edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look we've all given a number of speeches on this very short bill today which has gone through. You know it is I suppose a bit of a metaphor for this Government's overall justice agenda that on our final day in Parliament we're fixing an urgent problem with urgent legislation. It's not somewhere we would want to be but it needs to be done and on that basis we support this legislation.Ultimately the practice that has been in place since 2004 to deal with a very small group of very serious—very serious—mainly sexual offenders who are clearly a danger to society and in particular to children—a regime has been set up in place to help deal with the transition for these people back from prison into the community in such a way that keeps the community safe. Now the practices have been in place since 2004; a law change was made in 2014 which wasn't intended to change that practice but in the course of time some queries were made about how it fit with one clause of that legislation.In 2021 a court case queried that; the Parole Board then looked into it and decided that they needed to get some clarity around this and asked the High Court to make a declarative judgment. They did that and said No the law doesn't allow you to do what you have been doing for some time." Now the consequence of that is that this small group of very serious repeat offenders would be able to set out sort of without any restrictions during the day. That's not a risk that the Government is prepared to take and it's not a risk that we here on this side of the House would be prepared to take.So when you strip it all away that's the choice we're left with: do we support this or do we not? Of course we do support that because I think most people in this House do prioritise public safety. That doesn't mean we are unconscious of the trade-offs that we have to deal with when it comes to the human rights consequences for that. It does raise a whole range of issues and the AttorneyGeneral's report shows that but ultimately Parliament has to make a judgment and that judgment has been made. So without further ado I commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much."
Davis KelvinThird ReadingHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): I move That the Parole Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I'd like to thank everybody for their time during this first and second reading speeches and for the insightful debate during the committee of the whole House. Very insightful thank you Mr Goldsmith.The Bill amends the Parole Act 2002 to address the issues raised in the recent High Court decision of New Zealand Parole Board v The Attorney-General. The High Court found that section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) prevents offenders on extended supervision orders from living with their programme providers. This was not the intention when the section was drafted in 2014. This bill enables Corrections to continue to manage these high-risk offenders in ways that provide them with wraparound support and maintains public safety without the risk of formal challenge following the June judgment. Specifically it does this by way of enabling offenders to live with their programme providers. This bill will increase safeguards to ensure that combined programme conditions and residential restrictions are no more restrictive than necessary by requiring regular reviews of conditions.I think it is important to address the issues raised in the High Court decision as soon as possible. Programme conditions for approximately 27 high-risk offenders on an extended supervision order cannot currently be enforced hence the use of urgency to progress the bill through all stages. I would like to thank MPs from around the House for their support of this important bill and on this basis I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Parole Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): According to a determination of the Business Committee the bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Bennett Glen; Penk ChrisIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Members the House is in committee on the Parole Amendment Bill. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Members as I said the House is in committee on the Parole Amendment Bill. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a brief note from me as much as anything acknowledging that we've had already a bit of discussion by way of the first and second reading debates. Actually within that there was a bit of interaction whereby questions effectively were asked on this side and answered subsequently by the Minister and others who were able to represent the Government's position. So I don't feel the need to interrogate those same matters again. I would be interested to know whether the Minister could just explain because I think it would be helpful given that we are doing this urgently albeit technically not in urgency because the Business Committee—the Parliament as a whole—has agreed for this quick process. So the question to the Minister is does he understand just how quickly this law will be not only passed in here but also in effect. I know that's quite a gnarly technical issue and we don't usually worry about such things particularly because we know it might be the day after Royal assent or on a particular calendar date that a bill becomes an Act and enforceable and effective. But in this case obviously it's a matter of some importance and that's why we're reacting quickly. So any guidance that the Minister can give us in that regard would be helpful.
SpeechIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It looks like I'm the last speaker on the Parole Amendment Bill. This is not an easy strike to balance. The heart of this is all about taking the public safety and the integrity of our justice system very very seriously—and also we respond to the recent High Court judgment. But the intent of this bill is to amend the Parole Act to clarify that offenders subjected to an extended supervision order who live in the community can now be required to live with their rehabilitation programme providers. It's also all about taking the victim's safety very seriously as well as protecting the offender's human rights and dignity as stated in our bill of rights. We do so by providing them with structured and wraparound support to minimise the risk of reoffending—because we are talking about some of the worst offenders so this bill is timely. Without further ado I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechANAHILA KANONGATA'A (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Always a pleasure and privilege to stand and make a contribution and this is the Parole Amendment Bill second reading. This Government takes public safety and the integrity of the justice system seriously. I would like to acknowledge the victims and their families who unfortunately have to experience these offenders. As a registered social worker I'd like to acknowledge all the probation officers and those who work in the field who continue to support rehabilitation to change these serious offenders. As we've heard the bill amends the Act to clarify that offenders subject to an extended supervision order can reside with their programme provider at the provider's residence. Again this Government takes public safety and the integrity of the justice system seriously and on that note I commend the Parole Amendment Bill to the House. Mālō 'aupito.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Chris Penk—five-minute call.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I want to be crystal clear: the Department of Corrections has continued to protect public safety following the declaratory judgment. I want to join with the Minister Kelvin Davis in thanking those corrections officers who discharged their duty with nothing but dignity. They do such important work for our communities by making sure that public safety is upheld and by overseeing these programmes which ultimately are rehabilitative and which take people from a state where they cannot re-enter the community and continuously try to provide them with the care and the rehabilitation that they need. Those corrections workers do not need the extra challenge of dealing with rules which are unclear. The best thing that this House can do now is to clarify the rules about how they are meant to continue to discharge that duty that they do for all of us with honour. That's what this bill does and I thank the Minister for his work in bringing it to the House.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): In the spirit of the comments that were made by Vanushi Walters the chair of the Justice Committee can I acknowledge her and the outstanding work that she's done leading that committee and the other committee members that are in the House. This is not going to be my last speech in the House—because we do have to get this through urgency—but just following on from her comments I do want to pick up on one of the comments that she made around public protection orders (PPOs). Make no mistake that if there is a gap in the system the public should not pick up the tab for that and they should not be exposed to that additional risk especially when you are talking about the seriousness of the offending that these offenders have actually committed which is for most of them sexual offending against kids. I'm sorry but a PPO is absolutely appropriate because we do not want to be playing Russian roulette—Hon Kelvin Davis: The judge makes that decision though.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —with the safety of the—well I'm addressing the issue that was raised by the chair of the committee who said that it would be inappropriate if there was a gap in the system to apply a PPO to an offender and I disagree with that. The Minister himself is still in the House and has laid out for us clearly how risky and how dangerous these offenders are so it's far better that they have a PPO and we know where they are and that we protect the community. That's not what was put forward by the chair of the committee.Hon Kelvin Davis: But the judges make those decisions.Hon MARK MITCHELL: The other point that I want to make—sorry what was that Minister? Hon Kelvin Davis: Yeah I said I agree that judges make the decision on the PPOs.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah OK—thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. The Minister agrees with the point that I just made.I do want to acknowledge the Minister for seeking the advice from the High Court and at least getting this issue fixed. I do have an issue around the timing. I appreciate the fact that he has responded to the issue that I raised in my first reading speech but I'll still say that they should have been better organised. Look our front-line corrections officers are expected to respond immediately. They don't have the luxury of sitting around for six weeks or two months to try and get something right. I feel that it would have been incumbent upon those that were responsible for getting those amendments done to have already done some of the work and already had that well down the track so that we didn't expose and have that risk for two months waiting for this bill to come to the House. But on saying that as we have said clearly it's important to get this through urgency. I support this bill.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I also wanted to address some of the concerns raised by my Green Party colleague in relation to this bill.I spoke in the first reading about the national manager of high risk at the Department of Corrections noting that it was difficult to find acceptable housing. It was noted that she also said at paragraph 17 of the declaratory judgment If the court were to find that single agency provider arrangements are immiscible Corrections would need to consider making applications for the more restrictive PPOs in respect of some or all of those individuals." I would say firstly that if you are subject to those public protection orders (PPOs) you're essentially required to stay in secure facilities—prison-like facilities. So those people would be subject to far greater New Zealand Bill of Rights Act breaches and I don't think that's justified—not while Parliament considers its position. I simply don't.As the Minister then pointed out Corrections has actually applied for PPOs for some of these individuals and they fall short. The Minister was pointing to the gap there. This is a bill that addresses a gap by necessity.The last thing I would say is that my view in relation to bills like this is that the word "review" is very important and I do think that this is something that a future Parliament should turn its mind to. Several members have raised very important questions that this House ought to consider.Finally as this may be the last time I speak in this Parliament for this term I would just like to say that the Justice Committee to whom this bill would have gone has worked very collegially. I do think the speeches across the House today are showing that we take these matters very seriously. I commend this bill to the House."
