edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you sir. I too stand tonight in support of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill and it seems to me like a spooky coincidence that we are discussing this on the day before Halloween.In New Zealand we have about 31000 deaths a year and so this bill is appropriate to about 7750 of those deaths that are referred to the coroner. The result of the inquiry during the 51st Government by the Māori Affairs Committee into this issue resulted in several recommendations coming out of that committee. Of those recommendations most have been accepted or acknowledged by the Government. One was rejected and actually when I did read it I felt that it was probably out of scope—that was the co-sleeping arrangements and the decision-making around whether police prosecute or not.But really the crux of this bill is the recommendation around section 26 of the Coroners Act 2006. It simply takes the discretion out of the coroner's ability around the tikanga Māori and makes it a requirement. That's a very simple adjustment that this bill makes. I have very little more to say on it. I commend this bill to the House.
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe otirā ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I'm pleased to stand in support of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Persons) Amendment Bill. Can I first start by acknowledging the hard work of the coroner's office at a sometimes very sad time for many whānau. Having said that my experience as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti has often been on the other side of constituents. There is a sense of unfairness when constituents are dealing with the coroner's office simply because it requires them to be disengaged from their loved ones and this bill is attempting to address that in the introduction of tikanga Māori.For those members tikanga: two words there tika and nga—tika meaning correct things that are right and positive; and nga the plural meaning always correct and positive. So I view that this introduction of tikanga Māori in this particular bill conjures up the principles of fairness of inclusiveness and of making sure it's relevant and therefore it's appropriate that we are having this introduced into this bill for the very reason that for many of our people or the people I represent their experience with the coroner's office like I said has always been a challenging one. It's challenging in the sense that often there's no word of when they're going to get their loved ones back. Like I said so often the body is taken away. I've had examples where coroner's offices have been closed over the long weekend so I'm often getting called to see how we can intervene. When there is an autopsy there is tikanga around the removal of body parts and how that is actually returned to the whānau. So this bill goes some way in addressing those really critical issues for the people that I represent and therefore I think it's great that the Minister has brought the bill to the House. I too want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committees of the 51st and the 52nd Parliaments for bringing it to this House. I want to acknowledge the Minister's acceptance of most of the recommendations from the Māori Affairs Committee.My closing point really is his response to the Minister of Justice working on the code of best practice and obviously involving the Chief Coroner—I would just offer that Māori are involved in the design of those best practices—and also the further work around communicating from the first respondents involving again the Ministry of Justice and police. Are we going to ensure a standard approach across this particular bill that Māori are also part and parcel of the code of best practice as well as the way we communicate with whānau?It is a clause that's applicable to all cultures. That's why I'm really supportive of that. It's timely that we are introducing tikanga Māori concepts into our legislation. This is one of hopefully more to come. I commend this bill and look forward to its third and final reading. Kia ora tātou.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I appreciate the comments made by other colleagues on both sides of the House in support of this bill. Like my colleagues on this side of the House and again others I am pleased to be able to support the intent of this bill. I think the member Michael Wood's comments about the way in which it's been put together are well made and I would endorse those.I too would like to thank those who are involved in these sensitive matters on the ground so to speak: coroners and police officers alike who inevitably deal with difficult situations by the inevitable nature of the matters being considered by this bill. So it's appropriate to give them the tools that they need to be able to handle these situations in an appropriate manner. I think it is appropriate that the criterion of cultural considerations is one that the coroner is required to consider but it doesn't say in the bill that that is necessarily a determinative matter in any individual case.Other aspects of the bill may be worth touching on briefly but I will be brief because other colleagues have said I think probably just about all that needs to be said. I was taken with the comments of Tracey Martin Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and Nuk Korako among others about the fact that it is a scenario that can apply across different ethnicities races cultures and so forth and religious beliefs—sometimes aligned to those—as well as of course tangata whenua from whom the impetus came to make this in the form of Metiria Turei and her fellow members of that 51st Parliament's Māori Affairs Committee. So I commend her those members and indeed the present committee for their actions.I think the only thing that I find objectionable in the bill is the split infinitive in the second word of the general policy statement requiring the coroner to also consider cultural considerations" but I think that would make me a "grammatical Grinch" if I were to sort of highlight that and emphasise that any more than I already have.So moving on I simply join others in commending this bill to the House and say that I think it's a very worthwhile piece of legislation and look forward to it passing in due course."
