edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair. Again I'll follow the honourable member from the Far North and I suppose comment on an issue that's very topical today with respect to legal harvest. I guess it could not lead to a question but it's really interesting when you look at the integrity of our agricultural or food-producing sectors that a lot of what we do in those sectors adds to the integrity of the product we produce. I suppose you could think about where we've got to in the recent weeks or months with the discussions around slash; the integrity of our wood products is probably going to come into question if we don't manage that in an equitable way. So I think there's a whole lot of issues raised by the question that Mark Cameron asked which while were never the intention to be part of this bill initially—and still aren't of course but actually are very relevant to the sector and to the issue we're dealing with. So I think it's quite interesting how this has moved on with quite a bit of pace actually given the events of the last few months in New Zealand and particularly relating to the New Zealand forestry sector. So it's a very interesting topic for us as a country and the integrity of all of the products we export are dependent on a lot of things but particularly on the manner in which we either harvest them or I suppose in the case of all of our grain and seeds and things like that harvesting's a relevant topic too. So I'd be interested to know whether the Minister had any comment to make on that issue. I know it's part of a bit of work being done at the moment with respect to the I guess you could say integrity of our harvesting methods and how we get on but it is a very big topic in New Zealand and one of significant interest to New Zealand.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. For the sake of just indulging me if you would Minister I bring your attention just very quickly back to new section 77(3B) inserted by clause 42. It says In this section harvest includes any work on the land that is necessary to prepare for the harvest or to stabilise the land after the harvest." I'm interested in the scope or the length of the time if you go back to my previous iteration where I offered an example of a lessee and a lessor working as a partnership—how would that play out? What sort of time frame do you think in terms of perhaps stabilisation or remediation work post-harvest? The scope of that is wide open really and you could see that potentially being problematic for the landowner once the lessee has left and harvested the wood. So do you want to give some clarity about the length of time that you think this bill and its oversight in terms of stabilising the land and in its interpretation with harvest would be? Thank you."
Cameron Mark; Henare PeeniMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Sorry Minister; I apologise. I may not have been very very clear and I appreciate your answer given and it was very succinct and it made sense to me.To reiterate my line of questioning was more in the sphere of should a lessor and lessee be in some you might say contractual difficulties and some prosecutorial reality was potentially in play—that person the said lessee was accessing the land to harvest those trees whilst there was an issue over the said harvesting it may be in contravention of this bill. I was just going to go back to section 77 where you removed it. Was that the reason that was removed in so much as that someone accessing land where they see that they've got a legal obligation to remove the timber but is still contractually bound and is finding themselves in some sort of prosecutorial reality in terms of who owns what—you might find that there were court proceedings in play or something to that effect that ameliorated the normal function between two partners. If you could just clarify if that was the reason why this was put in there or edited out.Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): I thank the member Mark Cameron for the clarity in their question. I'm going to try and attempt to do this and I beg their indulgence here. So if there is a dispute between a landowner and those who are looking towards accessing the trees by way of the lease that they hold the right to access that land they would have a legal right and would not be in contravention of any law as it currently stands at the moment and this bill doesn't change any existing laws in that respect. Whether or not that answers the member's question I'm not too sure there but I seek their indulgence here.