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for answering a number of questions that were raised in the first reading of this bill and I don't want to elongate the process unnecessarily. The alternative which seems to be what the Greens are proposing is that this very small group of serious repeat offenders primarily sexual offenders—this group has been described as having a variety of very complex needs including drug and alcohol addictions physical and intellectual disabilities and mental health challenges and some of them show a lack of remorse and empathy; a very small group 26 people currently. The alternative I suppose is that they've served their prison sentence and we should let them just go for it.The problem with that is that there is an extremely high risk that they will create new victims. It's a pretty hard call just to say that those people—the next victims of these people that can be very highly predicted to create those new victims—should just pay the price of a sort of strict reading of the human rights legislation. That's why the House has taken the view that public safety should take pre-eminence but it is why also the regime as implied requires frequent reviewing by the Parole Board to make sure that nothing more than is required is imposed on those people.We can debate the human rights implications of it but that strictly speaking is not really the issue of this legislation. The practice has been in place since 2004 around having people kept in overnight in one facility and having the programmes provided by the same provider in the same place during the day. So it's really a simple question of whether that is legal or not. As we've seen that has been challenged and as a consequence of the judgment the Parole Board is now bound to amend the affected conditions of those 26 people and may be required to remove the programme conditions where an offender residing with the provider is intended to be supported; that is put in jeopardy by no longer being lawful. The inability of Corrections to enforce the programme conditions means that that group of offenders could be out as the Minister said on the streets. We're not prepared to take that risk. We're not prepared to take that risk in terms of public safety and that's why we ultimately support this bill going through.Yes we can argue about the timing and we can argue why perhaps they could have had a plan B in place maybe to do it fractionally more quickly. Fortunately it hasn't come up in the two months since that judgment and public safety has been maintained. So ultimately we accept the need for this legislation and we support it. It's pleasing to see that across most of the House there is a willingness to do what needs to be done in order to keep the people of New Zealand safe and we'll support this bill from here on in. Thank you very much.
SpeechANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take the final call on the first reading of the Parole Amendment Bill. I am not a lawyer; I am a māmā I've been a teacher I'm a member of a community and what I know is that normally I don't have to think about this because I trust the system to keep us safe while at the same time making sure that we have safe stable structured environments for reintegration of these offenders. I'm grateful that we're able to see the balance of urgency for public safety—the balance between that urgency and being very considered in making sure that this bill is right. It is because of that given that there seems to be a lot of consensus about the why and the how that I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to rise and take a call on the Parole Amendment Bill all stages. I do so sitting here having listening very carefully to the comments made on all sides of the House this morning and also reflecting on the work of my father who served as a corrections officer for 33 years. We'd have quite long discussions as I was going through my law degree and he would say that the vast majority of people that he had encountered throughout his career could be rehabilitated and successfully reintegrated into our society. He took great pride in helping them on that journey. He would say to me that there are a very very very small number of people who no matter what support you try and wrap around them are still at a high risk of repeat offending in our community. It's these people that we are here discussing today. These are as has been said individuals who are at a very high risk of reoffending and in a very very harmful way to members of our community. So we are having to walk a fine line here in balancing the rights of our community to be safe but also against the rights of these individuals to reintegrate into society. Extended supervision orders (ESOs) are a way that we can ensure protections and wrap-around support around those individuals but in a way that they can still engage to some extent into society. For example there was a well-known individual subject to an extended supervision order who resided just near the Whanganui Prison. The people supporting that individual took him down to the wharf to go fishing. He was able to go into the supermarket and do his own groceries etc. So we're not talking about keeping these people in jail. We are simply talking about and making a practical fix here today to ensure that those extended supervision orders can continue and that an individual subject to one of those ESOs can remain in residence with those trying to support them and rehabilitate them. So on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): In response to that previous speaker the Hon Mark Mitchell yes late June was the ruling. But the impact of the judgment was high so work had to be done. The complexity of the matter was excessive so work had to be done. It wasn't just something you do overnight with the flick of a pen; there actually is the legal team there are the implications there are the operational solutions. Work has to be done and we're here now. So we're here. I know in looking through that the Department of Corrections have done all they can to ensure the safety of community and to ensure what they're doing is correct and we're here to pass it together. I just want to acknowledge the Hon Kelvin Davis. I know not many Ministers choose Corrections and he has. He chose it because he wants to ensure that our corrections system is fit for purpose in the 21st century and that it looks after wellbeing of all incarcerated but also all those in the community as well as communities. I commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to take up the issue that my friend Golriz Ghahraman has just talked about because I think it shows quite a stark contrast in what I think and what she does. This is a bill that's really practical. It's about real people who could be really hurt. Our job as parliamentarians is to make that call sometimes. It is a hard call. You've heard the speeches from every side of the House. Nobody's being unthoughtful or are disrespectful of people's freedoms and rights. But that has to be balanced with the freedoms and rights of others. Sometimes we need to make the hard call and that's our job. If in fact we are brittle about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we'll erode people's confidence in those rights because they will erode the very joy and privilege and wonder that it is to be a child in this country because people will be let into situations where they are in danger to those children. So I for one am pleased to see something like this prioritised at this point. I don't think it has been not considered; I think it's been considered and a reasonable practical decision is made. That's acknowledged by the judge who talked about how practical considerations had yielded to the language in the last Act. We're here now to do something that's important to New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Parole Amendment Bill which is a simple bill. It is to amend the Parole Act to clarify that offenders subject to an extended supervision order can reside with their programme provider in a residential setting. It's important for parliamentarians in this debate—and in all debates where considerations about the rights of detained people are considered—that we are really clear with what our intention is and the sort of rights balancing exercise that this Parliament is taking into account. The question here—and why we're debating it—is what Parliament's original policy intent was with section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) of the Parole Act. Because New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights are engaged here this bill would add a balancing protection by requiring the Parole Act to constantly review the way that those rights are being weighed up by the Parole Board but it would also remove that section which is the subject of this declaratory judgment.The point I'm making here is that when we consider those rights—and perhaps the Minister will elaborate on this in committee stage because it's useful for us to do that—the two fundamental questions are not the ones that the Hon Paul Goldsmith asked about—when the Government knew and why the plan was not necessarily in place—they're questions about how specific this Parliament needs to be when we're making decisions like this. And the first question that we should ask ourselves as parliamentarians is: is this a punishment? Is a rehabilitative programme which is conducted in a residential setting a punishment at all? That is an important consideration when Parliament designs this kind of legislation which gives people an ability to rehabilitate from what they have done or to continue to be treated because that is one of the goals of our justice system and it was a subject in the declaratory judgment itself.The second question is whether this is also detention at all because the degree of freedoms that people have in these settings is different from what the Hon Judith Collins described as putting them in jail. It is intended to be so and these providers provide a setting where these people can enjoy lots of the freedoms that they wouldn't be able to enjoy in a prison setting. Those are important questions for us. This Parliament today is coming together to change the way that this operates to be much clearer. This is an improvement in our law and these are the kinds of decisions that we should be able to make under urgency.
