edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
5. Question No. 5—EducationHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 5—Education5. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that There will not be any more money for principals in this round" and what does he say to the 700 board of trustees chairs who have expressed support for the principals' strike action?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I stand by my statement that the best way to resolve the issue is for the Ministry of Education and the unions to get back around the bargaining table. I don't think it's in the public interest for me to provide a blow-by-blow commentary on those discussions.Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he absolutely guaranteeing that no new funding will be provided for primary principals to resolve the strike given we've heard that before?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think I addressed that in the answer to the primary question.Hon Nikki Kaye: What does he say to the Bay of Plenty principal who was reportedly left in tears when she found out her deputy would be earning thousands more than her under his offer?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that I'd say to her that she should convey her concerns to the union that negotiated that offer on her behalf.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he take any responsibility for the fact that areas of the Curriculum such as digital technologies are not being delivered and professional development is not being delivered as a result of the strike?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No I believe the responsibility for industrial action and decisions around that sits with the principals and their union.Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he absolutely guarantee to this House that he had no role in cancelling secondary principals' collective bargaining this week which some see as a delaying tactic to put pressure on primary principals?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes I can give that guarantee. I had no role in that decision.Hon Nikki Kaye: Why does he think it's acceptable to have delays in bargaining for secondary principals 1900 primary principals striking principals earning less than teachers aspects of the Curriculum—SPEAKER: Order! The member's going to stop now—Hon Nikki Kaye: —not being delivered and under his watch—SPEAKER: Order! The member is—Hon Nikki Kaye: —industrial action for most—SPEAKER: Oh no I was going to let the member ask it again; I won't now. Does the member have a further supplementary?Hon Nikki Kaye: Why does he think it's an acceptable situation to have 1900 primary principals striking principals earning less than teachers aspects of the Curriculum not delivered—SPEAKER: Order! I've ruled that question out once and I've done it again now.Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I actually cut the question. When you go back and have a look at the footage you will see I deliberately—because you had criticised me for asking this question—cut an aspect of that question. So I'd like the opportunity to ask it again.SPEAKER: Well the member can ask another question if she wants but her question was incorrect from the first six words."
4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen yesterday's ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook Survey and does he think the headline Grim" reflects the outlook for the New Zealand economy under this Government?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I have seen yesterday's ANZ Business Outlook survey which said that "the headwinds of a global slowdown" were having an effect on business confidence in New Zealand. In response to the second part of the question as any good economic historian would know it is not dissimilar to the headlines of the same survey in 2015 under the previous Government which had headlines such as "slippery slopes" "flagging" "heart murmur" and "below the belt"—so no.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with Grant Robertson who said in 2015 after a temporary slip in business confidence that it was "a vote of no confidence in the Government by the business sector"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm concerned about the member's attention deficits given that the Leader of the Opposition asked that yesterday and as Mr Davis said in answer to that yesterday that was about the National Government.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think his Government's policies have anything to do with the confidence in the agricultural sector falling to an astonishing minus 78 at a time when prices are high and we should be doing well?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know those in our rural sector keep a very close eye on the global economic environment because they are primarily exporters and what they see there is uncertainty from Brexit and the US-China trade war. We are working extremely closely with the rural community in New Zealand and I noted their endorsement of Minister Shaw and the work that he's been doing recently. Our progressive farmers are very keen on supporting this Government.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think a net 33 percent of firms in the construction sector are intending to cut jobs when there are so many houses and roads that need to be built?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I note that the member is quoting from the ANZ Business Outlook survey—an opinion survey. What we've also seen is we've got record levels of consents in terms of the Auckland market in particular. There's a lot of activity in the residential construction area so I think that the actual out-turn in that sector will be significantly better than that.Hon Paul Goldsmith: When will he accept that by adding cost to business creating massive uncertainty and demonstrating incompetence his Government is contributing significantly to the grim mood?SPEAKER: Right I'm going to get the member to ask a question in order.Hon Paul Goldsmith: When will he accept that his Government is contributing significantly to the grim mood?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The only person contributing to the grim mood in the House today is that member and I would encourage him to listen to his former leader Sir John Key who said we should stop talking things down and be optimistic about the future.Hon Paul Goldsmith: If the outlook for the economy is grim is he the Reaper?SPEAKER: Order! No no."
