edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parker DavidMARITIME TRANSPORT (MARPOL ANNEX VI) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon DAVID PARKER: I move That the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Mr Speaker members of the House members will be aware the Government is committed which I think this is a commitment we share across the House to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from transport and to reduce shipping emissions particulate emissions for example. In doing so this will contribute towards New Zealand meeting its emission goals and helping the world do better.Shipping is a major contributor of noxious emissions to the atmosphere particularly sulphur oxides nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. These affect both human health and the environment. Passing this bill will enable us to reduce these emissions and implement greenhouse gas emission reduction measures. It does this by aligning our domestic legislation under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MARPOL annex VI. New Zealand's accession to MARPOL annex VI will also strengthen New Zealand's ability to play a credible role in negotiations at the International Maritime Organization to both push for global ambition and improve New Zealand's ability to protect its trade and economic interests.We expect all of the associated rules and regulations to be in place by the end of this year which will enable the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to deposit the instrument of accession with the International Maritime Organization for the new requirements to come into force three months later which is estimated to be in March 2022. I commend this bill to the House.
Dean JacquiREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees Levies and Costs) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Education and Training Amendment Bill — In Committee
Dean JacquiClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to the final debate on clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on the title commencement and principal Act. The question is that Clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.
Dean JacquiCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We'll move on to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part. Schedule agreed to.
Dean JacquiPart 2 Other amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 14 and the Schedule and other amendments. The question is that Part 2 stand part.Part 2 agreed to.
Simmonds Penny; Hipkins ChrisPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Madam Chair thank you. I would like to ask the Minister a question relating to clauses 5 to 7 which relate to the use of physical restraint at registered schools including by teachers. The amendment stated that—it clarifies that only persons holding a teaching position can use physical restraint in accordance with the provisions. I would surmise that in many instances the person that might well be dealing with a student that might need to be physically restrained would be teachers' aides. And so can the Minister tell us whether that actually then excludes teacher's aides? Is it only including teachers and so what will occur for teachers' aides who are most likely to be the ones dealing with perhaps students that might need that restraint?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you Madam Chair. I would refer perhaps the member to clause 7 which talks about authorised staff members at the registered schools. So if a teacher-aide is an authorised staff member then the guidance around physical restraint would apply to them. The issue that we're dealing with here is a replacement of just the word teachers" with "persons holding a teaching position". It means that the person has to be the teacher within that school. If a parent for example who happened to be a teacher was visiting the school it would not be appropriate for them to be using physical restraint. So it is simply just a question of clarity around to whom the provisions should apply.Part 1 agreed to."
Dean Jacqui; Hipkins ChrisEDUCATION AND TRAINING AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Substantive amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to the Education and Training Amendment Bill. We move first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 13. Those are the substantive amendments to this bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'll keep my contribution to this one very very brief. This is a largely technical bill that deals with a variety of issues in the Education and Training Act. I think the fact that the select committee reported it back without amendment in a unanimous recommendation that it be passed I think signifies that it's not particularly controversial. So I'm certainly happy to have any discussions or debates with members about it.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. Does the Minister believe that the way in which the bill has been rushed through is going to add to the concerns of the teachers that we heard—Dr Duncan Webb: Not the title clause.PENNY SIMMONDS: Sorry?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member has the call—the member has the call.PENNY SIMMONDS: Oh thank you—that the teachers showed their concern about the consultation not being real that the Minister has stepped in when the courts have flagged that the consultation wasn't real. And does he believe that this is going to resolve or create an even worse division between the teachers and the Teaching Council in terms of a lack of trust lack of faith and concern that the consultation when the Teaching Council does undertake it will be nothing other than a sham—as we have seen with numerous changes to the Education Act under this Minister where a consultation has taken place and submissions have been received and the Minister has decided that 29 percent of the submissions for it is an overwhelming majority. Does he think that he might be perpetuating a feeling amongst educators be it at compulsory or tertiary or indeed early childhood level that the Minister is not genuinely interested in consultation with the sector?