Parole Amendment Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance
Parker David; O'Connor GregNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act ReportHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I present my report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Parole Amendment Bill to the House under Standing Order 269. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That report is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. According to a determination of the Business Committee the bill is set down for first reading immediately.
Parole Amendment Bill — Introduction
O'Connor GregWEDNESDAY 30 AUGUST 2023(continued on Thursday 31 August 2023)PAROLE AMENDMENT BILLIntroductionDEPUTY SPEAKER: Members the House is resumed for the extended sitting and good morning. I understand that it's the intention of the Government to introduce a bill. CLERK: Parole Amendment Bill introduction.
Wednesday 30 August 2023 - Volume 771
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): The question is That the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
12. Question No. 12—Trade and Export GrowthIBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of State for Trade and Export GrowthQuestion No. 12—Trade and Export Growth12. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcements has he seen regarding the ASEAN–Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area?Hon RINO TIRIKATENE (Acting Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): On Monday last week I was fortunate to travel to Indonesia to sign an upgrade to New Zealand's free-trade agreement (FTA) with the Association of South-east Asian Nations—ASEAN—and Australia in the margins of the ASEAN Economic Ministers' Meeting in Semarang. The upgrade was welcomed by ASEAN as the FTA is viewed as ASEAN's highest-quality free-trade agreement. The agreement has been in force since 2010 and is a central pillar of our relationship with ASEAN. The 10 countries have a population of over 700 million and as a bloc are New Zealand's third-largest trading partner with our exports totalling over $9.6 billion in 2022.Ibrahim Omer: What does this upgrade do?Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: The upgrade brings elements of the original agreement into line with more recent free-trade agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and in a first for any ASEAN agreement the upgrade introduces a framework for cooperation on sustainable trade issues including the environment labour standards and women's economic empowerment. This upgrade will come into force in 2024.Ibrahim Omer: How does this upgrade benefit Kiwis?Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: This upgrade further boosts our already strong economic and trading ties with ASEAN and helps further cut red tape and costs on Kiwi businesses. The benefits include improved conditions for investors and service providers greater transparency of fees and charges commitments to support the flow of essential goods in times of crisis and streamlined customs procedures. Recognising the huge increase in digital trade the upgrade also introduces stronger e-commerce rules that aim to increase consumer protection and support the expanded use of e-invoicing in cross-border trade.Ibrahim Omer: How does this advance the Government's trade priorities?Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: The upgrade advances the Government's Trade for All agenda strengthening our trade relationships and the FTAs that underpin them. Importantly the upgrade introduces a framework for cooperation on sustainable trade issues. These FTAs have not only created new opportunities for Kiwi businesses; they also reflect New Zealand's international leadership on sustainable and inclusive trade. Over the past five years we've concluded four FTAs with the UK EU the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and RCEP along with three FTA upgrades with China Singapore and now with the ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand FTA. Right now almost three-quarters of our exports are with trading partners with whom we have an FTA. Six years ago in 2017 this figure was around 50 percent. As a Government we're supporting Kiwi exporters to succeed and expand their international trade.