3. Question No. 3—FinanceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In its labour market preview released this morning ASB said that it expects next week's June quarter labour market data to show the labour market in a strong spot". It expects employment growth and labour force participation to lift. As we enter the tail end of the business cycle and the global economy comes under pressure from the impacts of Brexit and the US-China trade war the New Zealand economy will not be immune. However unemployment is set to remain around historically low levels demonstrating the solid fundamentals of the New Zealand economy.Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on the performance of New Zealand companies in this economic context?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen recent reports from Mainfreight that "The year ended March 2019 was an extraordinary year". Mainfreight experienced profits up $29 million to $141 million and global sales up $330 million to $2.95 billion in the March 2019 year. Mainfreight identified external factors to keep a watch on including Brexit the China-US trade war and the slowing global trade more generally. I'm pleased to see a New Zealand company thriving and recognising the important role that staff play in bringing about success against this backdrop of global uncertainty.SPEAKER: I never thought I'd see that member praising a company run by Richard Prebble.Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on global economic uncertainty?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Overnight the US Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 0.25 percent the first cut since 2008. The Fed said it had decided to cut rates in light of the implications of global developments including weakening global growth and trade tensions. This follows US GDP data for the June quarter showing annual growth slowing to 2.1 percent from 3.1 percent in the March quarter. It is important to remember in this period of slowing global growth that the New Zealand economy continues to outperform those of countries such as Australia Canada the UK the eurozone and Japan."
Willis Nicola; Rurawhe AdrianNICOLA WILLIS (National): New Zealand has a proud tradition of democracy. We are one of the oldest and fairest democracies in the world and we cherish that out of respect—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 6 August 2019.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill — Second Reading
Points of Order — Tabling of Documents—Chief Ombudsman's Ruling on Official Information Act
Voting — Correction—End of Life Choice Bill
Urgent Debates Declined — Vocational Education—Reform
Amended Answers — Question No. 11 to Minister
Bishop ChrisPOINTS OF ORDERTabling of Documents—Chief Ombudsman's Ruling on Official Information ActCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance and help Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter referred to the Chief Ombudsman's ruling in relation to political consultation being grounds for withholding information under the Official Information Act. It's also been referred to by the Minister of Transport answering on her behalf this afternoon. In the interim period I sought from the Parliamentary Library a copy of that ruling. The library's been unable to find a public copy of that ruling. We can't have access to it. Given what's happened in the last couple of days it is extremely important that we have access to that. I was just wondering whether or not the Government could table that advice so that we can all have it.SPEAKER: Well whether or not the Government tables the advice is a matter for the Government. I must say that I found one of the answers today surprising. As a result of that I will be consulting with the Chief Ombudsman as to rulings that he has made in the area. If I have anything to report I will report. But I think that as a matter of general principle other members can approach the Ombudsman not for a specific ruling on a specific matter—but I know that I had as an Opposition member regularly received copies of letters between Ministers.
Mallard TrevorVOTINGCorrection—End of Life Choice BillSPEAKER: Last night when the committee of the whole House was considering the End of Life Choice Bill the result of the vote on Supplementary Order Paper 272 was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 32 Noes 87. The correct result is Ayes 31 Noes 87. The record will be corrected accordingly. I have indicated previously that care will be taken to try and avoid the duplication of votes but I do want to seriously remind members that when they grant a proxy they should ensure the proxy holder knows if they're there especially if they intend to change their mind on the way that they're voting.