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): As I've indicated the reason for the expedited process through the House was to give the Teaching Council certainty around the fees that it's collected since 2015 when it was established under the previous Government. I would note that once this bill has been passed they will be able to go back and consult with the profession about what the fees should be in the future. The appropriate place for the members of the teaching profession to direct their feedback on what the fees should be is not to the Government—we don't set the fees—it is to the council.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to echo the sentiments of the previous speaker Paul Goldsmith. Look the Minister is probably getting a bit exasperated as to why we're as a previous speaker said banging on about this. But he hasn't managed yet to explain to us why he wasn't able to give this bill at least another couple of weeks. What pressing matter was there that was so pressing that wouldn't allow him to push this out just for one or two weeks? We're not asking for a number of weeks more than that but just a couple more weeks for those teachers as Penny mentioned earlier who were in the middle of lockdown who were teaching—it was term time—to be able to get their thoughts on paper or appear in front of the select committee. So why the great haste I guess in terms of this particular part that we're talking about the commencement date—why the great haste? What pressing matter was there what imminent threat was there that the Minister couldn't have given the bill an extra couple of weeks and pushed the commencement date out just a couple of weeks? He hasn't been able to answer that. All he's told us is that he had to do it for a number of other reasons but no specific date that he was working to—any particular thing that was going to happen.So I would like the Minister to specifically answer the question why we weren't able to get at least an extra couple of weeks. Given that teachers only had just under two weeks I believe it was to get their thoughts down—in fact it may have been shorter than that—and why they were so angry. So why was it that we couldn't have even had an extra week or two? What was it that the Minister was working to? What threat was there?
Goldsmith PaulClauses 1 to 3Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well the only point I want to make—and it's an obvious one—is that we don't agree with the urgency of the commencement because we don't agree that the whole thing should have been done quite so quickly. People watching this might say Why does he keep banging on about this?" and "Why is it important?" and "The Minister is a very busy man and he has it's fair to say a number of issues that he needs to deal with—for example when are the people of Auckland going to get their freedoms back and when are we going to be able to get our kids back to school?" and a whole lot of things—and so he's got a lot of things to deal with and it must be very irritating for him to have to sort of go through these tedious processes. But the simple point I'm try to make is: effectively as a Parliament what we're doing here is coming to fix a problem that a previous Parliament did in passing legislation. One of the issues that all of us as legislators learn in our time in Parliament is that a certain percentage of time maybe almost half the time legislation passed in this House doesn't achieve what it set out to achieve. In fact in our haste to pass legislation we don't get the words quite right. That's why it is so important to whenever we possibly can—Hon Chris Hipkins: I remember giving this speech!Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —go through the processes. The hardened cynical Minister remembers making these speeches and now we're on the other side he's in favour of speed. With speed as our friends in the police often say the bigger crash and the bigger the mess. That's why it's important to take your time on these things and listen to the Minister's good friends in the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association and in the union and hear their cry. You know at bass the cry was a question of trust and it was a question of concern about the cost of living fundamentally and being irritated at the prospect of the council being able to turn the wheels of Government in order to fix their little financial problem and a sense that the teachers who were struggling to make ends meet were looking at the potential of higher levies fees and costs. So my question to the Minister is: why the great hurry? Why the commencement date coming on the date that it comes in—I can't currently put my finger on it but it's not far off—and the date at which it achieves the Royal assent? Maybe he could explain himself on that matter before we set this bill on its way."
