edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Today is a great day for ethnic communities. For the first time in the history of Aotearoa New Zealand ethnic communities have their own ministry that will be dedicated to looking after the ethnic people in this country. That goes to show that when you have the Government that actually values everyone the Government that's dedicated to looking after every Kiwi that's what happens. I just want to mihi to our hard-working Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan for the hard work she has done to make this happen.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! And now the member will come to the bill.IBRAHIM OMER: I apologise Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call to speak on this very important I believe also timely bill. As the Minister explains in his legislative statement this bill intends to amend section 548 of the Education and Training Act 2020. This will confirm the power of the Minister of Education to set conditions on grant funding for employment relations purposes. These small but very important changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 will allow us to deliver on our commitment to move towards closing the pay gap. This amendment will push forward achieving pay parity for education and care teachers in comparison with kindergarten teachers who are generally paid at higher rates. Pay parity in the early childhood education (ECE) sector is well overdue and our teachers have been praying for it. I'm very proud that this Government is taking yet another important step to resolve this critical issue.This issue will have had very longstanding consequences for both teachers and employees equally. As stated by the New Zealand Educational Institute in their submissions employers in major cities have been reporting of the ECE severe teacher shortage yet we have heard Chris Baillie quoting employers after employers about why this bill is wrong. I've also heard from Mel Burgess who runs the ECE centre in Newtown: Pay parity overall would help address the early childhood teacher shortage crisis. For our centre it would mean that we can get qualified relievers when staff are away sick. We would then find it easier to maintain our goal of 100 percent qualified teachers." This is what it's going to do for the employers. It's not bad news as the Opposition makes it sound.We have to listen to the voice of the ECE teachers. We have to value the precious role they play in our society looking after our children at the most critical stage of their development. We have to acknowledge the unfair expectations in the sector where ECE teachers are made to put up with the standard that they earn less than they deserve. In the end it's about fairness that people doing the same job receive fair pay. It's about valuing the hard-working ECE teachers. With that I commend this bill to the House."
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you for giving me an opportunity to take a stand and take a call on this bill. I'm really disappointed about the confusion and I don't know if that is because people can't get their heads around it or they can't be bothered getting their heads around this bill. It is quite simple.It has been interesting and I recognise the tension that has been mentioned as we try and balance a business owner's freedom to determine how they deploy resources with their obligations and the responsibilities that come with Government funding. So bulk funding of salaries actually enables business owners to determine resource deployment supports innovation and setting up their centres so that they've got appropriate conditions for their learners' needs. But unfortunately the burden that comes with inappropriate funding models or inadequate funding actually falls on the provider. It leads to those providers having to make compromises usually on pay or conditions. What happens is: conditions become a priority because things like staffing ratios and release times are the things that are most closely and obviously connected to learners' conditions. So what happens is that the business owner compromises and says Well I can't do pay and conditions or I choose not to so I'll stick to conditions because that's important for the company."And we understand those decisions have been made. So this Government has provided $170 million more to support centres to step up and address those pay inequities. That additional funding is ring-fenced. We're not just throwing more money and saying "Do what you like with it."; we're saying "If you want this money you need to spend it on pay." It is really simple. There is no obligation to take the money. If you want to take the money it is to go towards pay parity. It is quite simple.The controversy that was raised is about the funding model and the frequency. And I want to thank and encourage all of those submitters to continue and engage with the ministry to fix the funding not the legislation."