edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Reti ShaneHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair. That's a really good question from the member and I thank him for that. I've been informed that the vast majority of people who moved from the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand to the Māori Health Authority moved under the Health Sector (Transfers) Act 1993. So exactly the same provisions that didn't raise concern when they first moved there will actually be the mechanism that puts them back.
Reti ShaneHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair. To speak to the member before the one who has just resumed her seat—the Hon Willow-Jean Prime—the questions she raised were exactly those raised by the former Minister Peeni Henare about 16 minutes previously on clause 34(1) and section 54 and clause (2) and section 55 and I don't envisage repeating that. I also met with whaea Moe Milne about three weeks ago and we discussed the importance of the name. I indicated to her that the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee had said that they would provide recommendations and that I'd be highly likely to take up their recommendations. I met with her also so I do understand the importance of the name.To the member who has just taken her seat—Hūhana Lyndon—again that was a discussion on localities which I have discussed in detail and regarding the transfer of staff terms and conditions it will as I say remain as the Health Sector (Transfers) Act requires. I don't envisage those who are out in the regions being consumed and consolidated centrally and our initial thinking is that people will stay. Certainly those in the regions will stay as they are is our initial thinking.
Campbell Hamish; O'Connor GregDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I will indicate to members that I have been watching this debate closely and we are close. It's a while since we have had any new material and we've done this. However I will take Camilla Belich.
Reti ShaneHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll speak in reverse order to the member who's just returned to her seat Lan Pham raising the question of monitoring. The Hauora Māori Advisory Committee (HMAC) will be a significant independent monitoring body as will the Ministry of Health who has the responsibility to actually monitor the whole health system. And of course Health New Zealand will have monitoring roles as well but the independence will be with HMAC.The question around clause 15 on section 30(1)(f) replace 'the activities of the Māori Health Authority' with 'the hauora Māori activities of Health New Zealand'." That's simply because the Māori Health Authority will no longer exist. Those functions needed to transfer and they'll transfer to the operational arm of the system which is Health New Zealand. Clause 15—what do I envisage by "support and engagement"? Well support would include cultural professional and financial support. Engagement is the collaborative communication and sharing of information. Thank you."
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move That debate on this question now close.
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I won't use this to take up any more time in the debate but I will just note that my question asked prior to the Minister's last call to define engagement and support" as in clause 15 has not been answered"
Reti ShaneHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll reply further to some questions that have arisen particularly around localities and their relationship with iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPBs)—several members have raised that. What the legislation does is it pauses Schedule 1 I believe for the localities planned to be formed. That is because we're still considering the role and the place as I said in my first reading of localities. So that's quite clear.Second there were some questions over there around protections around the composition of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee going forward. Look no one can predict that far into the future what future Governments will do. But I have flagged in my readings and flagged with our intent that I absolutely support cultural competence and believe it to be important and that I'll seek advice from IMPBs around appointments and that I also believe that there can be skills-based and representation with the Health New Zealand board. So as much as we have some view of what's in front of us here now I'm offering that support.Dispute resolution has also been raised. And yes it is my intention to continue to have engagement with the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti the Hon Tama Potaka in dispute processes. The member who's just completed Debbie Ngarewa-Packer was talking to something we've already touched on: IMPB capacity building. I agree they will need resourcing. They have already been moderately resourced. I absolutely understand that they will need further resourcing depending where they are on the capacity and competence sort of metrics if you like—and to help them achieve the functions that they need I will commit to that.