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDVocational Education—ReformSPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Shane Reti seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government's announcement today of its plan to reform vocational education. It is a particular case of recent occurrence. It involves ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular matter requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. One relevant consideration is whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House soon in the form of legislation—Speakers' ruling 196/2. The Minister has indicated in today's announcement actually the links that the member provided to me that legislation to give the effect to the reforms will be introduced this month. I am not convinced that the application meets the test for urgency; therefore the application is declined.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 1 AUGUST 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first readings of the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill the second reading of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill and the remaining stages of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can the shadow Leader of the House give us some indication as to whether the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will be available during question time next week—perhaps also an indication if there is any celebration planned for their return to the country?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I can assure the member that the Prime Minister has been in the country—Hon Grant Robertson: Realm.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —in the Realm and that I am sure she will be available for question time in the House when she is back in Wellington.
Wednesday 31 July 2019 - Volume 739
End of Life Choice Bill — In Committee—Part 1
KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 258 in the name of Hamish Walker be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
11. Question No. 11—EmploymentKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of EmploymentQuestion No. 11—Employment11. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What recent announcements has he made about helping rangatahi in the Bay of Plenty into employment?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): On 18 July in Tauranga I launched a joint Te Ara Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi - funded programme Pathways to Trades: a $1.6 million commitment over two years to connect over 100 rangatahi—those are young people—into trades-based apprenticeships across the Western Bay of Plenty primarily in Rotorua and Tauranga.Kiritapu Allan: How does the Pathways to Trades programme work? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Pathways to Trades provides support to our rangatahi who aren't earning learning caring or volunteering to gain skills training and work in the trades-based industries. This includes careers in trades such as building plumbing painting and concrete laying. The programme includes up to six months of pre-employment support and nine months of ongoing mentoring from the point of being placed into employment.Kiritapu Allan: What difference will the programme make?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Pathways to Trades programme is not just about making a difference in the lives of the 100 rangatahi and their whānau. It's also about committing to skills and investment in our key growth industries which has been lacking for too long. This Government wants to see our young people build skills and participate in their communities so that we have a strong economy that delivers for everyone as well as highlight to our communities that careers in the trades and their supporting industries can deliver life-long successful employment pathways for our young people.
5. Question No. 5—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 5—Education5. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions if any has the Government taken to remove cost barriers to the public education system for New Zealand families?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): This year's Budget removed fees for NCEA it removed fees for New Zealand Scholarship and it provided additional funding for schools who don't ask parents for donations. I was also happy to announce that the Government has written off historical NCEA fees dating back to 2002. This means that 150000 current and former students with unpaid NCEA fees will now be formally awarded their NCEA credits and qualifications and will have them added to their records of achievement.Jan Tinetti: What does this mean for the 150000 current or former students with unpaid NCEA fees?SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member's just answered that question.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No I haven't.SPEAKER: Oh well if the member can—sorry I thought that's exactly what the member had just said. The Minister just said that it got it added to their credits.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker if you'd like to have a crack I'm sure that you're welcome to answer the question if you would like.SPEAKER: Further supplementary Jan Tinetti.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker I do think that you should be the referee and not a participant in question time.SPEAKER: I note the member's comments but I'm one of the unusual members who happens to listen to the questions and the answers. It's a pity some of the Ministers didn't as well.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it your ruling that if a supplementary question either repeats a question that's been asked or a question that's already been answered it's out of order?SPEAKER: It is my ruling where it asks for exactly the information that has just been provided to the House. Further supplementary Jan Tinetti.Jan Tinetti: What does the removal of NCEA fees mean for schools and their staff?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: NCEA fees administration has been a significant burden for schools and the administration of hardship grants has also been a significant burden for schools often requiring more administration to deliver the hardship applications than actually was saved by those who ultimately received them.SPEAKER: Question No. 6 the Hon Judith Collins.Hon Judith Collins: Oh thank you Mr Speaker. Might I say good tie.SPEAKER: Order! And if I say to the member I'll send her to the African Union to get one for herself if she continues I think I might get some support from around her.Hon Judith Collins: Ha ha! The trouble is Mr Speaker I'm sure to come back.SPEAKER: The Hon Judith Collins.