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and rise and take a call on this Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Before I do can I just acknowledge all those early childhood teachers out there across the country who work extremely hard in sometimes extremely trying conditions and they play such a vital role in the care and education of our young children aged zero to six years old. So just firstly to acknowledge them.This bill is just a small technical bill that clarifies that there is already the ability for the Minister to impose or have conditions based around funding. For example currently now in order for a centre to receive a certain level of funding they must sign an attestation form that states that they pay their teachers a minimum base rate and then from there on it's up to them how much they pay. But in order to receive that funding aside from that the funding is based on the number of qualified staff that you have in the centre on the floor. It's also based on the number of children and the different ages of children. So there's certainly already conditions around the level of funding that centres receive.As a previous speaker said there had been some concerns that the Minister was going to impose additional conditions based around employment but he did clarify that that was not the case. So this is small this is technical and it just reiterates that there are already the provisions in legislation for the Minister to impose certain conditions. So I commend this bill to the House.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. Just a short call to indicate that the National Party will be supporting this motion but in respect of the point that Ms Kerekere just made I think it is important that we continue this conversation in the Standing Orders Committee. Firstly I was one of the members that declined leave of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to have this adopted by leave of the House because I thought it was a better place in the Business Committee to have that initial discussion.The motion I think is quite generous. I think one of the things I think I will be raising in the Standing Orders is the question of proportionality and duration. I think 20 minutes in the Budget debate and in the Prime Minister's statement is quite generous for a party of that size. Bear in mind that when we come to the Standing Orders Committee considering this being made a permanent order it won't be about Te Paati Māori; it will about any small party and we have had parties established after members have perhaps left other parties. I can think of Brendan Horan who established a political party and respectfully I'm not sure that the spirit of this would sort of survive the black-letter changes in the Standing Orders if it were extended perhaps that far.So I think while we do support this on balance there is a continued conversation to be had so that we do balance the rights of leaders to be heard in important debates—I think that's very important—but Mr Seymour does make a very good point about proportionality and the will of the people who have brought us here to this House. So I think in supporting this motion I look forward to a continued conversation about it.
Kerekere ElizabethDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. I'm happy to stand on behalf of the Green Party who when we do work and speak in this House we do it based on our policies and what we want to create in this world not on the motivations of any other party in this House. I also stand as chair of Te Mātāwaka our Māori and Pasifika caucus in the Greens to say how much we support this because we believe it is essential that there is a party such as the Māori Party in our Parliament and the voice of the people who put them there. I want to point out that during the campaign Māori Television did research over all of the different electorates of the Māori seats and that found that half of the Māori who voted for Labour predominantly wanted Labour to work with the Māori Party. So I think that when people made those votes they did that on the basis that having the Māori Party here would add to the mix. So I'm pleased that this has been raised. I think it's demeaning and inappropriate that leaders of their own parties who have been elected and are sitting in this House have to ask permission to speak in key things because it's not all the time; it's only sometimes. I want to point to the whakapapa of Tariana Turia crossing the floor on the foreshore and seabed legislation and then ending up creating the Māori Party and the mana of the new party and to have brought the party back into the House. There are some things that we can say as the Green Party that probably other parties cannot say but there are things only the Māori Party can say because of that specific mandate that they have. So whether it's the Budget the Prime Minister's statement or any ministerial statement we totally support this.We also would like to suggest it go further and that this happens automatically. The House has been sitting for many many months and I wasn't aware that this was a provision that we could do. So perhaps it's just been created but if it has always been here I'd like to suggest that next term it is put in automatically so that parties don't have to go through it. I note—and I support—that the rest of the House has on most of those occasions when the permission has been asked we have unanimously granted it. So this seems to me in some ways an administrative thing. I'm pleased that we can clean this up. I mean I was elected as a list person. I'm not a leader of my party so I bow to all the leaders in this House and I expect that their people expect them to be able to speak for them. Kia ora.