Tuiono Teanau; Hipkins ChrisTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I was just wondering if the Minister could drill down a bit more around his comments around helping teachers to mitigate that financial burden. And I was wondering around comments around what that might mean for new teachers relief teachers and early childhood education teachers and whether you are going to do something different there or whether it's just going to be broad-brush. I'd like some clarification in those spaces.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I think one of the most regrettable things about this is that the Government did provide funding to allow the Teaching Council to move to more regular instalments because more regular instalments are easier for people to pay than a big lump sum every three years. One of the challenges around this particular court case is that the funding in order to transition to that yearly fee—recognising that if the council moves to a yearly fee for the first two years they have less revenue because of the period of time it takes for them to build up the annual fee collection to the point where it would be at if they were collecting the three-year fee all at once. So we provided them some bridging funding to overcome that gap that moving to an annual registration would create. Unfortunately some of that funding will have been used to bridge the gap that's now been created by the fact that they've had to revert back to the lower fee. So we'll continue to talk to them about that. But I think the provision allowing for them to charge a yearly fee rather than a three-yearly fee is the main thing that I think will help teachers because they won't have that big outlay in the same way.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Very briefly in terms of answers to those last contributions in terms of professional development I think the member Penny Simmonds just asked the question about whether or not it was the Government's intention to transfer professional development functions to the council and therefore require teachers to pay for those. No is the absolute categorical answer to that. In fact one of the first things I did when I became the Minister of Education was to stop the programme of work that had been put in place under the last Government to transfer the administration of teacher professional development from the Ministry of Education to the Teaching Council. That was in train when I became the Minister and I stopped that. It is not this Government's intention to do that. I do note that it was the last Government's intention to do that—the previous National Government—and that was something that this Government has stopped. In terms of the changes around leadership function and the question of Will they satisfy all of the submitters?" the answer is that is a little bit yes and a little bit no. In terms of a little bit yes it says to them that if the council is taking on additional leadership functions then they won't have to pay for it through their fees and levies—I think they'll be happy with that. In terms of whether the council should have any additional leadership functions at all the profession is divided on that. So the Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) submitters or the largely PPTA submitters who made contributions to the select committee would prefer that the council didn't undertake any leadership functions at all and the very strong feedback from other representatives of the profession—and I've just mentioned them; the NZEI a variety of principal groups and a variety of groups representing Māori teachers—have been very clear that they think that they should."
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Just because we have been talking about the submissions I want to make it clear that there were 1033 submissions and that was in a very short space of time that those submissions came in. Teachers had to do it during term time and most were in lockdown during that time so it was a significant effort from those teachers. I think my Green Party colleague and I listening to them were shocked with just how disappointed and angry the teachers were.And so my question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins is around his Supplementary Order Paper 68 and his comments around clause 4(2) (2) The functions that the Teaching Council may perform with the written approval of the Minister … as follows:" and the three comments there around the leadership training. Can the Minister just clarify whether that addresses the submissions of many of the teachers—that they explicitly stated they did not want the Teaching Council to be involved in professional development provision for them? And so is the Minister saying that this leadership training will not be any subject-specific professional development? And also the functions that the council may perform with the written approval of the Minister seem to be quite an operational matter that the Minister is prepared to put his finger in the pie of and does he think that getting down into that operational level is a sensible thing for him to be doing and likely to fill the teachers with confidence in the council if they have to be going to him for approval? Would it not be much better that he ruled that provision out specifically when the submissions asked for that provision of professional development training to be left out?"
Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you very much for that answer Minister. I've got a couple of other questions as well. I guess I'm one of those people that the last time I really got into maths was seventh form—I did calculus then I did first year at university and then I went to law school and threw away my maths books. But I know that some of the teachers will get lost and I have gotten lost around like the movement between the fees between this that and the other as well. So trying to get that clarity around that is really really important and as I've been saying for a while when you have that clarity that helps us to build that relationship which has broken down I feel between the profession and the Teaching Council.But on that a couple more questions: given that the Teaching Council does not intend to fulfil its legislative functions without a substantial fees increase how will the Government mitigate the financial burden to teachers? I'm thinking of probably the early childhood education teacher that zoomed in and says Look I've got to budget down to the last dollar." and if all of a sudden the fees bump up you know tenfold or fivefold or whatever that's going to seriously impact that teacher particularly new teachers particularly a relief teacher who has to pay for the registration fee as well. So that's a question around what kind of support there could be for teachers in those circumstances.My second question is: instead of allowing the Teaching Council to charge levies as well as fees why does the Government not fund those aspects that are for the public good such as the disciplinary functions instead of making more teachers pay for a process the vast majority will never need?Third question is: why does this legislation seek to expand the Teaching Council's fee-setting powers to cover all of its expanded functions when the submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee were very clear that teachers want to remove these expanded functions and not pay for them? I think you talked a little bit about that in terms of the leadership functions as well but if you could give us a bit more clarity on that I would appreciate that.And fourthly there is that breakdown of trust between the profession and Teaching Council so it would be good to get some clarity and some answers about what the Minister intends to actually rebuild that trust because I think we need that. We need to have that trust between all the different bodies that make our school system work as well. If it's because there is a lack of faith within the council's leadership layer what will the Minister do at that particular point? Are you looking at reforming it asking for resignations or doing something else as well? So there's a number of questions there that I have asked. Thank you."