3. Question No. 3—EducationMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of EducationQuestion No. 3—Education3. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about support for children and young people with learning needs?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): On Friday I announced a new action plan to improve the support for children and young people with learning needs. One in five children—around 200000 children—need extra support for their learning. We need to do a much better job of helping these young people. The Learning Support Action Plan 2019-25 is focused on prioritising those things which will make the greatest difference to the majority of these young people who are part of a natural learning diversity among children and young people in the learning environment.Mark Patterson: How was the Learning Support Action Plan developed?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The Learning Support Action Plan responds to the recommendations made by the select committee inquiry into the identification and support for students with dyslexia dyspraxia and autism spectrum disorders as well as feedback from engagement with young people whānau educators sector group unions agencies and disability organisations. One of the most special consultation meetings I attended was here in Parliament with students from the Hillcrest High School learning support unit. They overcame huge barriers to travel to Wellington to ask Minister Sepuloni as the Minister for Disability Issues and myself to ensure that their unit would stay and be part of the dedicated learning support model that we are going to do for these students.Mark Patterson: What are the priorities that the plan will address?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: First we are introducing the first tranche of learning support coordinators in schools and kura and I will make that announcement this Friday; developing new screening tools to help early identification of learning support needs; strengthening early intervention for pre-schoolers; providing services and supports for neurodiverse children and young people; better meeting the learning needs of gifted children; and improving education for children and young people at risk of disengaging. The plan is a living document and will be reviewed and revised as needed and as new priorities emerge.Mark Patterson: What resources have been invested to achieve greater support for these children and young people with learning needs?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Budget 2018 increased support by $283.8 million over four years. Budget 2019 provides further increases for learning support of $335.8 million over four years. This is a total of $619.65 million announced over the last two years compared to the inadequate investment of $249.8 million over five years by the previous Government.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I can understand why the member's emotional about it because they're so good. A number of recent reports highlight the strength of New Zealand's economy in the face of global economic headwinds. Statistics New Zealand yesterday reported that residential building consents rose 5.8 percent nationwide in the year to June and that all consents for construction activity were 6.7 percent stronger than a year ago. Within this residential building consents in Auckland were up 13 percent to a new all-time record of 14032 new homes consented in the year to June—four times the rate in 2009. These are another sign along with near record low unemployment the stock market doing well and rising wages that New Zealand's underlying economic fundamentals are sound in the face of international headwinds.Dr Duncan Webb: What recent reports has he seen on how the New Zealand economy and business are being affected by these international headwinds?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There's no doubt that international economic issues like Brexit and the US-China trade war are having an effect on business confidence in New Zealand. A report in the Southland Times yesterday highlighted how falling overseas log prices were impacting on local logging firms. While these international headwinds are having an impact it is important to note the view of one local forestry company manager in Southland who said that activity in the domestic log market in New Zealand was helping to offset that in the international arena. Again this highlights that our strong domestic economic fundamentals are doing well compared to the rest of the world.Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the position of the New Zealand economy relative to the rest of the world?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I saw a report on TV Three recently interviewing the chairman of ANZ bank—a Sir John Key—who said We can't stop what's happening around the rest of the world. As I used to say we're a little country at the bottom of the world. No one owes us a living [so] we've got to sell things to the world. So if they slow down that has an impact." He also said "You can't control a trade war that happens between China and the United States or all those sort of international things." And he went on to say "There's always those issues—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I know the source but it's—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh no—we were loving it!SPEAKER: Oh. Well given Mr Brownlee's interjection rather than making him withdraw and apologise I'll get Grant Robertson to go on.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm nearly done Mr Speaker. Mr Key went on to say "There are always those issues but I think part of it is just feeling confident about what's going on and making sure we don't talk the place down.""