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair for taking further questions related to the removal of Māori voice from the health system in this bill. My colleagues have already made a number of points about the ways in which that is occurring but I have two that I believe have not been canvassed. So we've already heard about the loss of iwi-Māori partnership board (IMPB) ability to approve locality plans. We've seen them lose the ability to appoint to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee—lose control over who is representing them in the system. That now goes to the Minister. We have been told that it is not the fact that that is the case in the current legislation; that was a transitional provision. We've also seen that the role for Te Aka Whai Ora in drafting the Government Policy Statement is gone and the right for Te Aka Whai Ora to directly advise the Minister is also gone.I want to ask two particular questions. The first relates to clause 6(3) which is the advice on the New Zealand Health Plan. Can the Minister clarify if the IMPBs will be involved in giving advice on the New Zealand Health Plan because otherwise there is no input from the local level into what is a key instrument in the health system. In fact I often say that the main feature of the health reforms was to enable long-term planning for the health system and that New Zealand Health Plan is an incredibly important document for shaping the future of the health system.The second thing I want to ask relates to clause 15 which is the requirement for Health New Zealand to support and engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards. Given that his words dictate what must occur in practice I'd like the Minister to define what he means by support and engage". To me "support" sounds a little bit paternalistic and I'm particularly interested in understanding how "support and engage" fulfils the Government's requirement to work with iwi in partnership under Te Tiriti."
Wade-Brown CeliaCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a question first of all to clarify following on from my colleague. I wasn't clear with the Minister of Health's answer regarding the Waitangi Tribunal and the timing. Is it accidental that this is being rammed through in urgency two days before or is it deliberate? That's my first question.Secondly given the coalition Government's support for localism at least in theory the Minister seems to have such severe doubts about localism in this area that it's going to take five years to introduce localities. So how will that provide services—I think I quote—as close as possible to Māori hapū"?Moving on to a comment I'd like to know whether the Minister agrees with a member of his own caucus that seemed to direct the health deficit for Māori to their own fault. If that's not victim blaming I'm not sure what is. Does the Minister think that it's Māori's fault that they languish as a result of socio-economic deficit that they tend to live far away from the centres of walkable cities and towns that their socio-economic status means that they are not able to buy healthier food and that milk remains a lot more expensive than fizzy rubbish despite the wonderful farmers that provide us with it?Then finally how much worse is Māori health going to get over those five years—and I think it might be unlikely that he will still be the Minister of Health in 2029. How much worse is the health deficit going to get? Thank you."
Reti ShaneHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll respond to some of the questions. From the member over here regarding timing this has been well flagged through our 100-day commitments. I'd also comment that the tribunal—once the legislation has been enabled—is still able to critique it and that is the understanding that I have had and we wanted to provide some surety to the staff at the Māori Health Authority so that they knew what the plan was. So we did want to move with some degree of timeliness. It was also commented—and I've already mentioned it before—about the skills base and representation to the Health New Zealand board. The member that was over here raised the question of whether there was actually a reduction in autonomy; I don't think that's the case because what we've said is that Māori will be involved in monitoring delivery and decision making at local levels. So I don't accept there will be any reduction in autonomy and he also asked about whom discussions had been had with. I'd already said that we'd met on or around 6 December with iwi-Māori partnership board chairs but if they want to have further discussions start with Tuwharetoa and ask how the consultation has been with them. The member down over here asked the questions about Māori health outcomes and how are we actually going to do that. Several things: first of all health workforce are going to be pre-eminent. It's really a common pathway to challenges we have in the health system at the moment. So health workforce will be important targets will be important and we have to give people the tools to do the jobs so that talks to infrastructure. So those are three key ways that we are going to improve Māori health outcomes. We've had discussions with New Zealanders over many years—in fact since the Māori Health Authority was first described. I recall that afternoon going into public domain and there have been many many discussions over what now must be about three years. There is nothing new here tonight about the discussions. The Māori frameworks of health—yep the Te Whare Tapa Whā o Te Wheke which I think Rose constructed. What I would say here is that we totally believe and I believe in cultural competency and the Māori health frameworks that support that. Thank you.