Mooney Joseph; Henare PeeniJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much. And thank you Minister for engaging with this point. I'm referring to the report back from the Primary Production Committee which raised an issue around new section 145 inserted by clause 42 and recommended that it be amended to allow for judicial discretion when determining whether a defence is available to the person after the 15-working-day period for notification has lapsed. I note in the Supplementary Order Paper section 145 has been addressed by that and I'm just wanting confirmation from the Minister that this is intended for the court to have leave as recommended by the select committee to allow a defence to be available for a person after the 15-working-day period has lapsed if leave is given by the court.Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Look thank you to Mr Mooney for his indulgence here in continuing to raise this question with me. The rationale here is to provide more flexibility for the defendants and to align with other pieces of legislation here. That's the reason why we're doing this to allow that flexibility. With respect to the amount of days if the member will indulge me here I might ask the advisers for a bit more clarity on that particular matter but that's the rationale for why we're doing it and we believe that this bill will allow that flexibility.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Kia ora and thank you again Madam Chair. Just to the point with respect to the right of access: like most of the arrangements that are held between those who own the land and often those who hold the lease on the trees or the ability to harvest most often they're not the same people. So with respect to the right of access it would be our expectation that that would be held in the agreement between the landowner and those who hold the lease in order to be able to access the trees—whether for harvest or for other purposes. So I hope that addresses the member's question. If we want to flesh this out a little bit more of course that's our right and that's why we're here. I do apologise to the member Mr Mooney here. Once again I missed the bulk of his question and so if he doesn't mind asking it again that'd be great.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister in the report back from the Primary Production Committee there is a recommendation that new section 145 inserted by clause 42 be amended to allow for judicial discretion when determining whether defence is available to a person after the 15-working-day period for notification has elapsed. So I note in this Supplementary Order Paper 349 that Section 145 is amended to allow a person to rely on defence in new section 145(2) if the court gives them leave" and "a similar amendment is made to new section 146 in relation to strict liability offences". Is the Minister satisfied that the issue raised in the report back from the select committee—that section 145 be amended to allow for judicial discretion when determining whether defence is available to a person after a 15-working-day period for notification has elapsed—is addressed adequately by this Supplementary Order Paper?"
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. It's lovely Minister to finally engage with you in the committee of the whole House about all things forestry. I bring your attention to new section 77 inserted by clause 42. This was well canvassed I think with the officials in the Primary Production Committee which I sit on as you're well aware. What I was trying to ascertain—and it seems like this problem has been ameliorated when it came to harvesting timber on what would be lease land. If I can sort of draw your attention to a theory if you will: in this instance the landowner owns the land but does not necessarily own the timber therein. Should there be as a question—and I think you may have addressed it but I just want some clarity on this. Should a person be accessing that land for the sake of removing that timber though they are the lessee of the land—the owner of the timber but not of the land itself? Would that then be in contravention of the law—i.e. that timber has been harvested illegally because right of access? There might be some prosecutorial reality between partners in this instance. By virtue of logic are they not then in contravention of this bill which is going to be an Act by accessing private land?
Mooney Joseph; Henare PeeniJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Chair and thank you to the Minister of Forestry for that explanation. Minister I just want to ask you a few questions around the Supplementary Order Paper that has been filed and I note that the point from the Primary Production Committee has been addressed which was removing duplication of provisions that protect assessors from personal liability. So that's good. I'm just wondering—the change here—what the rationale was to remove from the definition of when timber is legally harvested the phrase indicating the right to harvest timber includes the right to access the place of harvest. If you could just clarify for those listening the rationale behind doing that. I note one of the other points that was raised and the select committee reported back on this point was the concern about having a defence—two charges brought or providing the court with discretion to allow defence to be put. I note that this appears to have been considered here and new clause 30 I think replaces section 63ZK of the principal Act and the new section 63ZK specifies offences relates to the provision of a forestry adviser service only and I note that it now says It is a defence to a charge"—in that section—if the offence is caused by "another person … an accident" or something else "outside the defendant's control". The defence in the current section 63ZK(2) is carried over. Either defence is available only if the defendant gives 15 days' notice of the intention to rely on the defence or the court otherwise gives leave. If I can ask the Minster if that intention there for the court to otherwise give leave was intended to address that concern raised about defendants being able to potentially raise the defence and the court having the discretion to hear that defence. Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll address the first question and I do apologise as I missed quite a bit of the member's second question. But if I can I'll address the first one and hope we can have an exchange to clarify for that member the matters he raised in the second question. The right to access the place of harvest was being asked—what our rationale was. In discussion with the advisers here taking it out of the primary legislation and placing it into the secondary was about trying to make the system—as I explained in my opening remarks just to improve the workability of it to make sure that the new legal harvest assurance system complements the existing registration systems for forestry advisers or log traders in order to make sure that it's just a bit more streamlined. That's certainly the advice that's been given to us and that's the rationale that for making sure we take it out of there and put it into the secondary legislation."