Tolley Anne; Mallard Trevor; Brownlee GerryHouse resumed.Speaker RecalledCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Mr Speaker the Speaker has been recalled. The member the shadow Leader of the House has suggested that there are still too many people seeking the call that there are people—he maintains there are people who have Supplementary Order Papers who wish to speak to those and has contested the closure motion that I accepted.In defence I would say we have been debating this bill now for some time. I think it started around 5 o'clock. Since I've been in the Chair I've made every effort to ensure that anyone that had a Supplementary Order Paper has had the opportunity to speak. There are people still seeking the call. I think from my knowledge all but one have already had calls and the debate has become more and more repetitive. I seek your judgment.SPEAKER: Is there any anyone else who wants to add to that?Chris Penk: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No. Mr Brownlee?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Mr Speaker while I accept that the presiding officer has made a decision based on her view from the Chair one of the problems that you have in a bill like this that is so divisive perhaps the most emotionally charged bill that has been in the House certainly any time that I've been here—SPEAKER: Can we focus on the ruling?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes I will. What we do end up with is two calls made now to close the debate from members who are supporting the bill and ultimately a decision that looks like it is also supporting the bill.This is a life and death bill. To have only three hours' debate while there are others still wanting to talk seems to me quite unreasonable. It doesn't seem to me a fair thing that if people have points to make—and there are 10 substantial Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on this. No one has tried to put in a whole lot of SOPs dumped on the table bits of paper left right and centre. It's been conducted in a very seemly manner. Everyone has followed a good process. It now only seems reasonable that there should be enough time for all of those who want to make a contribution often to the SOPs that they've been part of writing to be able to do so. [Interruption] SPEAKER: No I'm prepared to rule. It's a very simple matter. The Speakers' rulings on this are very clear on page 61. I'll quote from Statham reinforced by Burke The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not"—it does say "he" but in this case I'm sure it means "she"—"ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion and it [is] … entirely in his [/her] hands." It is a matter for the House to decide. I have been following the debate. I was following the debate at the time when the Chairperson started to put the motion. The consistent rulings over many years have been that once that is started the process is not reversible except if the House votes in the negative. That's my ruling."
O'Connor Greg; Tolley Anne; Brownlee GerryGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question is that the question—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I move That the Speaker be recalled.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You have to tell me what for.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are 10 substantial Supplementary Order Papers on this part. While it might be your assessment that there has been sufficient debate on this there are a number of people here who could not be in the Chamber earlier who have come down in the latter stages or come down in the last hour or so to listen to the debate.I have been here for a long period of time now waiting for Mr Seymour to answer the reasonable questions that he should answer for the New Zealand public. There has been no answer. There's been no attempt by him and therefore I think—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to actually—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —the debate should continue.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right. [Interruption] No no no no. No you can't. So what is the point of order that you—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I've recalled the Speaker. I don't need to do much else.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So I'm going to put the question that the Speaker be recalled. All those in favour say Aye to the contrary No. On the voices I would say that the Ayes have it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Personal vote called for.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You want a personal vote?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Yes I've called for it.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Speaker has already ruled that on a procedural motion there will be a party vote. I have declared that the Ayes have got it because I could not tell on the voices. I've resorted to recalling the Speaker. Do you—you still want to—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Speaking to your ruling Madam Chair. That is utterly ridiculous. The Speaker makes somewhat of a fool of the Parliament if he's prepared to say that all substantive motions individual motions are given by individual vote but somehow parties choose whether or not the procedures of the Parliament continue or not.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The member will be seated. I have ruled. You are challenging my ruling when you are the recipient of that ruling. We've had a vote. I have declared that the Speaker will be recalled. Are you withdrawing your challenge to that?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Yes; yes I am.Motion agreed to.
Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm pleased to make this contribution—my first one to the debate tonight. During the dinner break I was fortunate to be able to attend a Pacific celebration in Wellington. It was the opening of the Pacific office of the University of Otago in Wellington. It is on this backdrop that I start my contribution to this debate. I'd also like to acknowledge all the members of the House that made contributions during the second reading which I was also fortunate to be able to do. In particular I thought that all those speeches from both sides were very well—they came from the heart and they brought in the various experiences that we all have in this debate on life and death and I believe it is about life and death. I'd also like to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill David Seymour. Largely I would agree with David on some other issues but on this bill we will depart.So I want to talk to this bill in particular around the lens that I think has been missed in terms of how this bill has been constructed—the lens in terms of the Pacific community that I come from: the Pacific voices the Pacific culture and the values that I have been raised in—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just remind the member though we are on Part 1. This isn't a general debate about the bill; it's on Part 1.AGNES LOHENI: Madam Chair thank you. So I want to talk to an amendment that I would like to contribute to this Part 1. The amendment is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 275. I would ask the member David Seymour if he would consider this amendment in terms of clause 3. The change would be the definition of psychiatrist" to have been a psychiatrist for a period of at least five years. I think it's important if we're looking to really tighten up this bill any way we can in terms of providing that minimum level of expertise of a specialist that's in a very influential position in this bill. Ultimately I would like all members of the House just to consider this SOP 275 in my name which is really just to tighten up that minimum level of experience for a psychiatrist.On that note in terms of specialists who are in a position to convey information about this option to vulnerable people—and it's one thing I've looked through in Part 1 of this bill. What is the contribution or the undertaking to understand the cultural context in terms of communication and language for people in Pacific communities or others where English is a second language? For example there wouldn't be that many doctors—a lot lower number of doctors and specialists—who would be able to help convey what the option is to someone that's vulnerable particularly when a family member isn't in the same room and isn't able to be part of that discussion. So I really would like the committee to consider that amendment on David Seymour's amendment—five years as a minimum. I think that would really just help to add and to tighten up this particular part as we move through. There will be other SOPs but I would like the committee to consider my SOP. Thank you very much."
Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I have a question of David Seymour. Following his answer certainly I want to congratulate him for the way he systematically went through the queries that were raised. I also want to congratulate all members. As I said in my earlier contribution these conscience debates bring out the best debate in this House. It's a serious issue that's been taken but there's respect for both points of view.When I spoke earlier I spoke about my fear of coercion. David Seymour attempted to answer that by saying that there is no evidence of coercion—people being coerced to feel the pressure frequently because perhaps dependents are looking for an early divvy of an inheritance. So in saying there is no coercion I assume he's referring to evidence that's collected from other jurisdictions that have had this legislation in place. My serious question is: how would you ever collect evidence as to whether a person has been coerced to accept euthanasia—because they're not there to answer the question?I give the member an example that I've watched in the media over the last couple of days. You frequently sadly see it where a person dies and then a disputed family—particularly a disputed family member—will contest that will into the courts and I think there's been one on either Stuff or in the New Zealand Herald in the last few days and in this particular case and it's in many others the courts have actually decided that the person writing the will was coerced was put pressure on to change perhaps cut one descendant out etc. and the courts have made that will null and void.But in the case of somebody elected to undergo euthanasia: (a) there is no way you can seek the evidence from the person who's deceased; and (b) if you could—but you can't—the decision is obviously absolutely irreversible. So I seriously ask the member if he would take a call to answer my question when he says Don't be worried about coercion. There is no evidence of coercion." how possibly could that evidence be collated?"