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Madam Chair. Thank you for that. Look I don't usually speak on health bills but there are aspects of this bill which I would really appreciate it if the Minister could elucidate. There are essentially only two aspects to my question. It strikes me that pae ora—the original objective—was really to give some self-determination around health delivery for Māori consistent with Treaty obligations and in particular the idea or the concept of rangatiratanga in respect of health delivery. We've been talking and I've heard my colleagues talk about representation and voice and consultation. I guess my question is this: if the Minister agrees that Te Tiriti is a partnership where we should be giving as much self-determination to Māori as is possible then what is the rationale for the retreat from that here?We give self-determination in the delivery of Government services in many areas and kaupapa Māori schools are a really good example of that where they are designed in a te ao Māori way and delivered in a te ao Māori way. They have fantastic outcomes—we know that. Why is that in this critical area of health delivery we are retreating from the delivery of health services to Māori in a way which Māori have self-determination over how that is delivered? If the answer is We're not retreating from that." how is it that we are respecting the right of self-determination—of rangatiratanga—in this domain when all of the amendments that I'm reading talk about seats on boards seats around the table and not a table of their of their own? Given that this is a massive retreat from self-determination of delivery of health services and that you're saying to Māori that "No I don't trust you to deliver"—effectively—"health services. I think this is a bloated bureaucracy." and that having by Māori for Māori in health is nothing more than having a bloated bureaucracy what have you done to talk to Māori about that retreat? Whom amongst iwi and hapū have you spoken to? What is the view of Māori of your decision? If the answer to that is "That's the election." then I would put to you that that's not satisfactory and that we must engage with Māori whenever we change the law in a way which directly affects Māori. There can be no more substantial change than taking the autonomous delivery of health services away from Māori. So I'd appreciate it Minister if you could answer those two questions."
Reti ShaneHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the members for their discourse. To come first to the member who has raised questions around clause 6 clause 6 is a descriptive clause that reflects the changes to Health New Zealand functions to ensure that some of the Māori Health Authority functions can transfer over to Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority. With regards to the broader question around obligations that are contained in clause 6 I'd say several things particularly where the member was asking really good questions around the Māori voice. Several things: first of all the legislation clearly uplifts the voice of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee (HMAC) so a very clear Māori voice there. Secondly health service monitoring and decision making by iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPBs) is mana motuhake almost by definition. Thirdly delivery of services close to the home and hapū is consistent with obligations we have to all New Zealanders. The member also asked about the IMPB capacity and he's absolutely right. IMPBs are at different levels of capacity and we've looked at what that will entail to bring them up to a level where they are able to analyse to collate to take in local information to do local analysis of it to then institute local actions as to how to change it and then pass it up further for aggregation at regional and other levels where we can get a wider view across the whole sector. So those are some of the expectations and with those expectations will need to come support to power that up. The member over here had some very good questions about the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee appointments. I'd just point out that the process that the legislation talks to is the process now and has been for the past two years. There's nothing different to it; I'm just not instituting what was going to be taken into account in July later this year. Those appointments—yes they're ministerial appointments like as I say it's been for the past two years but of course I will seek advice and consultation from out in the sector and of course from IMPBs as but one group whose voice I need to take into account. So their voice is not lost; it's just not formalised in the legislation as it was going to be as at July 2024. You've asked a question around an invitation for HMAC to proactively offer advice: yes please. To offer advice that I need or offer advice that I may not want to hear is the privilege and the purpose of HMAC—to be in that position to be trusted advisers to the Minister and to us so that we can do a better job. So yes to answer that question I do envisage the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee to proactively offer advice. There were several questions around localities. I've already indicated in the legislation that through Schedule 1 I think it is locality plans will be paused and localities will be paused while I reconsider their position going forward. I think that answers a number of questions around localities the relationship with iwi-Māori partnership boards—they are paused in this legislation.
Cheung CarlosDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): There's no denying that really we could improve Māori health outcomes in New Zealand and this Government is working hard on it. I heard the Opposition side of the House mention inequity a failed health system racism discrimination etc. but I haven't heard any members from the opposite side mention the word self-responsibility". As a diabetes and cardio specialist I can tell you that with self-responsibility and discipline some of the health issues we're facing in New Zealand can be prevented. This Government will continue to work together with our Māori community to deliver a solution. But creating an unequal system based on specific race is not a solution to our health system. People in New Zealand want a health system based on needs not race. This bill is about equity not inequity. Therefore I commend this bill to the House."