Halbert Shanan; Salesa JennySHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chair. I move that we hear all parts as one.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question." Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 stand part."
Salesa JennyFORESTS (LEGAL HARVEST ASSURANCE) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come first to the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. We begin with debate on Part 1.
House in Committee
Salesa JennyHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill and the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. It's always a joy on a Tuesday evening when peace and love break out in the House and everyone can agree that the Government is putting forward an excellent bill tonight to help protect the borders of our wonderful country Aotearoa New Zealand. Many of us have now been able to travel since we've come out of the most difficult parts of the pandemic. Can I just comment that our teams at the border do a fantastic job. They process thousands of passengers every week and they do a fantastic job guiding people through the process and ensuring that they are doing everything they can to track down anything coming into the country that could harm New Zealanders or our country. Others have mentioned tonight that one of the main things that this bill achieves is the ability to move to a digital declaration. We saw recently with a temporary measure that was used following the borders reopening that as well as using your declaration card travellers leaving New Zealand before they left had to actually complete a declaration for an electronic measure as well. That was the very beginning to this process so that we can make it more efficient and easier for people to be able to enter the country but still declare the information that they need to declare.I just note from the select committee report that there were some queries there around privacy. It's important that privacy considerations are always given due diligence by a select committee to ensure that we are protecting people's privacy. The challenge in this type of setting is that not only do we need to consider the privacy of individuals entering New Zealand we do have obligations to ensure that people who are entering are giving us the correct information are coming in for the right reasons that they're compliant with immigration purposes and that they're not bringing anything in that may cause harm to New Zealanders such as drugs for example or anything that could harm our biodiversity. So we have these requirements to protect our country. But I do note from the select committee report that the advice received by the committee was that the bill wouldn't expand any of the privacy obligations but it would make it more transparent in terms of being aware of the information that was required to be provided. It's an excellent bill. I'm pleased to hear that other parties will be supporting this bill and I commend it to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill and the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill.
Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Very good of the member from the Bay of Plenty to recite the Government's work programme and the many achievements that this Labour Government has racked up over the last three years. I'm going to lament the demise of the blue arrival card just as I grieve—I grieve—for the demise of the men who walked up and down the aisles of arriving aircraft with aerosol cans spraying aerosol through the cabin of the airplane. Simon O'Connor: You're not that old surely!Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That was Simon O'Connor in his job before he became a politician. Good to have something to fall back on Mr O'Connor. And I was thinking actually—contemplating the debate tonight—one of my favourite Tom Scott cartoons—is there anybody in the House who's old enough to remember Tom Scott? [Interruption] Sounds like there are a few people—yes yes. So this particular cartoon—which is highly relevant to this bill Madam Speaker—depicted actually a version of the famous Goldie painting called The arrival of the Māori" but it was an allusion to classical paintings. And it showed the sort of emaciated and starving bodies leaning forward in the bow of the waka as it crashed on to the rocks in one of the first arrivals in this country. And there in the Tom Scott cartoon was a Pākehā man in a shirt and walk shorts and long socks holding a clipboard saying "Have you got anything to declare?" So that's one of my favourite Tom Scott cartoons and it speaks to the great contribution that Customs have made to the history of this great nation.I'm very pleased to take a call in this debate however briefly. The bill's been considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—a very well-chaired committee as is known. And as the previous speaker Todd Muller noted there's broad support across the House for this bill which will allow the digitalisation of the gathering of information off people arriving in this country. Like SmartGate that will actually make the process of arriving in this country by sea or by air a much better more streamlined experience for people. So I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm standing up slightly earlier than expected but I will take the call anyway. This is a solid bill and the National Party supports it but there has been a bit of a pedestrian debate frankly from the Government as they have