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to add our voice to the conversation this evening. I want to be very clear: New Zealand First members do not have a bulk position on the content of this bill. I take on board Mr Hudson's contribution that this issue has come up during election discussions not only in the last election but in the previous one; and as a New Zealand First MP and my colleagues have done the same we've answered that with what has been the standard policy of New Zealand First around this particular issue knowing that New Zealand First MPs have brought this issue in history to this place—and that is that we believe that it is too large an issue for temporarily empowered MPs to make for the New Zealand public. So my New Zealand First colleagues have delegated me to make sure that I put on the Hansard that New Zealand First will support David Seymour's Supplementary Order Paper 259. We thank the member for listening as others have thanked him. New Zealand First—as it'll be no surprise to anybody who's been listening to us over the last so many years—believe that this should go to a referendum and we believe that the New Zealand public should have the best possible bill to consider at that referendum; for them to give their view for them to give their opinion they will be as informed as the majority of the members of this House. So New Zealand First will support David Seymour's Supplementary Order Paper 259 because we want that bill placed in front of the New Zealand public. We believe that the member has listened to the submissions that have been brought forward to the concerns not only of those who submitted but also of members of this House and we believe he has done his best to represent what is the intent that he brings to this topic.So I don't feel that I need to contribute more. I feel I've made it clear why New Zealand First and the members of the New Zealand First caucus—dependent on a Supplementary Order Paper under Jenny Marcroft's name—will vote in favour of this bill. In the first instance we will vote in favour of David Seymour's Supplementary Order Paper 259. We will also be advocating for support of Supplementary Order Paper 287 which would mean that this legislation would not be enacted until it had a majority Yes vote at a referendum by the New Zealand public. If that referendum did not take place within a five-year period this legislation would be repealed.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you Mr Chair. It's an absolute privilege to be able to stand and speak about this bill in this committee and I start by raising concern about the sponsor of the bill's statement and position that medical doctors who have even for the first time held a practising certificate is sufficient. He was stating this in reaction to the point made by my colleague Chris Penk where there have been Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) asserting for a prescription of qualifications or qualities of the medical profession that are to be involved in making this decision. So I raise the SOPs Nos 267 and 274 particularly as they seek to prescribe for medical practitioners that they have held over a period of five years a practising certificate and for psychiatrists that they have not been the subject of a written complaint to any relevant professional body in relation to anything done or failed to have been done in accordance with or nominally in accordance with this bill.The object of trying to prescribe qualifications like these really goes to the possibility of the people having direct opportunity to determine the capacity of the person asking for assisted suicide or the provisioning of a lethal dose of medication to end their lives. The Oregon Public Health Division report from 2018 actually confirmed that in practice over the entire period the law has been in operation in Oregon psychological concerns far outweighed related physical pain amongst the patients who were assisted in their suicide. According to the report during 2018 the four most frequently reported end of life concerns and reasons for seeking assisted suicide were loss of autonomy with 91.7 percent; decreasing ability to participate in activities that make life enjoyable with 90.5 percent; loss of dignity with 66.7 percent; and being a burden on family and friends or caregivers with 56 percent. These were the main drivers of the decisions of many in Oregon over the lifespan of that law there.I have heard and taken into consideration the life experiences of many members and I would like to mention at this point that I do have life experiences as well in this regard. My mother is almost blind. She's 86. She has a tumour growing in her lung which we expect to escalate very very quickly. My mother-in-law whom I love as my mother died of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). She had ALS. She had been diagnosed and from the point of diagnosis she was said to have just a little time left. The message that I would like to bring to all the members is that while we may be looking out for ourselves or family members or people that we love and know we don't want them to suffer. I would like to suggest that this matter of death isn't exactly and always will be just about us; it isn't exactly just about us and what we feel and what our relations—[Time expired]