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you. Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak to this sessional order regarding calls for Te Paati Māori. First of all we would like to give thanks to the Leader of the House for advancing this issue over the last few weeks specifically in the Business Committee and we appreciate the willingness of most members to ensure that we receive a good consideration to contribute to the proceedings of this Whare.Since day one I think Rawiri and I have made our presence known as Te Paati Māori and I'm sure that the Speaker of this House enjoys us being back here.SPEAKER: Rawiri Waititi.DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you—Rawiri Waititi. And what we do want to do is continue to be as we were elected the unapologetic liberated voice for Māori. There is a change in Aotearoa and we have been extremely fortunate and connected to the Aotearoa hou the way that tangata Tiriti tangata moana tangata whenua want to unite and progress together.Actually I'm really surprised at how much my member beside me the member David Seymour is more aware of Māori Party politics and strategies than what actually as a co-leader I am but what we do want to do is make sure that our contribution is valued and that we're able to yes as he said be part of a mana whenua unique voice in this House as the only tangata Tiriti tangata whenua party that we have.One of the other things that we do want to do also is that we've demonstrated that we take seriously our role and we're also prepared to unsettle and disrupt some of the discussions that need to happen in this House including some of the colonised practices and views. So in that spirit I would like to say that we are obviously supportive and would like this opportunity to contribute. We know we're a small party and we know that there are rules and tikanga that we have to follow as well.So to be able to have this opportunity to contribute to the vision today by passing this sessional order and ensuring that the only tangata whenua party in Parliament receives equity in the procedures and tikanga that govern this place—our rangatahi need to see a relevant party. They need to know that their voices are seen as to our whānau our culture and our dreams. So I would like to thank you again for the consideration. Nō reira tēnā tātou katoa.
Hipkins ChrisSTANDING ORDERSSessionalHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That the following sessional order be adopted: A leader of Te Paati Māori is entitled to one 20-minute call in the Budget debate one 20-minute call in the debate on the Prime Minister's statement and a five-minute call on any ministerial statement and Standing Order 365 and Appendix A are to be applied accordingly.Standing Orders give parties of six or more members opportunities to speak in some of the set occasions that we have here in the House including the Budget and so on [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! Both sides please.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There were reasons why that particular provision was introduced some time ago particularly in the introduction of MMP when a number of MPs were moving around parties and there was a need for some certainty. In this Parliament it has created an anomaly in that it's excluded just one party from being able to contribute on those occasions. This motion evens out that anomaly by granting Te Paati Māori the right to have a call on ministerial statements and for one of its co-leaders to have a call of 20 minutes in the Budget debate and the debate on the Prime Minister's statement. That brings them into line with the other parties in Parliament in terms of that entitlement. This sessional order will apply for the rest of this Parliament and as part of its triannual review the Standing Orders Committee can assess whether the current rules about speaking rights for parties of varying sizes are appropriate for the longer term.I would note that we have done similar things in the past where smaller parties have had only one or two members. Similar provisions were in place in the last Parliament to allow the ACT Party leader who at that point was a sole MP to be able to participate in debates and if I recall correctly similar provisions existed prior to allow the ACT Party United Future Party and in fact the Māori Party when it had fewer members to also be able to participate in those debates.
Robertson Grant; Bishop Chris; Mallard Trevor; Hipkins ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Leader of the House: On behalf of the Leader of the House I can say that next week the Government will continue with its extremely busy programme of business with a particular focus on making progress on the very significant and important Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill and a number of other committee stages that we will take forward in the House.CHRIS BISHOP (National): The Leader of the House having arrived do I direct my question to the former acting Leader of the House.SPEAKER: No. The Leader of the House is here. He will reply on his own behalf.CHRIS BISHOP (National): OK—just making sure the Leader of the House heard what the acting Leader of the House said in relation to—SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a question?CHRIS BISHOP (National): Yes.SPEAKER: Well ask it.CHRIS BISHOP (National): The question for the Leader of the House is: with the drawing from the ballot of the Autonomous Sanctions Bill which has previously been before the Parliament does the Government have any intention to expedite the passage of that bill?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The Government has no intention to expedite the passage of that bill. It was previously a Government bill that was discharged.
Rurawhe AdrianTHURSDAY 1 JULY 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Wednesday 30 June 2021 - Volume 753
Synthetic Urine (Prohibition on Importation Supply and Acquisition to Pass a Workplace Drug Test) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Synthetic Urine (Prohibition on Importation Supply and Acquisition to Pass a Workplace Drug Test) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 33New Zealand National 33.Noes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Crimes (Robbery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion not agreed to.
Crimes (Robbery) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 75 Noes 43 to include Te Paati Māori's votes that were subsequently cast.SPEAKER: The question is That the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.SPEAKER: Members it is kai time. I will leave the Chair now and resume the Chair at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 01 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.
Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill — Discharge
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the order of the day for the committee stage of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill be discharged and that the bill be referred to the Justice Committee in order to consider the Chief Justice's advice on the bill.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
10. Question No. 10—Internal AffairsNAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 10—Internal Affairs10. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has the Minister made to support young people to stay safe online?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Earlier this week we released the new interactive e-book called The Inter-Yeti targeted at children aged five to 12 to help them safely navigate the online world. This interactive tool shows our children how to deal with bullies strangers and content that makes them feel uncomfortable online. This is the latest series in our hugely successful Keep It Real Online public awareness campaign to help educate children teens and adults on how to stay safe online. The Inter-Yeti e-book was co-designed with a fantastic team of five- to 11-year-olds who helped us create the content so that it was relevant and meaningful to them. From one 11-year-old quoted who said This makes a boring teaching moment fun and interesting."Naisi Chen: Why was this style of educational campaign chosen?Hon JAN TINETTI: We know that 40 percent of Kiwis have online interactions with people they've never met in real life. We also know that our kids are growing up in a world that is becoming increasingly digital. While this brings many benefits there are also risks with online harms reaching kids as young as five. It is important that we created a campaign that was engaging but could also equip young New Zealanders with the tools to rebuff negative information and provide them with support to be safe online.Naisi Chen: Where can young people teachers and parents access the content?Hon JAN TINETTI: Members may have already seen the series promoted through ads on TV on YouTube posters and billboards around the country. But the e-book series is available now on the Keep It Real Online website for everyone to check out. Resources such as colouring-in pages and stickers will be made available through the website to help children engage with the messages. The e-book isn't time-limited so this will be a resource that can continue to be accessed for years to come."
8. Question No. 8—Local GovernmentRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 8—Local Government8. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Local Government: What information will councils have access to in order to consider the benefit of three waters reform and the impact on ratepayers?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Today's announcement is the next step in our three waters reform approach that will save ratepayers thousands of dollars and ensure New Zealanders can have safe drinking water and sustainable stormwater and waste-water services into the future. Building on evidence released in early June showing New Zealand was facing $120 billion to $185 billion needed to invest in these services today I've released compelling evidence that shows every community will benefit from the proposed three waters reforms. The data shows that without these changes the average cost per household for delivering these essential services could be as high as $9000 by 2051. Under our proposals modelling shows that individual households across New Zealand will save thousands of dollars while enabling long-term investment in core waters infrastructure.Rachel Boyack: What feedback has she received to date from councils about the reform proposals?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Councils have expressed a desire to see the data and evidence underpinning the reform proposals as it relates to their individual circumstances. Now that councils have received this data they can assess the impact of these proposed reforms for themselves and importantly the impact for their ratepayers. For the vast majority of councils these reforms will provide a significant uplift in their borrowing capacity to invest in their own communities. Councils want to know what the impact of reforms will be for them and that they will not be worse off as a result. We're working with local government on an approach to support councils through this transition.Rachel Boyack: What other decisions will help the councils consider the scale significance and merit of the reform proposals?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I previously have said this reform will save every household in New Zealand money over the long term to ensure they'll have safe reliable drinking water and support our communities to have better freshwater outcomes. In addition to scale other benefits include balance-sheet separation from debt-constrained councils the ability to spread cost over a larger area and population over time operational efficiencies of larger water service entities providing for consumer voice introducing an economic regulator and meeting Te Mana o te Wai obligations.