slowly stepped through the merits or otherwise of this piece of legislation. It frankly talks to their inability to crack on with things that need to be done and actually focus on the larger issues that are befalling this country—be it cost of living or frankly any of their portfolios that they're struggling to deliver on.The guts of this for those at home who are wanting to know what this is all about is that the New Zealand Customs Service have said Look we'd like to move to a digital model"—which you'd think in 2023 is about time—"and by the way as we do that we'd like to have some tweaks with respect to the liabilities that currently exist if you do not fill out the Customs form appropriately and some technical amendments that we will need to make to the legislation to ensure that we are following the law when we move to a digital model." So here we are spending you know close to two hours debating what is a simple concise change to enable the modernisation frankly of Customs and the accumulation of data.The select committee has gone through it well—I've only just joined the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee; I turned up essentially as they were concluding this. They had a handful of submitters one oral submission and—as you would understand Madam Speaker—there are a couple of clauses that have been suggested to just tighten the definition. Apart from that we're all in fierce agreement.So rather than spending 10 minutes stepping through the ins and outs of Customs I'm going to repeat that the National Party thinks this is sensible. We support it. Crack on with it and in the next six months before this Government runs out of time actually focus on something that matters to the rest of the country. How about cost of living housing law and order education health—the list goes on. Thank you."
Salesa JennyASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora koutou members. Before we went to the dinner break we were debating the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. This next call is a five-minute call to the Labour Party.VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. I was not a member of the select committee who considered this bill the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. However it is an extremely important bill as we reopen our borders to the external world. This is a bill that amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to provide for clearer arrival information obligations to improve the enforcement and functionality of the system and improve border management and passenger experience by supporting a safer and smarter border. It's also a bill that supports modernising our border by making improvements to support the implementation of a digital arrival card.A few specifics about the bill are that it provides an explicit obligation on arriving passengers to provide prescribed arrival information and it includes two new offences in the bill one for failing to provide prescribed arrival information and one for providing arrival information that is erroneous in a material particular". It also creates new regulation and as a member of the Regulations Review Committee I will be keeping a close eye on the utilisation of these regulation powers. The new regulation-making powers set the time by which arrival information must be provided to the New Zealand Customs Service and exempt persons from the requirement to complete arrival information. Interestingly there are a number of exemption provisions within regulations and rules that guide when you can and should and how you should be making those exemptions provisions.So this is a very practical bill. It will help us keep up with modernising our requirements at the border and I commend it to the House."
SpeechTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's always an honour and a privilege to take just a short call tonight in the House. And it's good to be back after three weeks of recess in the beautiful Ōtaki electorate for me anyway.While I didn't sit on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee it's obvious to me that this bill the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill absolutely makes sense. It supports the fantastic work that Customs and their team were already doing to make sure that we keep the borders of Aotearoa New Zealand safe—so a no-brainer for us.As people have already spoken to tonight we've heard that this bill provides an explicit obligation on arriving passengers to provide prescribed arrival information. The bill also includes two new offences as we've heard tonight. One is for failing to provide prescribed arrival information and the second is for providing information that is wrong or incorrect.This bill creates a new regulation-making power to set the time by which arrival information must be provided to the New Zealand Customs Service and exempt persons from the requirement to complete arrival information. This also provides the power for Customs to collect certain information about persons arriving in Aotearoa New Zealand to verify compliance with traveller requirements set out in the legislation administrated by other agencies.Again as I said this is just a short call to say again this is a no-brainer. This is a great piece of legislation to make sure that we support our Customs team that are already doing a fantastic job to keep Aotearoa New Zealand's borders safe. Kia ora.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon David Bennett—five-minute call.
SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT this evening to support this bill—to continue to support it. It's one of those odd situations where Parliament is legislating technological change but it is what it is.I think we all agree that Customs do an incredibly important job protecting our borders and ACT certainly supports the modernisation and the digitisation of this Customs declaration. It enables agility to be built into the system and changes can be made in a cost-effective manner if they are necessary. It's going from sort of a slow-changing environment to the more agile environment where this can be more responsive. So these are all good things.I do have maybe an unpopular opinion which is personally myself I quite like the paper forms. Whenever I suggest that to someone they think I'm out of my mind but on a long eight-hour flight it can give you something to do. The main gripe would be nobody seems to have a pen! Hopefully this will solve that problem.The data sharing was something that I raised at the first reading and certainly it's been talked about in this reading and also in the select committee process regarding the scope of that data how that may change but ultimately it would seem that there's assurance that the powers aren't changing too significantly and that while the platform itself will change the powers will just be kind of as they are.The new infringement regime—I think we've had some assurance around how that can be responsive to how this rolls out because while the questions may be the same the circumstances of the person filling it out are quite different. They're going to be doing it at a very different time; it could be days beforehand and circumstances may change and so what happens in that case? Can there be a bit of allowance in the system or the ability to update and so on?I think separate to that also the paper form—it's good that they're going to stick around for people like me but also as a redundancy. I think as this system rolls out like all IT systems done on a large scale it could be a bit of a kerfuffle. We certainly hope they're on to it. There will be complexities.One little thought is: I hope there isn't a mismatch between the digital form that someone signed—their declaration—and specific individuals. Someone coming off a plane holding a piece of paper that they've just filled out is very obviously—they say yes they filled this out this is all true and it could be a bit different to a situation where someone maybe got some help from someone else or someone else did their form entirely for them. So there could be some teething issues there but I'm sure—these are not reasons to not do something when it comes to technological progress but they are things to be mindful of. Overall the ACT Party is perfectly pleased to continue to support this to third reading.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Speaker. I think at the heart of this bill is the safer and smarter passenger experience that will make the border more agile. As we've heard from the Minister actually the digital services identity card could have been done under the existing legislation. I think it's a testament to the Hon Meka Whaitiri that she has chosen instead to go through the House because it does raise the spectre of digital information-gathering and sharing which are areas that are increasingly in the media areas that cause anxiety for people and areas that need significant transparency in order for human rights to be safeguarded. So I think absolutely the right approach has been taken even though it could have been done under the existing legislation.As the previous member Simon O'Connor has spoken about those requirements need to be explicit and particularly around the powers of the Customs officers to be able to share information. We've heard that those information-sharing powers are the same or very similar to what are in place now but people need to know that. So this is about transparency and assuring people of a transparent process.There are two new offences around not providing information and also providing erroneous information. They are to incentivise people to take this process seriously to do it correctly. Of course going into a digital world I guess a shift to an incoming card that is digital is inevitable and there are privacy things to take into account so having a select committee process has been really good.My final comment is just to say how reassured I am around the fact that there will still be support for people who can't access the digital service and that there will still be paper cards available. That's really good because like the previous member I acknowledge those who may never be able to work in the digital space and I'm sure that the Customs service will performance manage itself to make sure that those facilities are there that they're being used and that support is there. So it seems that there's a lot of support for this and I commend it to the House.
SpeechANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Kia ora Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take the final call on the second reading for the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill. It's been interesting hearing about people claiming to live in the part of the country that has the best spots for camping. It is difficult for me living in a place with the most amazing tomos and wild west coast and a beautiful maunga so I'm torn just within my electorate let alone amongst other electorates—just saying.It's been really interesting hearing about how we solve the problem that we all agree on. We've heard that education has helped. The Tiaki Promise that we have brought to our visitors has seemed to really help but it is not enough. Suggesting that we simply police those who behave badly is a really interesting proposition when most freedom camping spots are quite remote. So it's a really interesting idea to think that we're going to get our rural cops out there—who are pretty much sole-charge—to suddenly be going off and policing bad behaviour.Education is not enough. As my esteemed colleague Ingrid Leary suggested we need to provide them with the loos. It's pretty simple. It isn't enough and it is important because the cost is being borne by our local communities and by our visitors. Even though we have invested in a lot of loos in Taranaki - King Country—more than $1 million—Mōkau Pirongia and in Te Papakura o Taranaki; for those of you who don't know that's the fabulous new name for our national park. That was great tripping off the tongue.What we need to make sure is that we support the people who are camping to do it right by making sure that they've got the equipment they need so that when we go and enjoy our beautiful remote places as locals or as visitors they are clean and green and fabulous. I support this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): The only issue I have with the speech from my colleague Dr Emily Henderson is around which is the best camping part of New Zealand. I have just been on a wonderful road trip across what we call region six in the Labour Party so through Clutha district through to Queenstown up to Ōāmaru and down and it is absolutely stunning—the best weather in New Zealand and some of the best camping sites. But the communities there are frustrated with freedom campers. In fact Tess Brunton on a Radio New Zealand story last year on 30 November quoted a Wānaka resident—Debbie—remembering finding unpleasant surprises around her community and its tracks. It quotes You find toilet paper and all sorts of stuff around and it's not good." So that is the experience and I would remind this House that actually it was local authorities and communities who requested this legislation—the ones who had freedom campers coming through.As far as the argument about hardware versus behaviour goes if we look at what we would call the theory of change with the logic around why we are doing this there is a logic to assume that when people have the hardware to be able to go to the loo they will use that hardware. That's what this is based on and in fact the stats bear it out: 98 percent of those who have fixed toilets use them and that's in the 73000 self-contained vehicles. So 85 percent of them have fixed toilets and 98 percent of them use them.So the best way to change the behaviour is actually provide people with the toilets or make sure they've got them and then they will use them. Certainly toilets are provided up and down New Zealand as Dr Emily Henderson said—200 Department of Conservation sites. There is funding available for local authorities to be able to get more. So the question is: do we want to keep New Zealand clean and green? Do we want to have a brand proposition that is pooey and gluey? I would say clean and green and so I support this bill."
SpeechDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. As a keen camper—but rarely a freedom camper because I do like the Department of Conservation (DOC) sites and their well-appointed facilities—I am delighted to stand up and take a short call on this matter although I was not privileged to be a member of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. It seems to me that the Opposition are fundamentally missing the point and what they seem to be wanting to do is in some way close the toilet door after the user has fled. There is not a lot of point with suggesting that we try to catch these people after they have done what they do in the woods. That is going to be remarkably difficult and may require some quite advanced DNA testing as well which I just don't think that we want to foot the bill for.The simple elegant solution is to require the small percentage of people who don't already have toilets fixed in their vehicles—and I believe about 85 percent of freedom campers currently do so we have a small percentage here—to do the right thing: have their fixed toilet and then do the right thing in the right place. It seems to me that this is a sensible proposal because apart from anything else I note that we have 200 DOC camping sites up and down the country. It is not as if those who do not manage to do what they should do and fix a toilet in their vehicle are going to be disadvantaged because they will have many fine options. I say this as the member for Whangārei undoubtedly the best place for camping in New Zealand and I would just point to the wonders of the Uretiti campsite the Waikahoa campsite near Mimiwhangata—a beautiful place—and not least the Puriri Bay campsite all of which have excellent facilities which I would suggest any freedom camper not able to fit a vehicle might want to use. On that note I take my seat.
SpeechJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill an important piece of legislation to maintain our clean green image that we have here in New Zealand. I will attempt to flush away some of the odour from the Opposition from what we've heard this afternoon.The Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill that amends the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006 to improve the management of vehicle-based freedom camping. Now we've heard from speakers across this House—some who agree with the bill; some who don't. There does appear to be consensus around the fact that the non - self-contained vehicles appear to be losing the social licence to operate. People doing their business in the woods is not something that we accept as New Zealanders. Obviously there's arguments from different sides around whether this bill will fix that our side of the House believe that it will fix that and obviously that's why we're putting it into legislation. The Opposition have a different view and that obviously remains to be seen.But the important aspect here is the fact that if anyone goes overseas and they have a look at an advertisement for New Zealand you'll often see pristine nature at its finest often the likes of the Milford Sound. But the reality is: are people when they come here receiving what they're being shown on an image? And the fact that prior to COVID the Milford Sound had around a million people going through there every year which is not sustainable. This is just another example of us holding true to the image that we put out there to the rest of the world. Because tourism is absolutely vital for our economy it's vital we protect it. It's vital that we do it well. I'll leave my call there I know others would like to contribute. I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to remind the House this afternoon of the purpose I guess—the essence of what this piece of legislation is about. It's around protecting nature. It's around keeping New Zealand clean. It's around showing respect to others. It's around showing respect to our environment. It's around being good guardians of what we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand—being that clean green image that we like to present ourselves with.Now this is legislation—and as we listened through the select committee process that I was honoured to be part of—very much around how we support local government. How do we ensure that local government has the tools and the means to ensure that they can keep many of their spaces and places many of their parks and other areas safe and clean? The sad thing is as we heard submissions and we listened to councils from all around the country there were the horror stories of excrement of rubbish and of other things I don't even want to mention in this House being left in places that they should never ever be left in. This legislation and in terms of crafting throughout the select committee process was about ensuring that local government can rely on reducing the negative impacts that freedom camping has come to be known with. We know that most New Zealanders are responsible. We know that most New Zealanders who get out and enjoy our wonderful parks and rivers and oceans are responsible but sadly there are some that aren't and we need to make sure that this House creates consistent legislation that will support our councils to make sure that they do and those enjoying the outdoors do.I was a member of the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association. I did own my own motorhome a number of years ago. I had my red and grey wings that I was very proud to have and I was responsible but unfortunately others weren't. So we need to do this. We need to make sure we get it right. I look forward to our committee stage in terms of getting to a place where we have this legislation fit for purpose.
Bennett Glen; Salesa JennyGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move That the committee report progress on the bill.Motion agreed to.Progress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that that report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Annual Review Debate — Social Development and Employment
Upston Louise; Sepuloni Carmel; Salesa JennyHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): So just on that the report that was out today indicated significant numbers of sole parents who do want to be in work. So I'm interested in what practical programmes has the Minister seen greater success in in terms of supporting sole parents into work.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Certainly the Training Incentive Allowance—which unfortunately was cut by the previous Government—which we have reinstated. Great success—it means that they actually have the ability to be able to get degree-level training which will mean that their longer-term prospects in terms of earning and getting into meaningful and sustainable employment are increased and the opportunities for their children subsequently are too.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members our time with the Minister for Social Development and Employment has now ended.
Chhour Karen; Sepuloni CarmelKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): My question is around social services that are provided by NGOs and the private sector. Between 2021 and 2020 we've spent around $461 million on community support services and I'm just wondering if there's any services in particular that are finding that it's no longer sustainable to provide those services because they're struggling after COVID and with the cost of living. A lot of these services are actually providing quite important products to our communities whether it be to our elderly or whether it be community pantries and things like that. Is the Minister aware of any particular concerns within the NGO and private sector where it's no longer sustainable and are any conversations being had there to help in that area? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): When we did take over many of the NGOs in the social sector that are funded by the Ministry of Social Development had not experienced any increases in funding over that nine-year period. So when we came in we moved quickly particularly to make investments into the family violence sexual violence space; also services like our budgeting services and some of our disability services and a range of other services as well. What we also saw is that there are inconsistencies across the way in which we commission social services for the actual contracts and services. And so we undertook a piece of work which is the social sector commissioning work; so that started in 2018. There were some things that we could move to do quickly like provide certainty of contracts so they could get on and do the work. Where some of them were getting one-year contracts and then having that renewed every year and not having the certainty we moved where we could. And so now there are more social services who have three years or longer with regards to the services that they provide.As I said we have also lifted the amount of funding that many of our social services are getting but it is about that relational approach between the Ministry of Social Development and all other social sector agencies—Government agencies—that are working with our NGO sector. And so we continue to work on that through our social sector commissioning action plan. I know that it was welcomed by our social sector and there's lots to do through that action plan that we are committed to doing.