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Firstly I want to commend the member David Seymour for his courage because the matter before us is probably the most visceral of any matter that we will discuss in our political career. So I thank the member for your courage for bringing this before the House.I also want to challenge the committee and members who speak to this bill: it's about accuracy of information not misinformation. It is about debate not conjecture. We must be honest with the public of New Zealand in the facts that we present and I encourage all members to make sure that we are not creating a rod for our own backs when we say things that we cannot validate with fact. That's my disclaimer to start off my conversation. I won't take a long time because I know there are lots of people who want to speak on this but part of my concern around this piece of legislation lies in the interpretation of assisted dying" and what it's intended to do. The discussion here is about the relief of suffering of one of our loved ones. Let's face it we're talking about either ourselves making a decision for ourselves or supporting a loved one to make that decision.Now each and every one of us have got a personal story to tell about this and my story is no different from many others watching parents having terrible times at the end of life where pain and suffering is something that as family members we have to sit and watch. Now one of the discussions that hasn't happened in this debate so far is the impact of death on those who are left behind. I've lost both of my parents and three of my siblings and most of them did not have a happy end. I've lost many other people in my wider circle. The trauma that sits within me watching that is something that we have largely ignored in this discussion.The issue is that family members should have an ability to be part of this discussion because they are the people who are left behind who witnessed the suffering who witnessed the trauma of the death and yet they have no say in this discussion; for me watching particularly my mother pass saying to myself "I just wish she would go." because I didn't want to watch her suffer. However when she did go I just wanted to see her alive. So it's this conundrum that we have as family members is it not? We want to relieve their suffering but actually we don't want them to die. So that's my contribution to this discussion—that in this we must ensure that the voice of families is considered because we are the ones that hold the mamae that hold the pain when our loved ones pass. Thank you Madam Chair."
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I thank the member for his questions. It's reasonably straightforward. Currently the barrier in the way is the law. This creates a direct pathway for all foster parents to get there if the Supplementary Order Paper is accepted. Currently the only way or avenue is through a social worker who needs the CEO's sign-off from Oranga Tamariki. That's the problem. That lady is so busy; she obviously has limited time. But that's what this bill endeavours to do: give that avenue for foster parents to have a direct avenue. It also most importantly doesn't discriminate and it gives equality to all foster parents across New Zealand.
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I think the Minister for Children needs to go and actually talk to her leader about why he supported it yesterday on The AM Show saying that he will give all foster children the rights to access KiwiSaver. The second point—Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Chair. With regard to misleading the committee is it a situation that I would have to take a complaint like that to the Speaker immediately or is it something that we need to deal with in the committee now?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): There's been some heated things said in this debate haven't there? I think the member has been here long enough to know the process of dealing with the issue that she raised. I'm happy with the content of the debate so far. I think it's been robust. I think that there is a debating point which both the member herself and the member in the chair have been debating. So long as people stay within the rules of the committee I'm happy for things to proceed.HAMISH WALKER: I think it's incredibly sad that the Minister is now playing politics before children. If she had a listen throughout the end of the select committee process during the second reading it was very clear that nearly every single National member that spoke said they were going to lodge this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). It was lodged late last week. There was no playing through the media. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was asked about this yesterday and I'm just reading out his statement. Secondly she said it's too hard. She said it's too hard yet she's the Minister for Children. Then why has it happened the Hon Tracey Martin? You're supposed to be the Minister for Children sticking up for all foster children not just the lucky few—700 out of 6000. If she truly cared she would make this happen and allow all foster children—give them all the ability—to ensure they are on the same playing field something they can actually control in their life and allow all foster children to have access to KiwiSaver. Name for me one negative aspect—one negative aspect—of signing up a child to KiwiSaver. We haven't heard one negative. These foster parents have lost their rights to look after their children through whatever means yet we're so concerned about giving a birth parent a right—they're worried about losing their rights to enabling a child to have KiwiSaver. I think that's completely wrong. If we want to talk about what this truly means I encourage the Minister to actually go out there and talk to some foster children. Talk to the ones that have saved up four years. They've saved up several hundred dollars or the case of the young chap who wanted to save up for a decade or two to buy a house. He saved up $2500 only for it to be stolen by the foster parents. As the Hon Mark Mitchell said this is not about us; this is not about the MPs. But clearly the Government side prefers to play politics over children. Let's put the foster children first and vote through this SOP.