Weenink VanessaDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I rise in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. It is my great pleasure to do so because one of the reasons that I came to this House was because of my incredible anger at the destruction of our wonderful health system wrought upon us by the previous Labour Government.The Māori Health Authority seemed like such a great idea and I held out such hope as did so many of my health colleagues but unfortunately the causes of Māori health poor outcomes have got nothing to do with the health system; it's to do with colonisation it's to do with the impacts of poor it's all about the fact that economic decisions and social policy have more impact than anything to do with the health system. So trying to restore and improve health outcomes for Māori through health policy is going to be useless.I remember my friend Dr Marcia Walker who is the granddaughter of Ranginui Walker—she was on the committee with me for the council of general practitioners—Shanan Halbert: What would she say to what you're doing today?Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —she said that she hoped that the board would stand up and say—Shanan Halbert: How shameful that you would use her name. Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —All of this money should be used to—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Mr Halbert please don't bring the Speaker into this.Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —house Māori and we will actually put the money towards things that will make a difference to Māori health and the Māori Health Authority will do nothing at all." The thing that we hoped for that would make a difference was the iwi-Māori partnership boards; however the previous Government actually watered down the recommendations for that and they were going to be completely toothless—Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is that why you're taking away their voice?Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —and now we're keeping the iwi-Māori partnership boards and actually making them effective. You've talked about primary health care—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don't bring the Speaker into the debate.Dr VANESSA WEENINK: I beg your pardon. She knows nothing much about primary healthcare. I really hoped that primary healthcare was going to be improved but unfortunately the previous Government used their mandate on primary healthcare to upset the entire system in a time of a pandemic and destroyed the morale of our absolutely blasted workforce and did this. So this is one thing that we can do to try and restore some form of health outcome improvement and I commend this bill to the House."
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill for the second reading. This Government is committed to finding more effective ways to work with all communities for better outcomes and to deliver solutions as well as finding savings through disestablishment which may actually go to better health outcomes. You can build whatever structures you like but till you focus on outcomes you're going to have increasing health inequities and patients will suffer. Merging the functions of the Māori Health Authority and transferring its roles in the public health system means health systems keep its experts and expertise it needs to improve the outcomes for all New Zealanders including Māori. So therefore I recommend this bill to the House.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look we understand that the health system is under significant challenge. The reality is under the last six years the health outcomes for New Zealanders have gone backwards. New Zealanders haven't been able to get the care they need. Our wait-lists and times have soared. I have constituents telling me that it's been so difficult to get meetings with specialists and with surgical staff. Immunisation rates have plunged and this Government is committed to lifting the health outcomes for New Zealanders. And as part of doing that we will disestablish the Māori Health Authority and merge the functions of the Māori Health Authority and transfer the rolls into the public health system. We believe through doing that that we will have the expertise there that we need to deliver improved health outcomes for all New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori alike. We support this bill.
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on the second reading of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. I'd just like to begin my contribution by noting the passion in this House today. That is because we all care very deeply about the health of New Zealanders whether it's our family whether it's people in our community it is people right across the country. That's why the contributions today are so passionate—so acknowledging our passion and also too acknowledging that there is a different way of getting to the same health outcomes. We all want to see increased health gain for all New Zealanders and it is on that that New Zealand First stands by the health Minister the Hon Dr Shane Reti alongside our coalition Government to be committed to improving Māori health outcomes.We're doing this in a different way: as the Minister noted decentralisation is a key way we're focusing on this; absolute health targets where we ensure that the outcomes will be positive not just for Māori but Pasifika and all other communities as well and also addressing the huge workforce pressures right across the health system. It is our public health system that will deliver for Māori it will deliver for Pasifika and it will deliver for our vulnerable communities. But we must ensure that our public health system ensures that they are powered up in the right way.We believe that Te Aka Whai Ora—and if we go back to the report that was written the high-level assessment of Te Aka Whai Ora the progress against Cabinet expectations just a small note here: overall there had been insufficient internal capacity and capability to deliver. That's the problem: it was not delivering health gain for Māori.I just want to point to the Hon Peeni Henare's comments relating to perhaps pretending to commit to the iwi-Māori partnership boards. Well if I could draw his attention to Part 1 replacement section 15 inserted by clause 11 Health New Zealand must support and engage with iwi-Māori partnership boards". Under the previous legislation the iwi-Māori partnership boards were nothing more than a token gesture. They didn't have any commissioning powers to deliver health services for Māori. So this way under this Government under this Minister we will ensure that the health services will go down to the flax-roots. I commend this bill to the House."