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): If I could just quickly respond to those two points. In terms of why we didn't just continue with the transitional funding: in fact the Government did continue to provide transitional funding to the Teaching Council because they have had to revert back to the fee that existed previously. The issue was that without this bill and without this bill being progressed quickly all of the fees that the council have collected since they came into existence in 2015 could potentially have to be refunded. So we wouldn't just be providing transitional funding but in fact we'd be leaving the council in a position where even with transitional funding they would be insolvent. So that is the reason why the bill is being progressed very quickly.In terms of the question from the Greens around leadership I think there is an important need—and the Supplementary Order Paper I think that I've put forward 68 does clarify this more. There's an important need to differentiate between the leadership functions that the council needs to undertake in order to fulfil its core functions and those leadership functions that may be additional. So if I give an example that one of the core functions of the council is teacher registration. So they set the standards for teacher registration and then they have a process in place for registering teachers. In the process of doing that they need to demonstrate to teachers how they can actually meet the registered teacher criteria and in doing so that is a leadership function. So they're disseminating best practice. They're saying that in order to become a registered teacher or in order to maintain your teacher registration these are the sorts of things that you need to do. That is in itself a leadership function. I think most people in the profession would believe that that is a legitimate role for the Teaching Council including secondary school teachers.On the other hand there's the wider leadership functions which we are now talking with them about. That includes things like professional development or leadership development for aspiring professional leaders within the education system. The profession's view and I think it's one that's been well articulated is that they shouldn't have to pay for that through their teacher registration fees. The Government's never been of the view that they should; in fact we've always been clear that if we ask them to undertake those functions that the Government should pay for those separately and that's always been our intention. So Supplementary Order Paper 68 absolutely clarifies that and makes that clear.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister around the speed of this bill but I just want to start by saying that the Minister jokes about wanting his 10 minutes back but there were a number of submitters who would have given anything for their five or 10 minutes in front of the select committee but they didn't get it because this bill was raced through at breakneck speed. My question to the Minister is this. He explained in his first reading speech—which I went back and read—about how he extended the Government subsidy to the Teaching Council shortly after they took office to recognise some of the changes that were made including reinstating elections to the council. My question is: why did the Minister not do that again reinstate transitional funding—and my colleague Paul Goldsmith talked about this—to cover the council for a period that would have allowed a more full and proper select committee process in order to allow for some of those unhappy stakeholders—and they were very unhappy—to have their say?. I mean even given the short time frame we heard from a lot of submitters. But we know there were hundreds more who didn't get to have their say and the one comment from all of those submitters or a great proportion of those submitters that came to the select committee or appeared on Zoom who were visibly angry and upset at the way that this bill was being rammed through—the one thing that they all said was Why is this being rammed through so quickly? Why is this not a full process?" I asked the Minister why it was that he couldn't have extended that funding given the level of mistrust that the teaching profession have with the Teaching Council and now the level of anger and angst against the Government for seemingly covering everything up and pushing it through quickly without allowing people to have their say. So my specific question to the Minister is: why didn't he reinstate and extend that transitional cover to allow even for an extra week or two for people to come to grips with the bill and have their say at select committee just to create maybe a little bit of goodwill between the teachers and the Government again which has been severely dented and I would say in some cases lost from some of the speeches that we heard?"
Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm hoping the Minister won't regret my minutes and he won't be asking for them back. I've got many questions. But first of all I would like to acknowledge the teachers—particularly the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) who did take the court case through frustration in terms of the I would say breakdown of the relationship between them and the teachers affiliated with the PPTA and the Teaching Council as well—and also the concerns that came up through the select committee process from the rank and file early childhood education teachers and questions around what that might mean for relief teachers as well and whether the 10 years' worth of fees might all of a sudden get dumped on them.What I heard from the select committee process was that everybody understands that it's really important to have an independent teaching council and that it's best that it is paid for by the profession itself; it was just a matter of how and when we could get to that place where that relationship actually develops in a way that actually embraces all of that. I don't think we've got there just yet.I'm happy about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). It shows that the Minister has been listening and there is nudging movement towards getting some of that clarity I think which is essential in terms of the relationship. But as I said in my second reading speech on this bill a good relationship is a boil-up not a fry-up—you've got to take a bit of time you've got to give it the right ingredients you've got to check in with it.Hon Member: You've done that one before.TEANAU TUIONO: I know that's why I said it was the second reading speech; I'm glad the member over there was listening. But the basis of a good relationship is of course trust as well.So I have a bunch of questions around trying to find the clarity in terms of what the SOP means and maybe that is within the bill itself from the Minister's perspective. The first set of questions I have is around this leadership provision because that was one of the things that really came out of the select committee process as well—teachers didn't want to pay for it there were concerns about the way that the Teaching Council itself was operating. So I wonder if the Minister could give me some clarity around what those leadership functions are. So for example I have three examples here: is it to provide leadership to teachers and directions for the education profession; (2) to enhance the status of teachers and education leaders; and (3) to identify and disseminate best practice in teaching and leadership and foster the education profession's continued development in light of research and evidence of changes in society and technology? So it's about: are they all there; are they yeah; are they nah; are they yeah nah bro? So I would like to begin by sort of getting some clarity on those leadership provisions at this particular point in time.
Rurawhe AdrianEDUCATION AND TRAINING (TEACHING COUNCIL FEES LEVIES AND COSTS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Teaching Council fees and costsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 6 Teaching Council fees and costs". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Rurawhe AdrianHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members the House is in committee on the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees Levies and Costs) Amendment Bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill. Before we move to the substantive consideration of the bill I note that the Business Committee has determined that the powers of this committee are to be extended to permit consideration of proposed amendments in the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 68 relating to functions involving professional leadership by the Teaching Council.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's good to be able to be back in the House and good to be able to take a short call on this bill. I'd like to start off by thanking the Health Committee for their work on this bill. But I also wanted to take a moment to specifically talk about the harm reduction aspects in the recommendations made in this bill because from the previous speeches I've heard from the other side it is very clear that the National Party speakers haven't been able to get their head around what the harm reduction actually means and how important it is. I've heard the soft on crime" I've heard the "lack of evidence" slogans—Mr Bridges started it Mr Brown repeated it—but what they ignore and what they fail to acknowledge is that some countries for over 25 years have had research done on harm reduction—for example in the Netherlands they've been testing illegal drugs for over 25 years. And people may be surprised to hear that in the Netherlands drugs are in fact still illegal. But what they have done as a country they have decided that they would take a harm reduction approach when it came to keeping people safe—and it has saved lives.They set up back in 1992 what is called the Drugs Information and Monitoring System. It was the very first pill-testing