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill and especially on behalf of the Green Party to celebrate the work that's been done by our previous co-leader Metiria Turei who advocated for the inquiry of the Māori Affairs Committee that eventually led to this bill and was carried forward again as she sat on the Māori Affairs Committee this term—Marama Davidson as well. I congratulate the Minister the Hon Andrew Little for carrying forward some of the recommendations of that inquiry which included a review of the coronial services and practices as well as police and the justice system to include not only tikanga Māori but of course in this bill as we've seen reflected also the cultural practices of all cultures.As we know sudden death—the kind of death that leads to an inquiry by the coroner—can be the most traumatic loss to family and whānau. At that moment to be denied the appropriate cultural processes and grieving can not only be traumatic but make a situation that's probably the worst that that family is going to face far more traumatic unnecessarily traumatic. Not only that we see this bill as being part of our nation's way of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi our founding constitutional document which I think we've all come to a point of acknowledging can't kind of just be settled but has to be honoured in a way that's ongoing which includes our inclusion of tikanga Māori in all policy areas in an ongoing way. So it's important to advocate for those practices to be not only acknowledged but actively included and to form the basis of law and policy especially in this really important area.We know that the recommendations of the inquiry went beyond this and so I hope that this standardised way of incorporating tikanga will go beyond this and will be incorporated in other areas of our justice system in particular where there's been a death like this—a sudden death. But for today we do celebrate that the work of that inquiry not only has come to fruition but also now forms the basis of this law that will actually standardise coroners' practices that have included tikanga in the past but will ensure that they will do so will ensure that family members can stay with the remains of their loved ones can mourn and can conduct other types of bereavement practices as we move towards being a nation that not only honours the Treaty of Waitangi but is actively a multicultural society. So I do commend the bill to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to participate in this Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I think it is very important to start with the understanding that we should respect everyone's culture. And if there are any challenges and there are any loopholes they should be fixed as soon as possible.This bill is an outcome from the 51st Parliament's inquiry by the Māori Affairs Committee which recommended eight things to the Government out of which I think six have been taken as part of this bill and I hope that this will satisfy the cultural aspect where there was a lacking point. It makes sense to update the coroners legislation to improve cultural considerations. As has been mentioned by all the previous speakers today it is very important. Even the police have got their role to play but we should respect the cultural aspect of everybody in this country.The Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill implements a recommendation from the Māori Affairs Committee of the 51st Parliament to improve the cultural consideration in the coronial system. It results from the committee's inquiry into whānau access to the management of tūpāpaku—the body of the dead person. The Māori Affairs Committee of the 52nd Parliament in its report issued on 10 October 2018 commends the work of the previous Māori Affairs Committee that led to this change in legislation. It recommends that the bill may be passed without amendment.It is important that we take care of the issues which have been raised. As we know 31000 people die each year most of which are the result of a natural cause. However 20 percent of the deaths are referred to the coroner for investigation. Most of the issues discussed in the report regard the access to the management of tūpāpakus during and after this referral process.When considering whether to conduct a post-mortem the coroner must have regard to the criteria set out in section 32. This includes whether the cultural beliefs require the tūpāpaku to be made available as soon as possible after the death or where post-mortems are considered offensive. As the Hon Tracey Martin mentioned culturally there are requirements sometimes where the deceased person is to be brought back to the family so that the body can be with their loved ones and they can take care of the body. So I think it is important that we should take care of the cultural aspect and this bill does the same and I commend this bill to the House.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'll rise and take a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. I remember when this bill came through the New Zealand First caucus and I want to acknowledge both the speakers before me Jacqui Dean and Greg O'Connor and the sensible and real contribution that we're making here. This is a very serious issue. And I do think that my colleague Greg O'Connor outlined very carefully and very clearly why it is that coroners need to have our loved ones with them at some times and why we can't be with them so that if we need to make sure that justice can be served we have all that is required to make sure that in those circumstances where—and Mr O'Connor outlined a situation where there was no foul play—there is foul play the coroner has been given the opportunity along with the police to make sure that they have what they need to at times hold others to account.But I do think that