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. There have been many societies in history who have seen their citizens based on something as flat as race and often they regret it as they lose sight of the beauty of each individual. Whether the other side wants to hear it or not this Government isn't creating division; it is trying to restore trust in the society which the last Government trashed. There will continue to be support for Māori by Māori health providers. This is about removing duplicate expensive bureaucracy whether in Wellington or Auckland.For the benefit of Peeni Henare I invite that member to finish his sentence on why he doesn't have faith in the director-general. Iwi-Māori partnerships will continue to work with Health New Zealand to develop priorities to improve hauora Māori. Staff and structures will move to the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand and ACT supports this bill. Thank you very much.
Reti Shane; O'Connor GregSecond ReadingHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I move That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Thank you Mr Speaker. We have laid out a plan for Māori health in the context of an overarching strategy with priorities that include decentralisation the importance of health workforce and targets. We have heard how Māori health providers often service non-Māori sometimes even more than they service Māori. I recognise and venerate this and in fact have already moved from just those nice words to putting it into action with the announcement in December of a $50 million immunisation programme that utilises the special actions that Māori health providers can provide and what mainstream cannot or will not; their ability to reach into remote and vulnerable communities as part of the expertise that they have.In that announcement which at $50 million was not inconsequential we funded Māori health providers to deliver to a universal audience. We backed them. These are tangible actions not just words. Yes I did say transition would be in my kind hands in reply to a previous speech. What I would suggest is ask the staff: is there any time in this process when there has not been respect and consideration?In my first reading I asked Māori Health Authority staff to join me—hardly demeaning but more encouraging and collaborative and hopeful. I have enjoyed engaging with Māori health providers and leaders as I've sought to find a way forward for what might deliver better health outcomes including meeting with Iwi-Māori Partnership Board chairs and a Zoom meeting on or around 6 December as I recall and others who have contributed wisdom to the position we find ourselves in today. To conclude briefly I've described the changes that this bill brings about: (1) Māori Health Authority staff to repatriate to Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority; (2) uplifting of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee; (3) uplifting of iwi-Māori partnership boards; (4) reconsideration of localities. The plan is clear and we believe this plan will deliver better health outcomes. Kia ora mai tātou.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Cheung CarlosDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I rise to support this bill. This Government is committed to lift health outcomes for all New Zealanders including Māori. Disestablishing the Māori Health Authority in no way means an end to this Government's focus on Māori health for those who need it. It presents an opportunity to identify more efficient ways to work together with Māori to deliver solutions; a saving which can go back into better health outcomes. This bill strikes the right balance between service delivery on needs not race while ensuring Māori continue to have their voice being heard. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I stand to speak in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. We're committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders including Māori. We recognise that communities know best what works for them. We'll continue to work with all population groups to improve outcomes. We don't want a healthcare system that will deliver more bureaucracy than bandages more paperwork than peripherally inserted central catheter lines more heartbreak than heart health. So therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill at its first reading. We have said that we campaigned clearly that we were going to disestablish the Māori Health Authority. We were voted in by the people of New Zealand with a clear electoral mandate and we are delivering on that mandate as part of our first 100 days in coalition agreements with coalition partners. We know that the solutions for Māori communities come from Māori communities not from Wellington bureaucracies. This Government is committed to lifting outcomes for Māori and non-Māori alike and it's not about the shape of the system; it's about making sure that it actually delivers for all New Zealanders. That is what this Government is committed to doing—lifting the standards of healthcare for all New Zealanders—and this bill is a step in that direction. I support it.