organisation in all of Europe. In fact what it is now it is actually an integral part of the public health response in the Netherlands. So an example of how it's saved lives: in 2008 there was a mass warning issued all over the Netherlands and over Belgium—via TV radio and internet messaging—about a batch of pink pills that had Superman logos on them because with pill testing it was discovered that these particular pink pills had a toxic compound in them. As a result no deaths were reported in the Netherlands.So Mr Brown I may correct you here; people did change their mind and didn't take these pills. However in the UK at the same time there was no pill-testing service and four young people died as a result from consuming these pills. So I guess we need to acknowledge that a lack of knowledge can kill people. So what this bill does is it gives people the opportunity to seek advice on the risk of taking drugs. It gives advice on how some of those risks can be reduced. So these changes and this bill are a reflection of this Government's policy to treat drug consumption as a health issue and allow people to access advice that they can have confidence in so that they can make their informed decisions as a result.It's this evidence-based harm reduction approach that will ultimately save lives. So what this Government doesn't do it doesn't kick the can down the road like Hon Nanaia Mahuta always says. I'd like to commend the Hon Andrew Little for his mahi on this bill which will save lives. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Such a pleasure to follow my colleague in support because Mr McAnulty has given simplicity of an explanation and a very good one at that. As a member of the Health Committee I have to say that I joined the Health Committee at the tail end of these considerations and so none the less it is important that I do acknowledge the work of colleagues on that particular committee who have made some workable and sensible changes to the bill.This bill amends existing legislation and it does many things but I'll just briefly touch on two. The first is essentially it establishes a licensing regime for drug- and substance-checking services and within that it includes the provision of appeal opportunities that sit primarily within the legislation rather than in the regs but also it identifies processes for the provision of services being free and also actually the importance and significance of the storage of particular substances and drugs and that they be secure. So it is important in my view that they sit within the legislation rather than in regulations.The second thing that this legislation does is it enables licensed service providers to do things legally. We've heard in the House this evening that it's around checking the composition of the drug or the substance when that happens it is possible for the service providers to effectively be operating short and foul of the law. So this will provide a legal opportunity to ensure that while those substances and drugs are with the service provider that they are not in breach of legislation. Those are only two examples of what this bill proposes to do. It's sensible it's real and on that basis I commend it to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill will save lives. That is the fact of it. This bill enables a regulated testing regime to be introduced in this country. We know that there will be people that would have taken drugs they got them tested found out it's not what they thought it was and did not take it. That is all this will do. It doesn't legalise drugs it accepts a reality of life: people do what they shouldn't do it's just the way it is. I don't want people to take drugs I hate drugs. I've never taken party pills in my life. I don't want my mates to take it I don't want my family to take it I don't want anyone to take it but they do. People do what they shouldn't do.We warned National not to elect Judith Collins. They knew it wouldn't work but they did it anyway. People do what they shouldn't do. The fact is if we took the National Party's view and said that education is the key and we told people not to take drugs and they took drugs anyway and they died from it what is the natural conclusion? We told you not to do it that's your fault." We don't accept that on this side of the House. We accept the reality that people are going to go to music festivals they're going to take drugs—and we're not talking about dopeheads we're not talking about no-hopers; we're actually talking about people across society. Many of them are well respected they will go to music festivals and they will intend to consume party pills. They will take the pragmatic approach—not this judgment view that the National Party takes—they will go and get their drugs tested. We still don't want them to take it if it's deemed to be what they thought it was but if they're going to anyway for the love of God let's make sure it isn't what they think is in there. Let's make sure that at the very least we know that it's not going to kill them. We don't want them to take it but if they're going to do it anyway for God's sake let's just make sure it's safe."