this is just a move forward. I remember the conversation inside my own caucus because this has been particularly raised I suppose in a New Zealand context. Often we talk about whānau and we talk about tikanga Māori and so on and so forth but in my own family—which is a combination of Māori and Pākehā in this country—we also bring our dead home. We don't leave them alone. There is this very short period of time. They should never be on their own until the time when they are going to the final place of their resting.So for myself I guess when I look at the words inside the legislation we're looking at that says and the expectations of other cultures" I hope that because of the colour of my skin somebody doesn't assume that I don't have a culture also and that it doesn't also mean mine. I suppose even if I was to go back six generations to my Irish and Scottish ancestors they too had wakes—they too did not leave their dead alone. So I think this is just a move as a nation that we're taking that we can do what we need to do with an enormous amount of respect for the loved ones of the individual with whom we must take some certain actions. Again it is because there is the need for justice downstream more often than not but we can do it with a kindness and with a realism that there are people that are grieving and that there is real loss and do it by explaining what is the situation that is going through and at the earliest possible time we will make sure that their loved ones will be reunited with them.So with that said there is nothing more to say. I think that across the House we agree that this is a good thing that we are doing. It's a moving-forward for our nation. I appreciate that the coroners have been doing this really without legislation in the majority of cases and that this is just really formalising what we hope to see normalised across New Zealand going forward. Kia ora."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. This legislation before us is another step in reforming the coronial system and National supports this next iteration in making the coronial services to New Zealand more humane. The speaker who has just resumed his seat Greg O'Connor very ably pointed out the need for coroners to have good access to the circumstances surrounding a death so that they can determine the cause of death but balance that with the increasing understanding that the families of the deceased also have needs that need to be met.I'm very mindful of a piece of work that this Parliament dealt with—with your indulgence Mr Assistant Speaker—maybe three or four years ago under the Coroners Amendment Bill. In the Justice Committee which I chaired at the time we heard submissions and a very powerful submission from the family of a young person who died in a ballooning tragedy in the Wairarapa and about the anguish of that family who submitted to our committee. There will be members in the House who will recall the anguish of that family at knowing their very loved child was lying in the field but with no access to that child. It prevented them from ever finding peace and closure because once the body of that child was released to them it was too late for them to physically say goodbye.Just as that anguish was expressed to us and catered for in the Coroners Amendment Bill—probably in about 2015-16 maybe—so does this bill before us today acknowledge access and management of tūpāpaku and how very important that is in tikanga Māori and I hope I do justice to this. But that was an aspect of the coronial amendment bill back several years ago that we were mindful of and it's so good to see it being singled out as an issue that is now going to be legislated for. I do hope that in the future it brings peace and comfort to those families who are dealing with the very dreadful situation of having a coronial inquiry and a police involvement in a bereavement. So on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill — In Committee
Upston LouiseParts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I'm pleased to be able to take a call in this committee stage of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. This of course is a piece of legislation that this side of the House supports. When Bill English as Prime Minister was visiting the Pacific last June this was a commitment that was made at that time. So we are pleased to see that the new Government is delivering that undertaking.Of course these changes seem quite small and straightforward but for the people that are impacted by them it's not just life changing for them but also for their countries. So it makes a much fairer system for the residents of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau and in terms of the submissions that we heard on the Social Services and Community Committee there were only a small number of submissions and there really wasn't too much disagreement. So this piece of legislation is welcomed by the National members. We appreciated the opportunity to hear from a small number of submitters in the select committee process and so we are pleased that the Government is addressing this legislation with haste which is why we don't have questions for the Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni. The committee didn't propose any changes from the bill as introduced which I think just recognises that there is a significant impact in this legislation. The ability in terms of the residency requirements after the age of 50 making eligibility much easier and the ability for those to be able to return to their home countries of the Cooks Niue and Tokelau is a really critical component of those local economies and provides a lot more flexibility and recognises the very special status we have with those countries. So I'm pleased to support this and the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill in this committee stage.
