is within the COVID-19 quick response (QR) scanning app has very much been protected from a privacy point of view. However what I acknowledge here is that now under this bill aspects of that look to be changed and I again refer to section 34A(1)(a) (b) and (c). In effect the information stored or disclosed in terms of the QR scanning app or paper forms can be used for enforcement of the Act or for a COVID-19 order including for the purposes of proceedings against a person for non-compliance.So I'd like the Minister to provide some explanation in terms of what actually in that regard is changing. Is people's personal information still private in terms of when they scan in their QR code or is the reality now that the Government is looking to broaden their ability to use that personal information to undertake enforcement activities and prosecutions and how far will that go in terms of what looks in effect to be potentially a track and trace system? I'm really looking for some clarity from the Minister in that regard.So the two areas—just so that he's clear—are section 34A in clause 14 in regards to privacy and the other element is in terms of the interpretation under section 5 in clause 4 around a vaccinated person."
Rurawhe AdrianTUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 2021(continued on Wednesday 24 November 2021)COVID-19 RESPONSE (VACCINATIONS) LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 and Schedules 1 and 2 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mōrena mai tātou katoa. The committee is resumed. Members we are on Part 1 of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill committee stage.
Tuesday 16 November 2021 - Volume 756
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.The result corrected after originally being announced Ayes 108 Noes 10 to include Te Paati Māori's votes that were subsequently cast.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees Levies and Costs) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 55New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees Levies and Costs) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 stand part.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 stand part.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 2
VotePart 2 Amendments to other enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 13 to 20: Amendments to other enactments".A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We now come to Schedule 1. The question is that Schedule 1 stand part. A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Schedule 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part. A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Schedule 2 agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Part 1 agreed to.
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 1
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the amendments recommended by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; 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 Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; 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.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The time has come for the dinner break. We will resume sitting at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020: COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 6) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 7) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021 and COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 8) 2021.Ayes 118New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 2Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Orders approved.
10. Question No. 10—Economic and Regional DevelopmentWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for Economic and Regional DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Economic and Regional Development10. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he made regarding climate standards for new Government buildings?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Last week Minister Shaw and I announced that from 1 April 2022 all new non-residential Government buildings with a capital value of over $25 million will have to meet a minimum Green Star rating of 5. As of the 1 April 2023 this standard will apply to all new non-residential Government buildings with a capital value of over $9 million. These minimum standards will ensure Government buildings achieve a level of excellence and climate-friendly design and construction rarely seen in New Zealand. Our Government has committed to achieving carbon neutrality in the public sector within five years and this announcement takes us a step closer towards delivering on that promise.Willow-Jean Prime: How will this rating system work?Hon STUART NASH: The Green Star standard operates on a system of 100 points with 4 star 5 star or 6 star ratings available. A 5-star rating requires between 60 and 74 points with points allocated for reductions in operational and embodied carbon construction and operational waste as well as other climate-friendly features such as reduced stormwater discharge or peak electricity demand. Buildings are big emitters but the solution to this such as improved design better waste management improved water and energy efficiency and the low use of low-carbon materials is achievable. This particular Green Star system is administered by the New Zealand Green Building Council and is adapted to suit a New Zealand context.Willow-Jean Prime: What feedback has he received on this announcement?Hon STUART NASH: A lot of positive feedback. For example Cristina Gamboa head of the World Green Building Council speaking from COP-26 in Glasgow has said and I quote that This government promise … catapulted Aotearoa to the forefront of countries who recognize that buildings have a critical role to play in tackling climate change" and that "This ambitious policy shows exactly the kind of leadership that is needed and we'll be using it as an example to encourage other national governments to follow in New Zealand's footsteps."Hon Eugenie Sage: How much does he expect applying the Green Star 5 standard to non-residential Government buildings will reduce the waste produced in their design and construction and how will the Government measure that reduction?Hon STUART NASH: It's my understanding that the Green Star framework requires about 70 percent of construction waste to be diverted from landfill. This will be achieved by for example using recyclable products like building out of wood."
8. Question No. 8—PoliceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 8—Police8. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding Police's efforts to disrupt organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I've seen reports that Police Operation Mist has resulted in the seizure of more than 50 kilograms of cocaine; nine individuals arrested; and $300000 in cash cocaine and cryptocurrency wallets seized. Operation Mist has delivered a massive blow to an organised crime syndicate who Police believe to be one of the major suppliers of cocaine into New Zealand. Based on waste-water data Police believe this group were supplying the majority of cocaine into New Zealand. The success of this operation is testament to the hard work of police officers and the relationships they have built with their international colleagues including the United States Drug Enforcement Administration Colombian national police the Spanish customs service and the Cook Islands customs service.Ginny Andersen: What other recent actions have Police taken to disrupt organised crime and the illicit drug trade?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I've also seen reports that as part of Operation Freya Police and Customs have dismantled a sophisticated drug dealing and smuggling operation making 12 arrests and seizing $8 million worth of drugs in the process. Together these two operations have struck a major blow to organised crime and the supply of illicit drugs in New Zealand.Ginny Andersen: How is the Government supporting Police in their efforts to disrupt organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government recognises the harm caused by gangs and organised crime in our community and that's why we've undertaken significant cross-Government work to respond to local national and transnational organised crime. We've committed to amending the proceeds of crime legislation to ensure that those involved in organised crime would have to demonstrate their assets were obtained through legitimate means. If they can't their assets will be seized. We're putting a record number of police on the front line with a specific focus on organised crime. This Government's record investment in Police will include 700 additional investigators. This operation highlights the excellent impact these officers can have.
3. Question No. 3—Research Science and InnovationNAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 3—Research Science and Innovation3. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: How is the Government backing high pay-off innovative research projects including those that support the fight against COVID-19 and climate change?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): Science and innovation are primary tools in helping Aotearoa address significant challenges like COVID-19 and climate change. I recently announced that through the Marsden Fund we're investing more than $82 million over the next three years across 120 projects. This includes opportunities for funding pioneering blue-sky research to create new knowledge as well as applied science to support the transition to a low-emissions and climate resilient economy.SPEAKER: Before I call a member I just want to indicate to members who have been away for a while that you don't need to put your mask on in between your supplementaries and the main question.Naisi Chen: Thank you Mr Speaker. How will the research funded through this Marsden Fund round underpin New Zealand's climate change response and understanding?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is committed to addressing the challenges created by climate change and transitioning to a low-carbon future. Through the Marsden Fund we're investing in a range of projects to help us understand and respond to the effects of climate change. Climate change projects include how the Antarctic ice sheets will respond and the effects on our oceans; research into how our oceans behave including carbon sink areas that could have implications for global carbon budgets; and research into the behaviour and implications of micro-plastics in our environment. The researchers carrying out these projects will drive New Zealand's ambitions in pioneering world-leading research.Naisi Chen: How will this Government's investment into science support the Government's COVID-19 response efforts and ongoing health response?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Science has always been at the heart of the Government's response to COVID-19. Projects funded through the Marsden Fund include supporting research into the impact of the last 18 months on our rangatahi as they moved into an online learning environment and understanding why people change their beliefs. We've also invested $33 million through the COVID-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund to support innovative research projects and technology that mitigate the impact or prevent the spread of COVID-19. These included epidemiological modelling genomic sequencing and detection of COVID-19 in waste water which has underpinned New Zealand's ability to respond to COVID-19 and contain the virus. I want to congratulate and thank everyone involved for their impactful work that will benefit this country's long-term future and transform people's lives for the better.
Wednesday 17 November 2021 - Volume 756
Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; 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 first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.