Pallett Sarah; Rurawhe AdrianSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much Mr Speaker. I rise as a member of the Health Committee in strong support of this piece of legislation. I'd just like to reiterate that standing here our starting point and our finish point is that the safest option is always always not to take the substance. That's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about giving people carte blanche here. But the reality is is that people do take drugs—#notallpeople—and clearly nobody on the other side of the House here.People die because they have taken a far more dangerous substance than they intended. This whole conversation is reminding me somewhat bizarrely and unfortunately of the arguments we heard around the Needle Exchange Programme which has been hugely successful in New Zealand and has resulted in a massive reduction in the risk of people catching HIV or hepatitis C with millions of dollars of health spending saved. This legislation will enable us to do the same thing. It will enable us to save money on accidentally causing hospitalisation because people are taking something they didn't expect to take. Now I'm not suggesting for one second that MDMA is safe to take but there are more dangerous substances that are more dangerous to the system especially if taken in combination.Now we know that the youth wing of the National Party is in support of this legislation. The young New Zealand First members are also in support of this legislation—I didn't actually know that was a thing but I completely commend them for political engagement—they say that it's the duty of Government to protect its people and this is what this does. This piece of legislation will enable people to take fewer drugs to dispose of or decide not to mix their drugs and they will be given that opportunity as we heard for health advice to be given. In the UK there was a 95 percent reduction in hospitalisation after they introduced legislation. This is a pragmatic piece of legislation. It substantially reduces harm and I commend it to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Chris Penk—five minutes.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Mr Speaker. Excuse me while I get over that pot-kettle-black feeling that I've just risen to. Look the majority of submitters strongly supported this bill and I'd like to share a submission which is characteristic of these and perhaps sums up how I think most New Zealanders feel about this issue: Drug and substance checking has proven to reduce harm and change behaviours. We believe this bill and the system it will create will reduce drug related harm for young New Zealanders." The submitter was none other than the Young Nats. If the members opposite won't listen to the wealth of evidence from an array of experts of which there is despite the protestations across the floor or the quite unusual reliance on one particular piece of work which bears no real relevance or the sentiments of the general public perhaps they should or could listen to those they see as the future of their very own party.The select committee process included several amendments to make improvements to the bill; most of those have been discussed. But the gestalt of that is that that will undoubtedly reduce hesitancy and increase the number of people who are willing to utilise what actually could be a life-saving service. So this bill acknowledges the reality that people actually on occasion will use illicit drugs regardless of the potential health or potential legal ramifications so it takes important steps to provide for informed decision-making and for better health outcomes. I have no hesitation to commend this bill to the House."
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. So last summer KnowYourStuff found that only 68 percent of the samples that they tested were actually what the person expected. What they found is that that was actually much lower than in previous years. But they also found that 68 percent of the people that had the substance that turned out to be not what they thought it was then said that they wouldn't take the substance as a result.So what this is about is about harm reduction and it's also about making sure that drug-checking services can operate with legal certainty. So as a Health Committee we received 56 written submissions on this bill and we heard 11 oral submissions. I'd just like to say thank you to all of those who submitted because it did result in some changes being recommended to the bill. And one of the ones that we did change as a result was making harm reduction advice mandatory because previously in the bill that was introduced 35DB stated: The functions of a service provider are to do 1 or more of the following:" and basically harm reduction advice was listed only as one of the things that could be done. When you think about it actually the drug substance checking—part of it's the physical checking of the substance but much much more important is the advice that's given particularly if the substance turns out not to be what the person thought it was. So basically what the committee felt was that that should be mandatory and so we've added another section 35DDF which actually requires if you have tested a substance that you do give that harm reduction advice.We did a range of other changes and some of them focused around the collection and use of personal information and also about the admissibility of test results in court proceedings. We also made some recommendations around shifting elements of the licensing system from regulations into the main bill. But basically just summing it up this is a really important bill and I think what it will do is it will significantly help to reduce drug-related harm and create that legal certainty for substance-checking services in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): It's a pleasure to speak in this House again after a long absence in Auckland. I wanted to bring a little story to you today about this bill just to close off this debate because I grew up in one of the families that perhaps our Green friend was talking about where people were extremely sceptical about these things. My parents decided that the option that they would take over fluoridation was to drink the water off