Dyson Ruth; Rurawhe AdrianHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the remainder of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill to be debated as one.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears not to be.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll just take a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First. It's a long time coming. Great to see it here; great to see that it is this Government moving it forward very quickly.I do acknowledge the speaker who just resumed his seat Dan Bidois. It was in 2015 that an amendment was originally put forward by the previous administration. That is true. Unfortunately it didn't do what was promised to the Cook Islands Niuean and Tokelauan community which was the five years over 50. One of the reasons why this is so important is because obviously as well as being proud Cook Islanders Rarotongans Niueans or Tokelauans the people from these islands are New Zealanders. So it seemed an anomaly that they couldn't access their superannuation and be able to have the superannuation that they were entitled to under the rules and regulations and be able to also take their skills and their superannuation and go to the Islands.In a way this is part of the way that New Zealand supports the Realm nations. It's the way that we have worked with their Governments to ensure that we are able not just to encourage Cook Islanders Niueans and Tokelauans to go home to take their skills home to build their communities to actually create a level of skill there but also to allow New Zealanders any New Zealander to go there and to participate and start to build what is the fabric of the cultures on the Islands. It's just an extension of the greater relationship that we have with our Realm nations.So I just really want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and the speed with which she has been able to address what is an anomaly in the 2015 legislation that went through. I was in the House at that time. I remember listening to that piece of legislation going through and thinking this was actually not what the conversation was between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of our colleagues in the Realm nations. So it's really nice to be part of a Government that is putting this right which is making sure that we honour the commitment that was originally made.I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been an advocate for this. I know the Prime Minister has been an advocate for this. I know that they want to do and provide through this legislation what was originally agreed between the New Zealand Government and the Governments of the Realm nations. So again I just take a very quick call on my part to acknowledge the Minister in the chair and to acknowledge the Government. We want to move this forward because this is something to the benefit of our friends in the Islands and also to the New Zealanders that will make the Islands home and take their skills there to help as I say build what is the capacity of those communities to deal with the issues that are coming. Kia ora.
Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamPart 2 Repeal revocation and amendment of enactments Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister for Courts): Part 2 is very short. It consists of three clauses and one schedule. Part 2 will repeal the Birdlings Flat Land Titles Act 1993. This Act which Mr Bishop sort of jumped the gun on authorised the Birdlings Flat Land Titles Commissioner to divide the land at Birdlings Flat on the Banks Peninsula into separate land titles. This Act is no longer needed because the subdivision was completed in 2000. Part 2 also makes consequential amendments to Acts and regulations to align with the changes made in Part 1. I recommend this to the committee. Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1AAThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 1AA be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 1AA as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 2AThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 2A be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 2A as amended agreed to.Schedule 2BThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 2B be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 2B as amended agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Schedule 4 agreed to.Schedule 5The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 5 be agreed to:in new regulation 3(2)(ba) of Part 3 item relating to the Human Rights Regulations 1993 replace electronically:" with "electronically; or". Amendments agreed to.Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently."
Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Courts Matters Bill — In Committee—Part 4
Courts Matters Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Courts Matters Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Tolley Anne; Sio Hon Aupito WilliamPart 2 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 2 debate on clauses 25 to 42A and schedule 2A.Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister for Courts): Madam Chair I'll just spend a few minutes introducing this part. Part 2 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act which governs the operations of the criminal courts. These amendments will improve efficiency and timeliness. Most of the amendments are minor and technical in nature and I will highlight a few of the more significant changes.The Criminal Procedure Act sets out the procedure for the conduct of criminal proceedings. It divides offences into four categories based on maximum penalty and prescribes different procedures for each category. Category 1 comprises the most minor offences and has the least procedural requirements. Category 4 comprises the most serious offences and has the most rigorous procedural requirements.Part 2 reclassifies offences with a maximum penalty of a community-based sentence as category 1 offences. These offences are currently category 2 offences. This change will enable defendants to submit their plea in writing instead of having to appear in court. This better reflects the low-level nature of offences with a maximum penalty of a community-based sentence such as graffiti.Part 2 broadens the power to issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and to bring them to court. This amendment is limited to offences with a maximum penalty of imprisonment and where serving a summons to appear in court is unnecessary or impractical. These circumstances include where the police are seeking to extradite the defendant from overseas for prosecution in New Zealand or where the police do not know where the defendant is. Part 2 of the Courts Matters Bill will improve the efficiency and timeliness of criminal courts and I trust this outline will assist members in the examination of Part 2.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Courts Matters Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamCOURTS MATTERS BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Courts Security Act 1999Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister for Courts): The Courts Matters Bill is an omnibus bill that makes relatively small but important amendments. This bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill form an integrated package of reforms to the courts and tribunals system. The Courts Matters Bill is in four parts and amends 16 Acts governing court security fine enforcement and court procedures. These amendments will improve people's experience of the courts reduce the time that it takes to hear and resolve matters and enable greater use of modern technology.I will highlight the principal amendments as we examine each part of the bill. Before turning to Part 1 I note that the Government's Supplementary Order Paper 134 inserts a new Subpart 9A in Part 4 which amends the Senior Courts Act 2016 to restore the ability of a single Court of Appeal judge to decide minor contested matters in civil cases instead of three judges having to decide these applications. It also makes minor amendments corrects drafting errors and adjusts commencement dates.Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Courts Security Act which governs the provision of security services in specified courts and tribunals. These amendments will help people feel safer in court and tribunal buildings. They will align the Courts Security Act with developments in comparable security legislation in New Zealand and other jurisdictions. This is the first time the Courts Security Act has been reviewed since it was passed in 1999.Part 1 will give court security officers greater powers to deal with disruptive people whose behaviour is causing distress to other people. In future court security officers will be able to deny entry to or to remove people who are acting threateningly or abusively. They will also be able to prevent people bringing alcohol into court buildings. At present court security officers can only deny entry to or remove a person who has refused to cooperate with security screening processes.Part 1 will also authorise court security officers to detain people who commit minor crimes such as disorderly behaviour wilful damage or who are in possession of illegal drugs. People will continue to be detained until the police arrive. Court security officers are currently only authorised to detain people who have committed very serious offences.Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill will assist court security officers to provide the safe secure and orderly court environment that court users are entitled to and I trust this outline will assist members in their examination of Part 1.
Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Tolley AnnePart 3 Amendments related to consumer matters consequential amendments and other miscellaneous amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 3 which is the debate on clauses 24 to 37 about amendments related to consumer matters consequential amendments and other miscellaneous amendments and schedules 4 5 and new schedule 6.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to schedule 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 4 agreed to.Schedule 5 agreed to.New schedule 6The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to insert new schedule 6 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill with amendment the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill with amendment and that the committee had divided it into two bills and the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
SpeechPart 2 Amendments related to fibre fixed line access services
Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you very much. I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill—just a quick call really about new section 232A inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 118. When I took the first call on this bill under the previous Parliament and drew the Parliament's attention to the removal of any obligation by Chorus in the unbundling of the bitstream access and the unbundling of the copper low-frequency service—so the removal of the requirement for them to meet their obligations specified in the telecommunications service obligation (TSO) instructions. At that time there was no other description of what the TSO instruments were. So I went away to have a look inside another piece of legislation which highlighted the fact and I made the point that the TSO is primarily a consumer protection mechanism that ensures the availability and affordability of basic communications services in New Zealand and one of those is the Kiwi share or the 111 calling ability. Now when we decide to—and we have; we've moved on. It is a new time a new day and we're basically moving away from the copper network. What this does is of course make certain of our citizens vulnerable to having a lack of communication available to them to call 111 emergency services should there be a power outage. I understand it was discussed by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee but no amendment was made to the original piece of legislation. So I want to commend Minister Faafoi and thank him very much for in Supplementary Order Paper 118 that he has on the Table there inserting new section 232A into clause 33—Hon Mark Mitchell: You should be in Cabinet.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —to require the Commission to make"—this was in the previous Parliament sir so I wasn't in that Cabinet; you were—"a Commission 111 contact code (the code). The purpose of the code is to ensure that in the event of a power failure vulnerable consumers have reasonable access to a means to contact the 111 emergency services." So as I say we're particularly pleased that the Minister in the chair has picked up on this very important issue for what particularly in my area—I know I've been contacted by local residents particularly in the elderly area who don't always have a mobile phone or credit etc. The select committee decided that the cost of this change could be passed on to the consumer. That wasn't appropriate from a New Zealand First perspective so we worked collegially and constructively with the Minister in the chair to make sure that there has been this section where there is a responsibility on the telecommunications companies to identify vulnerable consumers and to supply them "with an appropriate means for contacting the 111 emergency services that can be operated for a specified minimum period in the event of a power failure." We think that this now addresses the concerns that we raised and we want to acknowledge the Minister for doing so."