4. Question No. 4—COVID-19 ResponseARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 4—COVID-19 Response4. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What arrangements are being put in place to recommence quarantine-free travel with Australia?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yesterday Cabinet agreed in principle that from 11.59 p.m. on Sunday 4 July New Zealand will lift the travel pause to allow travellers from South Australia the ACT Tasmania and Victoria to travel to New Zealand. Yesterday's decision gives airlines passengers and all of those affected time to prepare flights from those green zones when the pause lifts on Sunday night. People travelling will need to get a pre-departure test. We do know how important the travel bubble is in particular for families and for businesses but we also want to avoid a situation where we're having to respond to a case or cases here in New Zealand. Arena Williams: What additional measures will be put in place to help keep COVID19 out of New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To be eligible to fly travellers must not have been in New South Wales on or after 11.59 p.m. on 22 June when our pause with New South Wales commenced or in Queensland the Northern Territory or Western Australia on or after 10 p.m. on 26 June which is when our pause with the rest of Australia began. We want to ensure that New Zealanders aren't unnecessarily barred from travelling back to New Zealand where there is little or no risk of them bringing COVID-19 with them but we will also be requiring people to have a negative pre-departure test within 72 hours before coming home to New Zealand as an additional layer of protection.Arena Williams: What factors did the Government consider in recommencing quarantine-free travel with Australia?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Cabinet carefully weighed up the evidence and considered that partially lifting the pause was an appropriate course of action particularly when bolstered with the introduction of mandatory pre-departure testing. The health advice was that the spread of COVID-19 in these parts of Australia had been contained there is robust surveillance testing and contact tracing to detect and manage cases and adequate border controls in place to prevent the spread of new cases.Arena Williams: What will happen in the event of another outbreak in Australia?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the reasons that we have allowed ourselves a few additional days is that we will be keeping a very close eye on developments in Australia between now and the end of the weekend. Detailed risk assessments will continue to be completed regularly for each state and territory and we'll be ready to make further decisions quickly if we need to do so. We will review the restrictions remaining in place for the other Australian states on or before next Tuesday 6 July. Our system from here of only opening up to the states that have been able to contain COVID-19 will help to ensure that New Zealand can remain at alert level 1.
Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill — First Reading
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I have to say it's been an entertaining evening. Actually firstly I should acknowledge Steph Lewis who's put it forward. It's not to take away from her work but the irony has to be noted and it's not that the members responsible—this is a members' day. The Government could pass this in five seconds flat through a statutory amendment bill but instead they've decided to filibuster for an enormous amount of time including bringing Berocca" back into the debate which is quite fascinating. So we've ended up with a situation where they've been filibustering over basically telling people that they're going to be given a piece of paper and verbally told not to bring certain fruits into the country. Now that's on top of us discussing the nature of urea and the fact that comity between the courts and the Parliament has somewhat broken down tonight with Louise Upton's bill. So personally I think it's been a pretty weak evening of discussion and in order to symbolise that I'm not going to contribute anything further."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Oh well I want to actually commend the member Steph Lewis for her bill the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill but in the ACT Party we just can't see this as being a big win. Now I know everyone in this House will articulate a message in the public sphere that farmers are the leading part of the economy and I am one of those. We've seen our National member go off on a tirade of why the Labour Government has failed miserably at assuring rural New Zealand and I would probably agree with some of the things that he said notwithstanding I also see the endeavour in this bill. But that being said I also see the huge bureaucratic layers of compliance it may add. There's a couple of things that I think we need to address notwithstanding that the biosecurity in New Zealand through Air New Zealand and for marine activity is rigorous. It spends hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes I think we would all agree that we have a $47 billion export industry to protect but there's a couple of things that I want to speak to if I can. You know this is a prime example in the marine industry. There have to be such things as if I can quote a Master's Declaration for meat provisions and animals. Bio-fouling and ballast water reports have to be given routinely a list of fresh produce and documentation of quality system to store the produce on incoming marine vessels a voyage memo for the last two years has to be kept—I mean these are the kinds of mitigations that I think this bill potentially has overlooked. This is notwithstanding that on aircraft there is CRMS which stands for craft risk management standard and this has already been adopted by the Biosecurity Act. We know there are many threats to New Zealand and I think and the ACT Party would certainly support the narrative that we have spent millions and millions of dollars on that sort of biosecurity mitigation to do with marine life terrestrial arthropods—and the member made iterations about mosquito incursions and marmorated stink bug and others. I think notwithstanding the Ministry for Primary Industries is doing a marvellously good job and I and the ACT Party just see this as a further layer of bureaucracy and compliance. Notwithstanding it will add additional cost to operators. So the ACT Party I have to make the acknowledgment cannot support this bill.