the top of the house so they put in a tank. Now that was because they came from a background where they were sceptical of these things because so many things that had happened in their lifetime had really shaken them. One of course was there'd been thalidomide. There were all sorts of issues which had come up. So they were legitimately cynical about such things but the result was that most of my family—I didn't because I didn't like the taste—drank the water off the roof which was actually an asbestos roof.So these are the kinds of things that happen in a vacuum of knowledge. What has happened in recent years is that we have filled a vacuum of knowledge in this area. What was an area where people were sceptical because it wasn't tested they have actually been reassured and we have extremely good science in this area. Yes I do speak at a time very mindful that we've had protesters outside today who maybe came up with those kinds of reasons for why they were cynical. What I would say is what's happening here is a very important thing because this piece of law puts the information in the right hands and it lets somebody depoliticise a subject that might have quite a lot of emotion and irrationality attached to it. It isn't without checks and balances but somebody with the proper knowledge who can look at the proper situation will cast a look at the situation before them and it's very likely that as a result there'll be equality in our country. We will have an equal provision of a proactive health stance when it is absolutely valuable and valid and that is what Governments should do. They lead they put into the right hands the right information and the right power.This law does that beautifully and so I am extremely proud to stand as the last speaker on this bill because this is going to actually make a real difference to our children. I commend the Minister and the select committee for having made this great effort but I also commend every party in this House for coming to this same conclusion and actually joining so it is no longer a political football. A lot more people will have a pain-free existence but also better health into the future. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Utikere Tangi; Mallard TrevorTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Look I'm happy to rise and take a short call at this third reading. It's really quite supportive to hear across the House that there is going to be a level of support for it.I reflect on the contribution from the Minister and I do want to acknowledge and congratulate her on her achievements but the stats that she talked about speak for themselves. But then listening to my colleague Barbara Edmonds reflect on the I guess inequitable levels in terms of dental health and hygiene and the considerations thereof for Māori and Pasifika members of our community. Whether you are a teacher someone from education whether you are from health whether you're from social sector we all have our own experiences of young people having dental issues that fundamentally are avoidable.I also reflect on the contribution of Dr Reti and think about my time around council tables where actually the number of occasions where we had you know certainly in Palmerston North people that would come from Tauranga to talk about fluoride for our local community others that have different views politicising something that is clearly a public health and a preventative form of an opportunity there is something that I think this bill speaks to. Because effectively it removes those concerns and places them adequately with the Director-General of Health.I think that this is an opportunity where you know the councils around our community have many many factors that weigh on their minds and removing discussion when it comes to fluoridation of drinking water supply is one where it adequately sits with the Ministry of Health. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.SPEAKER: Well members under the new Standing Orders the time has come for me to leave the chair for kai time. The House is suspended for the dinner break and someone will come back here at 7 o'clock. Thank you.Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's probably a privilege for me to be able to take this call on the bill: I come from a customer services sort of perspective because yesterday I just had a tooth extracted. It's healing up quite nicely with a bit of saltwater rinse. But you know as I lay back on the dentist chair for 45 minutes—as the great dentist Dr Evonne from Champion Dental Centre in Porirua as she was tugging and pulling at my tooth—I just thought to myself how could have I prevented this? Probably not having the amount of children I had probably would have helped. A lot of the preventative dental work that I probably should have done when I was a little bit younger you know I just thought: put it off the dental costs. Put off the dental costs because we were growing our family so we couldn't afford it at the time. We were fortunate that through the community services card we had access to emergency dental help at the time. But a lot of the prevention that could have been done for me probably could have saved me 45 minutes of pain that I suffered afterwards—because I didn't feel pain at the time but then afterwards I started feeling it and having to take Panadol to help numb it.But for me this bill is about prevention. It's preventing the harm that could happen particularly to our children who I know from experience don't brush their teeth very well. Children you know sometimes miss those spots and they have to be taught the Happy Birthday" song—that's how long you brush your teeth for. But for some of our children they don't have that guidance or for some of our children there are other factors. Particularly for Māori and Pacific children and people living in high-deprivation areas they experience worse oral health outcomes than the rest of New Zealand.So I congratulate the Minister the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall on being able to bring this bill through the House. I'd like to thank the members of the Ministry of Health that helped the Minister with this—the officials—as well as across the House for their support of this important bill. I commend this bill to the House."