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill.I'd like to begin my contribution acknowledging the Minister the Hon Dr Shane Reti and pointing out a number of comments that he's made in his introductory remarks which resonate well with me—that we do remain from this side of the House absolutely committed to improving Māori health outcomes; noting also that the staff and functions of Te Aka Whai Ora will be transferred to Health New Zealand; and reprioritising the funds from the bureaucracy to the front line because it's at the front line we know that health gain will be improved. If you have a massive bureaucracy that is all about ideology no health gain comes as a result. Our public health system is accountable for its delivery; a public health system that is keenly focused on delivering positive health outcomes for all New Zealanders and that's New Zealand First: we believe that equity of access for all based on need based on clinical need must be a core function in public health. Māori health equity is a core function of the public health sector. Māori health equity should be matrixed across the entire public health system not ring-fenced not put into a little box on the side with bureaucratic capture. The delivery of Māori and for that matter Pacific health gain is a fundamental responsibility of our public health system.Te Aka Whai Ora is the commissioning arm of the public health system for Māori; however Te Aka Whai Ora's ability to actually deliver was very limited. It was not the vehicle for change that many people had hoped for. I will also note very briefly that the iwi-Māori partnership boards under this amendment bill will get the actual power they should have had in the first place. Currently under the Pae Ora legislation they do not have any commissioning powers but the future for them is to really come inside the health system and be that network provider down to the grassroots where Māori health gain will be improved. I commend the bill to the House.
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT to indicate we will be supporting this bill the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. ACT opposed the establishment of the Māori Health Authority. We also campaigned on that in last year's election and we also put that into our coalition agreement which became part of the Government's 100-day plan. We think that having a Government department predicated entirely on race is wrong and it really is a simplistic way of looking at how we should deal with healthcare in this country.Dividing New Zealanders into two ethnic groups to receive public services does not help us deliver better public services and actually it's a poor analysis of the causes of poor health outcomes. It creates division and really isn't the way we want to go forward. Also the report that was done on the authority's lack of progress I actually said that concerns are being raised about staff transfers not being focused on critical skills and expertise needed to actually deliver the health outcomes that were promised. The report also found that the authority was tracking behind the Government's commitments and under-delivering resulting in actually Māori being underserved not better served.We want to continue to ensure that our health system delivers for all New Zealanders based on need and we are very committed as the Minister outlined in his speech to actually closing the gap for all New Zealanders Māori and non-Māori. This bill also doesn't remove the ability for Māori to be consulted and we actually want to see more Māori health providers actually providing care at the coalface. We want to get rid of this bureaucracy and actually get down to delivery. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Urgent Debate Declined — Use of Urgency
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): The use of section 27 reports is to inform the judicial system—the judges—in the process of sentencing the background and family information of the accused. So the process for going through the allegations and the charges and the defence of them has already passed. At this stage section 27 reports have to do with sentencing—there is no removal of the right of anyone for evidence to be presented in their favour throughout the whole process what is being abolished is the funding for section 27 reports because it was created to allow family and people who knew the accused to provide evidence in support of their background. Section 27 reports are not being abolished by this amendment. I commend this bill to the House.