8. Question No. 8—HousingCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 8—Housing8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Housing: Is she satisfied with the performance of Kāinga Ora?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes the Government is particularly satisfied with how Kāinga Ora has turned around what was essentially a sales unit six years ago into an agency that builds thousands of public houses. Kāinga Ora has built or enabled a gross number of over 15000 houses since October 2017 across public and transitional housing KiwiBuild and large-scale projects. This Government is building more homes than any Government since the 1950s. Unlike the previous Government this Government is committed to the provision of affordable and social housing.Chris Bishop: Is he aware that within the 15000 figure he skites about that includes 4900 State homes sold or demolished under this Government and 4000 redirects which are the private rental market being leased by Kāinga Ora or other community housing providers to house people in need and are not net new houses?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We're aware of all the figures. We're particularly aware of what we took over with the previous National Government who decimated New Zealand public housing. After nine years of the National Government we ended up with 1500 less public homes. Yes we're very aware of the figures. We're also aware that if that previous Government had built houses the way that we're building them now you probably wouldn't have a waiting list.Chris Bishop: Why did Kāinga Ora lease an apartment building in Wellington at $250000 per month for nine months to have no one live in it at a time when the wait-list has quintupled to 25000 families in the last six years?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You'll have to refer that one to the Minister. I'm not over all the Minister's decisions but I'll refer that to the Minister and come back to you.Chris Bishop: Has she inquired as to why Kāinga Ora has a contract for seven Bloomberg computer terminals costing NZ$44000 each and is she satisfied that this is a sensible use of taxpayer money?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: When you inherit a housing crisis you have to bring a lot of tools to the table and Kāinga Ora invests—just for this member—between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion each year on building new homes. They have a portfolio of $50 billion and operate and manage a $12.3 billion debt portfolio. Like all large issuers of debt Kāinga Ora uses Bloomberg as it is industry best practice. The Government agreed with Kāinga Ora to borrow from the Crown's New Zealand Debt Management which reduces the cost by an estimated $62 million in interest per year. This will mean that Kāinga Ora will reduce the number of terminals once the current contract ends. So to sum it up for that member if you were to invest $300000 to save $62 million that sounds like a good spend to me.
5. Question No. 5—EducationCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 5—Education5. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does she think the refreshed New Zealand curriculum for English and mathematics should be compulsory in all schools from 2026?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): The New Zealand curriculum is already compulsory in all schools and maths and English is part of the curriculum. The refreshed maths and literacy curriculum is available to teach now and compulsory from 2025.Chris Baillie: Which does the Minister believe to be more important in the curriculum: that the overarching kaupapa is expressing the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles or ensuring our children have the literacy and numeracy skills they need to succeed in life?Hon JAN TINETTI: It's not either/or; it's both.Chris Baillie: Is the Minister concerned that the purpose statement of the English curriculum is Language is my identity; language is my uniqueness; language is life." "Engaging with mātauranga Māori through the creation and interpretation of texts provides opportunities to strengthen knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori and Māori perspectives and to play a part in shaping a bicultural Aotearoa."; and if not can she explain why there is not a single mention of spelling grammar or punctuation? Hon JAN TINETTI: No. Chris Baillie: Does the Minister agree with the maths curriculum statement that mātauranga Māori has mana ōrite or equal status with mathematics and statistics and if so can she explain how teaching children mātauranga Māori will result in higher levels of achievement in maths? Hon JAN TINETTI: In answer to the first part and the second part yes.Chris Baillie: Does she believe that spending $13086856 on a refreshed curriculum as of late July was good value for money at a time when truancy is a major problem and standards are falling and does she stand by her priority to push a compulsory curriculum that is little more than a Te Tiriti - centric word salad rather than deal with the real issues?Hon JAN TINETTI: This Government has invested in a researched and evidence-based curriculum. I am proud of the work that we have done in curriculum and I stand by it."