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Little AndrewFAMILY AND WHĀNAU VIOLENCE LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Domestic Violence Act 1955Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. This bill and the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled in my name as the Minister—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Would the Minister care to come to the Table?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes I need to be in that chair ideally but I'm happy to speak anywhere.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That would be great thank you.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I was saying before we had the little musical chairs number what SOP 116 that has been tabled in my name in relation to the bill does is consolidate where the bill got to as a consequence of the select committee process but also reflects some changes that the new Government wanted to have in the bill.I acknowledge the work done by the previous Minister of Justice under the previous Government the Hon Amy Adams who worked with all parties in Parliament to bring the legislation to the House but as a consequence of the select committee process and indeed of policies of the new Government we wish to see some changes in it. Those changes can be summarised as follows. Firstly there is a change of name to the legislation so it would now become the Family Violence Act as opposed to the Family and Whānau Violence Act. It is about the violence in the family and recognises that of course violence in the family—that there is a public interest in ensuring that we do everything we can to minimise that form of violence and recognises that it is seldom ever an isolated act or a short-term problem inside families but it's an issue that requires ongoing and sometimes intensive attention. The second change is to acknowledge coercive and controlling behaviour as a form of family violence and that is reflected in definitions and some of the aspects around for example dowry abuse—that it is not just yelling and physical violence. The third change is to reflect the fact that a relationship in which family violence can take place includes the relationship between a carer and the person being cared for in the home. Sometimes a carer relationship between the carer and the person being cared for when it happens in the home can be an employment relationship effectively but actually the carer has intimate knowledge and intimate connection with the person being cared for and usually the relationship is akin to the kind of relationship you'd expect with a family member. So that is reflected in the legislation so that abuse by a carer can be seen as an act of domestic violence. Then finally there is the ability for codes of practice to be released by the Governor-General on advice from the Minister of Justice to assist those in the field of dealing with domestic or family violence issues. So those are the principal changes in the main SOP. There is another amendment also in my name that deals with some drafting issues and that is there as well. It is totally technical; there is no policy change in the other amendment. So on that basis I look forward to the debate from the committee.
Williams PotoPart 2 Further provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members we turn now to the debate on clauses 9 and 10 and the schedule—Part 2.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I move That the question be now put. Motion agreed to.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a short call—I won't go the full five minutes. So who pays? Who pays? Does the tooth fairy pay? Because don't pretend that renters won't pay. I'm just wondering how many people across the House have actually run businesses and know about costs and in-goings and outgoings because I heard Chlöe Swarbrick talk and she was saying that she was one of five that are only renting and that us across the other side of the Chamber according to the pecuniary register are homeowners. Well most of us bought our houses before we became politicians except for maybe Nick Smith because I can't imagine that when he joined politics he was a house owner. She's 23 so it's acceptable for her to be a renter but I've been a landlord and I've been a tenant. As recently as this year I was a tenant. I had to find a rental property and I fully expected to have to pay a tenancy fee because I understand that people that run agencies that have to pay their own bills and run businesses and that do screening and fill out paperwork have got to pay their bills. How are they going to cover their costs? Well of course they're going to charge a fee so it's expected. So I can't understand the thinking behind saying OK we'll just ban that fee." because someone will pay. I ran a Honda business selling motorbikes and lawnmowers—that sort of thing—and I remember that my priority was paying my workers' wages. That's the first thing. Of course you paid the rent then you paid the payroll and only after that did I come out of it with whatever was left over which is what I got. I always used to tell—quite often at the end of every month—my workers that they took home more money than I did as the business owner and they wouldn't believe that because they'd see a shop full of hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of equipment. But in actual fact that was all on tick. That was all on finance. So that's the situation. You have to pay. You have to pay—someone pays. So Labour—their specialty is rising costs. Under their reign in the last 12 months rents have gone up $25 a head—$25 a head. What we've got to look at is we've got to understand what accumulates to make those costs and obviously the more costs you lay on landlords they'll pass it on to the tenant and the tenant will pay. So Labour—what do they do? They hammer the risk-taker the property owner—that's myself; I've been a landlord myself.They're rushing this legislation through Parliament. They're rushing it through. The regulatory impact statement tells us this. So for me this is politics and spin rather than substance. Just banning a fee and expecting that no one's going to pay it just doesn't make sense."