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is the worst ever Government that farmers have ever had to encounter in the history of New Zealand and I want to run through some of the things that have caused that to happen. First of all the significant natural areas (SNA) land grab—and it's great that we've got James Shaw here today. I wish that he would take a call and explain that land grab and explain how private property rights are being taken away from farmers by this very Government and how they are using the guise of the SNA process—that is there for exceptional circumstances—to take away the personal property rights of New Zealand farmers. Explain that to the farming communities of New Zealand. We want to see you James stand up and explain that. The biodiversity rules that we're coming to later in the year—we want to see James Shaw explain how they're going to relate to that land grab we're seeing through the SNA process. Then let's look at the freshwater approach which is another complete failure—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon DAVID BENNETT: —on behalf of the Government. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Thank you. The member needs to speak to the bill. He's been going for well over—well that clock's still ticking. So—Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well over what? DEPUTY SPEAKER: I mean if you want to waste your time on me standing up and telling you're not being relevant that's fine. Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK. Well the freshwater reforms. Today we got David Parker coming out and saying that the wetland reforms are a disaster and won't work in practice. We've been telling the Government that since the election. They will not listen but farmers understand that those rules will not work. We're seeing that in Joseph Mooney's great electorate in the Southland area with the intensive winter grazing rules which are another complete and utter failure. Let's have a look at the—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon DAVID BENNETT: —labour supply of New Zealand. SPEAKER: Order! A second warning; you're not going to get a third one. Speak to the bill. Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well the labour supply in New Zealand is terrible. You look at the Recognised Seasonal Employer workers you look at the dairy workers. This Government has not listened. It has not delivered the staff that are necessary for New Zealand farmers and that will show through in animal health and mental health issues over the next few months as calving goes through our dairy sector. There's been a failure by this Minister to help out in any water storage issues in New Zealand for horticulture to grow in this country. There's been a failure with the tax on utes that we've seen from this Government as well directly impacting on farmers—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's call is terminated.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to take a call on the Synthetic Urine (Prohibition on Importation Supply and Acquisition to Pass a Workplace Drug Test) Bill. ACT opposes this bill not because we don't care about drug use in the workplace or we don't think drugs are bad but because we don't think this is the bill to solve this problem. The assertion is that employees are using synthetic urine to cheat drug tests at work and if this was rampant we may have a different view. Drugs are a problem in New Zealand and the way we deal with them differs depending on which side of the fence you sit and the experience in life you've had. I'm interested to hear tonight about the various examples down south because it's very hard to find details and actual numbers recorded in New Zealand. How many tested positive with synthetic urine? Making laws based on anecdotes is fraught with danger. It's a bit like blaming feral cats' urine for killing dolphins. We need evidence. Health and safety is a top priority for all businesses. Keeping their workers fit and healthy is in their best interests as well as their employees'. There are many avenues available to employers to guard against this issue of being drug-impaired at work: having a culture of trust and knowing your employees; having good managers or supervisors who can deal with potential issues and report to those who need to know where things can get sorted. It isn't difficult to identify people who both take drugs regularly and are being affected by drug taking. As a secondary school teacher I could walk into any classroom or any house for that matter and point out very accurately the students who use drugs mainly marijuana. They think they're fooling you but they're not. I would suggest that any employee desperate enough to carry around a bottle of synthetic urine just in case they got tested would be easily identified. They obviously have a problem and should have been identified well before any action was required. The hiring process for all businesses is stringent. Criminal histories are asked about and a police vetting service is available if an employer wants that security. All individual employment agreements have a provision about drugs at work. The ramifications are clearly explained on the contract and from the businesses I speak with including my own staff are constantly reminded of what would happen. In my own business industry synthetic urine isn't and hasn't been a problem. Prior to this bill being introduced I'd heard about it but never really took much notice of what it was. The technicalities that would arise with the addition of a synthetic urine accusation to an employee would further embolden the no-win no-pay lawyers who would relish another set of reasons for a defence. Specific protocols privacy issues even race has been brought up in cases overseas. Especially today when the business owner is up against it the personal grievance process will become an even bigger rort than it often is already. ACT opposes this bill.