Menéndez March Ricardo; Sepuloni CarmelRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to run past some of the answers that the Minister gave me with further questions. Look I appreciate that she gave me a rundown of how much was spent on civil defence payments but my question was about whether the current amounts were fit for purpose considering they hadn't been reviewed or updated for basically 20 years. And so while you know I get that people are accessing it anyway and in large amounts because of course after a natural disaster people need support I'm interested in knowing whether she thinks that the amount that people can access for hardship assistance and therefore civil defence payment continues being fit for purpose. Secondly on warrants to arrest I hear the Minister's comments that there are priorities and competing priorities but one of the key advantages of removing the sanction that was identified by MSD was to free up administrative resources for MSD. Which means that by getting rid of the sanction that the Minister doesn't agree with the sector doesn't agree with—and MSD has identified one of the advantages whether that could actually create resources to focus on other things like providing hardship assistance and supporting people into meaningful employment. And I'm interested in the Minister's views of whether it's worth keeping a benefit sanction that all it seems to do is not meet the goals that it's intended to do and so that takes staff time. Finally I guess I'm interested in whether MSD has done any work in terms of tracking the kind of wages that people earn after they go into employment from a benefit and whether it is the Minister's aspiration that people are able to access jobs that pay for example a living wage if they're transitioning from a benefit into employment.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): OK and again I'll try and respond to all of the questions in that particular comment and that bit of feedback that was given.With the civil defence payment I have to remind the committee that many were able to access it more than once. Although there was a ceiling that they could access at one time if they still needed more they could go back and get that. Civil defence payments are aligned in some way to our special needs grants. The member knows that we'll be looking to review those. So if those do shift then so would civil defence payments but you wouldn't look to just shift civil defence payments without looking at the special needs grants and hardship assistance as well. So that has to be part of that work programme. In saying that if you shifted the others then that would shift because of the alignment that exists between them.The member asked again about the warrant to arrest sanction. As I said in the House and I know it may not be the answer that the member wants to hear we do have to prioritise our work programme. So it is one those issues—other sanctions and reviewing them—that has been parked for now; that doesn't mean that later on down the track it couldn't or wouldn't be picked up.
Chhour Karen; Sepuloni CarmelKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): My question is also around improving employment outcomes. And just looking at the expenditure that's gone on in that area it's actually risen around 108 percent since 2018 from the $273 million we were spending to $569 million on improving employment outcomes. We seem to have more people who are on job seeker now than when the Government took office. I'm just wondering: what programmes are you confident have made a real difference and are there programmes that haven't that you're looking to relook at? And where are the benefits from this huge amount of expenditure?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I think just going back to something like I said earlier part of the reason why we never experienced the level of unemployment or the numbers of people on benefit that had been forecast by Treasury was because of the immense effort that we have been putting in at the front line and the investment that our Government has made into upskilling and training and employment. So I think it was money well spent and I'm certainly not going to apologise for making that investment. It was important.If we look at things like Mana in Mahi and I believe Flexi-wage as well really what we've seen is something like 89 to 90 percent of those that participate in those programmes complete or even if they do leave the opportunity that's in front of them don't come back to benefit. So they are having success and they are being effective. The Ministry of Social Development has also moved to be much more transparent around the outcomes and effectiveness of employment programmes. I think we've shared it with the committee; I do believe we also put that online to make that publicly available. So there is a level of transparency there around our employment upskilling and training investment that was never there before too. I'm constantly monitoring to make sure that the investment that we're making and the effort that we're undertaking is constructive and effective for the New Zealanders that need it. And it's important that we do keep our eye on that and continue to remain focused.