Ministerial Statements — Earthquake—Update
Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Faafoi KrisMINISTERIAL STATEMENTSEarthquake—UpdateHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement given the disruption to the House by the earthquake about 15 minutes ago.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is there any objection? There is none.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you Madam Chair. Again I am appreciative that the committee was suspended momentarily because of an earthquake about half an hour ago. I can tell the committee that I've spoken to Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management officials in the time since it occurred and can confirm that it was according to GNS Science a quake of 6.2 at a depth of 207 kilometres near Taumarunui. Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management staff have been in touch with the Manawatū-Whanganui civil defence and emergency management (CDEM) group and at this stage there are no reports of damage. It was obviously felt widely across the central North Island.It's just a timely reminder given the ShakeOut was not so long ago for parliamentarians and also for those listening to remember that they should expect some aftershocks after a decent-sized quake. So be aware of that and just remember to drop cover and hold. Civil Defence staff are keeping in touch with that CDEM group and as more information comes to hand hoping everything is all right up there we'll update Parliament as necessary.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you very much. We can be very grateful that there is no substantial damage.Now when we were talking last on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill on Part 1 the Hon Alfred Ngaro was speaking and he has one minute and 20 seconds left. I'm a bit hesitant! Ha ha!
Tuesday 23 October 2018 - Volume 734
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 stand part.Ayes 111New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 8Green Party 8.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 stand part.Ayes 111New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 8Green Party 8.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 140 in the name of Golriz Ghahraman to insert new clause 6A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 8Green Party 8.Noes 110New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 in the name of Golriz Ghahraman to insert new clause 6A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 8Green Party 8.Noes 110New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9.Amendment not agreed to.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 111New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 8Green Party 8.Part 1 agreed to.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.
Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 139 in the name of Brett Hudson to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 55.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
11. Question No. 11—RevenueDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 11—Revenue11. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Revenue: What recent announcements if any has he made in relation to the collection of GST from offshore suppliers?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Malo ni Mr Speaker. Last week I announced the removal of the current tax break for offshore suppliers. From 1 October 2019 offshore suppliers will be required to register collect and return GST on goods valued at or below $1000 that are supplied to consumers in New Zealand. Kiwis shop online for a number of reasons. This Government is removing any tax incentive that is involved in that decision. It's about fairness. Dr Deborah Russell: How will he ensure that offshore suppliers comply with the new rules? Hon STUART NASH: The proposals build on the GST on online services that the previous Government introduced in October 2016. Issues of compliance were worked through as part of those changes. With over 200 registered offshore suppliers of services to New Zealand and over $130 million collected in the first full year it is clear that offshore registration and compliance is not an insignificant issue. Australia the first cab off the rank for the collection of GST on imported low-value goods has also had over 700 offshore suppliers register after only one month of their new rules. Dr Deborah Russell: What changes has he made to the proposal as a result of consultation? Hon STUART NASH: The key change was to lift the threshold from $400 to $1000. Submissions received from offshore suppliers indicated that the higher threshold would make it easier for them to comply as this threshold aligns with the Australian model and avoids double taxation. This Government has made a bold move to ensure that the playing field is level for our 26000 New Zealand retailers who employ more than 62000 Kiwis. The previous Government had signed off on a similar proposal for consultation but got cold feet before the election and didn't go public with their proposal. As mentioned it's a question of fairness and we have responded.