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you. I won't take that long Madam Speaker. Interestingly in the Crimes Act there is a thoughtful and structured approach: it's called robbery. It's theft with violence—accompanying violence. It's nice and it's tidy and it's structured and it's well-thought-out and the crime of carjacking would fit perfectly into that if it wasn't for this small anomaly. All we've had from the other side of the House tonight is misunderstandings of the law from multiple speakers trying to get around the fact that they just don't want to support what is a nice tidy easy-to-understand bill that makes sense that brings carjacking under robbery. I had a short conversation with my good friend Matt King from up North who rang me in a little bit of a state to tell me that he has never had a conversation with Greg O'Connor about this particular bill. Actually the case is that many police officers and many prosecutors have come to him with this exact problem saying We're having to do all of these other things just to try and cobble together a number of charges which wastes our time and which takes more of the courts' time. There are multiple documents there are multiple court appearances there's haggling. It would be nice and tidy and simple and easy if we could just put it under robbery because that's where it fits." Instead we had multiple speeches from the other side of the House confusing things and talking about conversion which requires permission. Golriz Ghahraman who just wants to give hugs to criminals was talking about the fact that if there were two people then that would amount to robbery which is completely untrue. All we were trying to do with this bill was to take a situation like stealing someone's wallet giving them a punch and running off with it. Clear easy to understand—robbery. But in the case of doing exactly the same thing with someone's car but dumping it somewhere 200 kilometres away you cannot prove theft and it doesn't fall under robbery. You end up with prosecutors having to cobble together multiple charges which never reach the same threshold as much as they like to say that it will—never reaching that same maximum sentencing of 10 years wasting the courts' time spending a lot more money and it would be much more easy simple and straightforward if we could just bring it into robbery. It's not difficult to understand. Unlawful taking is already defined in the Crimes Act as Greg O'Connor mentioned so it would have been very nice. Any possible stumbling blocks we could have taken to select committee as Nicole McKee said and worked through those. But unfortunately because we are dealing with a soft-on-crime Government as is always the case those victims of carjacking will have to wait for change of Government."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. What disappointment we hear from the other side of the House tonight from this soft-on-crime Government which isn't prepared to make the tough decisions and actually take action against serious issues. If any of those members were actually good constituency MPs they would be listening to their constituents and hearing what the issues are that are being faced and they would know that this is the type of piece of legislation which the public expect Parliament to be addressing. They expect Parliament to be addressing issues such as carjacking and the violence that people are seeing on our streets in New Zealand.But this Government is soft on crime supported by a Green Party that hasn't seen a crime they don't want to decommission and take out of the Crimes Act yet. They want to get rid of jails and everything else. This is a soft-on-crime Government. This bill actually addresses a very serious issue where we are having violent carjacking taking place in our community. The law does need changing to ensure that there are appropriate penalties and a message sent that that is unacceptable in New Zealand. So the National Party will always stand on the side of victims of crime. I commend this bill to the house.
Ghahraman Golriz; Stanford EricaVOTINGCorrection—Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment BillGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Point of order. I apologise; while I was on duty during the last vote I didn't realise that I was to enter proxy votes on behalf of Te Paati Māori so if I could just enter their votes on the bill that was the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just a moment we'll just get this right. If the member would care to seek leave to amend the vote.GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I do seek leave to amend the vote Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): And what is the member amending?GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Oh sorry the votes are two in favour.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Thank you.ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I move that the Crimes (Robbery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry to interrupt the member—apologies. We'll get this right. So I will call on member's order of the day No. 4.
Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill — Vote Correction
Ngobi TerisaTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Just to take a quick reply on this. First of all I wanted to thank the members for your contributions even those across the House. While we don't all agree maybe for this bill what we do agree is that education for all children is really important.This bill is a game-changer; we're asking for a proposed four hours per year for parents or caregivers to be able to attend their child's parent-teacher interview. We know when parents children and their teachers come together they're able to develop a plan that is going to make sure that we set goals so that those children—our future leaders—are able to get a good education are able to have the same equal playing field as everybody else. That is the importance of this bill. You can talk about the costs—the minimal costs—but the employers I've talked to good employers are already doing this. They're already supporting their staff to make sure that they get good education for their children and are able to support their families in whatever they need. This is part of a bigger package for this Labour Government to continue to make sure that we lift our children out of poverty. This is one of those things that we can do to make sure there's equality. This is one of those things to do. That's the importance of this bill and for that I commend the bill to the House.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I'm really pleased to be able to stand and provide Mr Goldsmith with some evidence all right? So I'm really pleased to be able to stand and support Terisa Ngobi's bill the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill and we're asking for resources quite rightly to be committed to something that shouldn't just be because it feels good; it should be because the evidence is clear that it will make a difference.So let's start with the OECD in 2020. They talk about parental involvement in children's learning as strongly associated with children's socio-economic development better reading proficiency and academic success student engagement and high school completion. And the way that connects with this piece of legislation is that they note a typical barrier to involvement is time constraints—Inequality of ability to find make and take time to engage may increase inequalities in education." So to the member's point about "Why bother?" the evidence is very very clear.Let's look a little closer to home to the Education Review Office. They reported in 2018 the benefits of such strong partnerships. Having teachers involving parents in setting goals and agreeing on next learning steps is critical. These conversations enable teachers to learn more about each student in the wider context of school and home to develop holistic and authentic learning goals and context for their learning. And it really really helps teachers to become culturally responsive—critical when we are trying to address some of the inequalities in our system.When this engagement is regular and honest genuine and reciprocal learning partnerships happen and that can only be a great thing for our kids. So when we value and work with whānau—not just a one-off speed date but ongoing relationships—it helps with transitions into school and between schools. We look forward to hearing all these voices come to select committee and I urge you to support this bill."
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. The National Party opposes this piece of legislation. This Government seems to live in a fantasy world where you can keep passing laws to offer another public holiday double sick leave entitlement now offer another half a day off a year to go to school interviews thinking that it would have no cost and everybody would be happy. Well unfortunately the people that are operating a small business—a little cafe or a bookshop—and dealing with the difficulties of keeping afloat in business are having to foot the bill. And this is something that isn't a problem that needs fixing. Schools and parents are quite capable of organising things so that they can arrange for parents to be able to come along to meetings. They've been doing it for decades and they generally have opportunities outside working hours and flexibility in the system so that they can arrange to do it. Schools have been doing it for decades they continue to do it; my schools do it. So this is another case of Labour pushing unnecessary cost and regulation without presenting any evidence whatsoever—no evidence whatsoever—of the problem that they're trying to solve.I haven't seen long queues in front of my MP's office of people concerned about this as an issue. Meantime we've only got three out of five children attending school regularly. We've got a truancy crisis in this country and this Government's members seem to think the solution to it all is to make it easier for parents to attend teacher meetings. We've all worked out that we're fully capable. It seems to be the impression that this Government thinks that New Zealanders and their teachers and their schools are incapable of working things out for themselves and that the Government has to come in and fix every single little problem with something else to put on to the shoulders of small business operators who particularly are struggling to stay afloat. So we on this side of the House oppose this as unnecessary legislation. We have trust in New Zealanders to be able to work it out for themselves.
McAnulty KieranRIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF INSANE OFFENDERS BILLReferral to Justice CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I move That the order of the day for the committee stage of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill be discharged and that the bill be referred to the Justice Committee in order to consider the Chief Justice's advice on the bill.Hon Louise Upston: Shame on you.SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here for some years. The comments that she just made were out of order in at least two respects and it is my expectation that now she is a front-bench member a senior member that she shows some leadership around the parliamentary system.The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye the contrary opinion will say No. The Ayes have it. Did somebody call a party vote? A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.Hon Louise Upston: Disgraceful.SPEAKER: Order! Order! Louise Upston will leave the Chamber.Hon Louise Upston: You guys will pay for this.SPEAKER: Order!Hon Louise Upston: I'm leaving.SPEAKER: No the member is now going to withdraw and—come back withdraw and apologise. No come back withdraw and apologise.Hon Louise Upston: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Louise Upston withdrew from the Chamber.