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): When we consider the fact that taxpayer-funded section 27 reports—the amount spent on them—has increased by at least 190-fold when we think about $40000 in 2017 to $7.7 million in the last financial year I'm pretty sure that most Kiwis would agree that this money is better spent on victim services. I support its progression.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you Mr Speaker. Labour opposes this bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill which affects section 27 reports. We oppose it for a number of reasons and I want to bring those to the House to help viewers at home understand the reason why Labour opposes this bill. This is a Government that is mean-spirited. It does not care about its lowest socio-economic citizens and so people at home who are not in the Chamber will understand that this particular section section 27 of the Sentencing Act was to assist judges when they are considering sentencing. The cultural value reports are put forward because the offender may not necessarily be able to be in a position to have a background report. Especially we understand that Māori and Pasifika offenders may not necessarily have the resources whereas this funding is being repealed by this Government—the mean-spirited Government—to fund their tax cuts. They are picking on individuals and whānau and aiga and families who need necessary funding. The option to put it forward is still there. However offenders that are in a situation where they do not have the financial means will not be able to have this section 27 report. It is not an excuse; it is to provide a report that provides further explanation for the sentencing judge to consider those circumstances. More importantly the sentencing judge will have further intel or insight or extra information providing good research that could probably give a more purposeful report that could provide extra weight and have further information to be considered. We have heard that Māori and Pasifika offenders are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Section 27 reports as I've said will bring about social values with the why with the what and with the who and they will also provide some extra psychological information that could or may assist with that offender's rehabilitation programme. So section 27 reports help provide a better alignment specifically for Māori and Pasifika and low socio-economic offenders who have found themselves in a situation where they need the section 27 cultural value reports. It is the chance for the average person who may not necessarily have the funds and don't have the ability to pay that for themselves. I come from a community in South Auckland where there is an overrepresentation of some of our most vulnerable citizens who have found themselves in front of a sentencing judge and who actually want to change their offending behaviour. This Government is mean-spirited. It wants to find funding so that it can fund its tax cuts and not care about those who need a hand up. Labour opposes this bill. It does not want to have a mean-spirited Government who does not care about some of the offenders so Labour opposes this bill. Thank you.
Brewer CameronLEGAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 20 February.CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill defunding—urgently defunding—the section 27 reports. In fact I just got a text from the last bastion of front-bench common sense in the Labour Party—Stuart Nash—and he says [The previous Government] was not responsive [enough] [not] fast enough to nail the crime issue. [In my view] the gangs need to be taken down. We need to give police…every tool." That was a text from Stuart Nash; no sorry that was an interview he had with TV ONE last night. These section 27 reports have cost taxpayers millions of dollars and have done nothing for victims of crime; in fact they've led to further sentencing discounts. So in the immortal words of Karen Carpenter when it comes to law and order we've only just begun. I commend this bill to the House."
Brownlee GerryINTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: I understand that it is the Government's intention to introduce two bills.CLERK: Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill introductionSmokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading presently.
Brownlee Gerry; Shaw James; Ngarewa-Packer DebbieURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDUse of UrgencySPEAKER: Members I've received a letter from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi about seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the use of urgency. An urgent debate can only be held about a particular case of recent occurrence. An accumulation of information or a series of leads does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers' rulings 221/2 and 221/3. More importantly it is the House that decides whether urgency will be held. While Ministers may move a motion for urgency Standing Order 58 requires the House to agree before urgency can be held. Urgent debates are not a mechanism for debating decisions of the House. The proper forum for that is the Standing Orders Committee. The application is therefore declined.Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. Just in relation to that ruling by my count the Government has put 16 bills through urgency and one item of Government business not through urgency. So recognising your point about the accumulation there has to be a point at which we're able to debate whether it's appropriate for a ratio of 16 urgent items to one to go through the House because the Government has the majority and is essentially railroading the House. We're at the point now where they can't argue that just because there was an election means that they can overturn parliamentary democracy.SPEAKER: Well I think there are a couple of points. The first thing is all Governments have a majority—that's just a fact of the way the Westminster system works. All Governments from time to time use urgency and as I have just ruled—just ruled—it is a matter for the House. Now the public will make a decision about how they view these things but that is a calculation for the Government.Hon James Shaw: So it's OK to use urgency for the next three days—SPEAKER: Sorry if you want to stand and take a point of order to debate the ruling then go for your life.DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order.SPEAKER: In the meantime point of order Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: The point is of the 16 bills that have come through this House a large proportion are affecting communities who are made up of tangata whenua who are denied the right to come in and be part of an open transparent select committee an open transparent consultation. This is affecting Māori more than anyone else in Aotearoa which is why we have put this request for an urgent debate.SPEAKER: I appreciate the fact that you have taken the opportunity to make the point but it is not relevant to decisions of the House. So urgency is a matter for the House to determine and if the motion is put today the House will vote on that and the outcome of that will determine whether we have urgency or not.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered for the Clerk to present.CLERK: Petition of Andrew Munro requesting that the House introduce legislation requiring cat owners to stop their cats from killing our local bird lifepetition of Alistair Reese requesting the House legislate to recognise the oral agreement 4th Article" as part of the Treaty of Waitangipetition of Alisha Riley requesting that the House urge the Government to increase the GST threshold in its 2024 tax policy work programme.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: 2022-23 annual report of the Nursing Council of New Zealand.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. There are no select committee reports. I present the report of the Ombudsman entitled Children in care: complaints to the Ombudsman 2019–2023. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been presented—no bills."