4. Question No. 4—EducationANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 4—Education4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What progress has the Government made to support teaching supply in primary and secondary schools?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Teachers are vital to a successful education system. As a result of the Government's $24 million teaching supply package announced last year we have exceeded our target of 1000 additional teachers. This Government has invested in teacher supply and we're delighted to have secured 301 domestic teachers in training already for the classroom and more than 1055 experienced overseas teachers who have arrived in the country to begin teaching. Since Labour came into office in 2017 3500 additional teachers are now in the teaching profession.Angela Roberts: How else has the Government supported the teaching workforce?Hon JAN TINETTI: This Government backs our teachers. Whether it is through pay conditions or working with them to develop quality curriculum resources we know how vital it is that teachers are valued. That is why I'm proud to be part of a Government that has delivered a 14.5 percent pay rise for teachers an increase of 36 percent compared to a 10 percent increase in the nine years under the previous Government. This is in addition to improvements in conditions such as extra release time so teachers can be paid to plan for quality lessons.Angela Roberts: What work is under way to market New Zealand as a desirable location for teaching?Hon JAN TINETTI: While we want to encourage Kiwis into the teaching profession we also need to compete globally to attract international teachers to our shores. The 1000 extra teacher target including 700 international teachers was met through funding incentives such as the Overseas Relocation Grant of up to $10000; Overseas Finders Fee of $3450; and waiving the fee for 2400 teacher International Qualification assessments. These initiatives have been successful in reducing the financial barriers to attracting and recruiting teachers from overseas. As a result we have exceeded our target of 700 and now have 1055 experienced overseas teachers arriving to begin teaching.Angela Roberts: What work is the Government doing to support domestic work-based learning for teacher training?Hon JAN TINETTI: We are committed to attracting and retaining the best to teach our young people and set them up to succeed and have a life full of choices. Moves to attract domestic teachers include more than doubling the number of scholarships to support people to retrain as teachers funding 100 teacher trainees to be placed in schools in Tāmaki makau-rau and Tai Tokerau while studying remotely and placing 128 beginning and returning teachers in schools who struggle to recruit with incentives to stay.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The credit rating agency Fitch yesterday affirmed New Zealand's long-term foreign and local currency ratings at AA+ with a stable outlook. It follows Moody's annual credit analysis affirming a stable outlook on New Zealand's local currency and foreign currency ratings at Aaa. Fitch noted that New Zealand's ratings are underpinned by the country's advanced wealthy economy and robust governance standards and policy framework. We are as a country well placed to support New Zealanders and to make the long-term investments we need to build a sustainable and resilient economy. Hon Phil Twyford: What did the report say about the Government's response to a challenging economic outlook? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has continued to take action to consolidate spending which Fitch said was expected to drive a sustained decline in the deficit. Our ongoing savings and efficiency programme has found almost $4 billion in savings over the forecast period to help ease inflation pressures and meet our fiscal rules of returning to surplus over the forecast period and keeping debt levels under the 30 percent limit of GDP. Fitch noted that the Government's strong track record of prudent financial management and our strong policy institutions and sound macroeconomic framework enhanced New Zealand's resilience to economic and financial shocks. Hon Phil Twyford: Why is it important to have the endorsement of the credit rating agencies? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These ratings are important for ensuring our cost of borrowing remains as low as possible. It also gives people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. In an uncertain global environment Fitch's report is a sign of confidence in our recovery and the Government's commitment to meet our balanced and responsible fiscal goals make our economy stronger and more resilient and support New Zealanders with targeted cost of living relief that does not add to inflation. Hon Phil Twyford: What other reports has he seen on the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well as I've said previously this is a difficult time for many New Zealanders. However the labour market continues to show its resilience with employment rising for the seventh month in a row. Stats New Zealand reported on Monday that filled jobs rose by 6123 or 0.3 percent in July compared to a month earlier taking the total number of jobs to 2.38 million. We know New Zealanders are doing it tough in the face of cost of living pressures and a deteriorating global environment but we are well positioned to face these challenges ahead with Kiwis in work in record numbers wages rising inflation heading in the right direction and Government debt among the lowest levels in the world.
Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill and I want to commend Dr Shane Reti for putting this bill forward and having it drawn. As has been canvassed by other members what this will do is extend the age range which allows people to access free breast cancer screening from 45 to 74 so adding an additional five years.We want to acknowledge that in an ideal world everybody should have access to free breast cancer screening when they need it and that we have to do more to expand the age ranges. So we are supporting this to select committee because it's important that we are able to hear from submitters and officials around what impact it will have on life expectancy what are the other considerations we need to have around additional resourcing that may need to go to make this happen in a way that meets the needs of the community both in terms of workforce and equipment and also for advocates who have been calling for an expansion of the age range.I think from a Greens perspective we should always be looking at both ends of the age range and actually expanding it also on the lower end of the age brackets because some of the research that we've seen does show that that can have a really meaningful impact in increasing life expectancy and quality of life. But I do think this bill provides the opportunity to have a really robust debate and we do think there are merits in this bill. The select committee process could also help illuminate and inform Parliament and what else the Government needs to do to make this work so that we're not just expanding the age range but actually making sure that people who need to access free breast cancer screening are able to do so in a way that is also culturally competent that reaches our rural communities etc. The Green Party is happy to support this bill to select committee and have a conversation there.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Members it is time to leave the Chair. This House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow when we will resume for the extended sitting to consider the Parole Amendment Bill. Pō mārie.Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party tonight in support of the first reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill. I will keep my contribution relatively short but I wanted to congratulate the member Shane Reti on having his member's bill pulled. It is always quite wonderful to be able to debate an issue that is dear to each member's heart and one that people have backed enough to put into the biscuit tin for themselves and so congratulations on having it pulled. The ACT Party wishes to send this bill to the select committee so that we have the ability to have a fulsome debate about the analysis of breast cancer screening for people between the ages of 69 and 74. I also want to acknowledge the countless hours of work and advocacy that members of our community have put in allowing for this bill to get this stage. I know many many women throughout New Zealand have been advocating for an extension of the breast cancer screening age with a lot of passion. I've met many of them in the community myself so congratulations for all the hard work from these many women who have been championing this cause and to Shane Reti for bringing it to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Yes I apologise members; I should have said the question is that the motion be agreed to.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I'm not going to spend too long on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill because National is supporting this bill. It was interesting listening to the members on the other side; they're not necessarily full of compliments in the dying hours of their Government. But I don't blame them; I'd be pretty upset as well if I knew that I had to look for a new job in 49 days. But that is the reality and that's probably why they're a little bit upset on the other side of the House.Hon David Parker: Your job's not going to change.SIMON WATTS: Welcome back. It's good to hear those voices back isn't it? Look National fully supports the KiwiSaver scheme. We're obviously supportive of this bill which is going to provide additional protections in play in order to support those people who are most vulnerable. That makes sense and that is sensible. KiwiSaver obviously is supplementary to the universal superannuation that is offered in this country and it is something that enjoys considerable buy-in and has been successful and continues to be successful in this country. So on that basis I will commend this bill to the House.
Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill — First Reading
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's the job of members of Parliament to do all we can to help make people's lives better and to do that many of the changes that come to us come from people's experiences. To know tonight that this is Ashley's law someone who I haven't met before but someone who I have heard a lot tonight is courageous—and there will be many many women in this country now who will be grateful for you stepping up and doing this work. One person can in New Zealand change a law.Another way that MPs can help is through their own experiences whether that is in the work they do or whether it is in an experience of a family member. In this case it's important to acknowledge my colleague Angie Warren-Clark and the work that she too has done in the area of family violence an area that needs so many people like Angie to be helping women and families and children and most importantly to be able to bring things to Parliament so we can as MPs do what the key role of our job is: help people so they can get on better with their lives.It is extraordinary that you do have to wait two years before you can get divorced when you have experienced family violence. Some parts of our divorce law—I agree with Chris Bishop it is probably time that we had a really good look at it. Part of this legislation is that to enable a quick divorce you first have to go to seek a family protection order. That's something that I hope through the select committee we discuss because for some people in these relationships that is a challenge in itself and we should be as I said making it as easy as possible for people to get out of relationships that are breaking families and let them be able to know that we will through this Parliament help them to do so.A member's bill is an opportunity for us to change shape improve and bring ideas make it simpler make it easier and do good things and to see tonight that we have the whole of Parliament on the second day before the 53rd Parliament rises—that we are coming together on something like this that is so significant. So in my last comments on this again I would like to congratulate you. I know that when I go back and talk with some of my legal friends they will say this is one of the best things best pieces of legislation we can do. I know that there will be many more people out there Ashley who through this will come and make a contribution. And I hope and I know that my colleague Angie Warren-Clark does too that we will even make it a better bill if we can and how we can. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
St Peter's Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill — Third Reading
Robertson GrantST PETER'S PARISH ENDOWMENT FUND TRUST BILLThird ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I move That the St Peter's Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill be now read a third time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.