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Thursday 29 February 2024 - Volume 773
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is That the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee. Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Motion not agreed to.
Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill — First Reading
8. Question No. 8—BiosecurityCAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Minister for BiosecurityQuestion No. 8—Biosecurity8. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What announcements has he made recently that demonstrate the Government's commitment to biosecurity?Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): On Friday I announced a $5 million boost to the upper North Island community's fight against the invasive seaweed Caulerpa. This exotic pest arrived in 2021 and has now been found in five locations across Northland and Greater Auckland. This thing spreads fast forming thick meadows on the seabed potentially impacting native species and changing the marine ecosystem. It is affecting some unique and important areas of New Zealand. That's why we are committed to action.Cameron Luxton: How will this additional funding support the fight against Caulerpa?Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: It will support a range of new and scaled-up actions. In particular it will be used to develop suction dredge technology currently being tested in Northland. Innovative people are trialling some gear that suctions up the seaweed off the floor with a barge avoiding the need to put divers in the water. My parliamentary colleagues Mark Cameron and Grant McCallum and I got the chance to go out on the barge and look at the equipment. Results so far are promising and indicate that with some technical tweaks it would work at large scale. This will allow us to further test local elimination in areas such as Omakiwi Cove.Cameron Luxton: What are the next steps in the fight against Caulerpa?Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Full eradication of a marine pest like Caulerpa that takes hold in the seafloor and spreads so fast is difficult. Technical advice so far has been that fully eradicating it from New Zealand will be extremely challenging and unlikely with current technology. But this investment will still make a difference for the environment and for the people affected. I equate it to controlling Californian thistles on farms. You may not get to a point where you completely eradicate them but you can get to a point where you've minimised the impact on the farm.
4. Question No. 4—HousingHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 4—Housing4. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his statements on social housing?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yes.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with National MP Tama Potaka who said on 9 September 2023 that National will increase the number of social housing places funded by Government"?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes.Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many social housing places will the Government fund on top of that already funded by the previous Government?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well the member will have to wait until the Budget.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he commit to providing for new public housing places of at least the same level of funding that currently exists beyond 2025?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member will have to wait till the Budget but what I would say is that this is yet another fiscal cliff left to us by the—[Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd like to be able to hear the answer please. Interjections are fine but it's a little loud.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the member who's yelling out who's a former Minister of Housing will recall that the funding for social housing places ceases after June 2025 so that is indeed a fiscal cliff. The reality is the last Government didn't fund places beyond 2025 into 2026 or 2027 because they wanted to create the illusion of a surplus later on.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will the Minister permit Kāinga Ora officials to meet with me to provide a briefing in person on the current state of social housing?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member's written to me so I'm not quite sure why he needs to ask an oral question about it. I'm happy for the member to meet with Kāinga Ora as I am indeed happy for all members of Parliament to meet with Kāinga Ora to get a briefing on what they're up to in their particular local areas or indeed the Opposition spokesperson. I would also say the member should wait for the independent review chaired by Sir Bill English that's coming back. I suspect he will be interested in the answers to the review questions."