edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee GerryQuestion No. 11 to Minister 18 SeptemberHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yes I'm sorry to interrupt proceedings but we just need to be clear. Yesterday you removed some supplementaries from us because of an inappropriate comment made by the Hon Chris Finlayson. That was reciprocated by a comment from the Rt Hon Winston Peters to which you said I'll now be considering"—and then there was a Chris Penk intervention and you said "I'll now be considering Mr Penk's but not Mr Finlayson's inappropriate comment. So I've cancelled that punishment". Mr Finlayson's punishment was the loss of six questions; Mr Penk's was the loss of three so we're just a little concerned that we appear not to have the credit of between three and six questions that we were expecting.SPEAKER: Well I'm surprised it was only six. I thought it was more than that that Mr Finlayson lost but whatever Mr Finlayson lost—[Speaker seeks advice] I mean the number doesn't really matter because it was neutralised by the intervention from the Deputy Prime Minister which was just about as outrageous. So all we were left with was the loss of Mr Penk's questions which was two and that is the position which I understand—sorry? [Speaker receives advice] So as a result of that the National Party has 37 supplementaries today.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Sorry we had carry-over questions—so do we lose the benefit of that? With all due respect we should be six questions up on the 37—it should be 43.SPEAKER: Well it's my advice and that is that the National Party did get some extra supplementaries yesterday early in the piece. All of them were indicated to the whips and they were used yesterday."
Tuesday 18 September 2018 - Volume 733
Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security Bill the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill and the Artificial Limb Service Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Bills read a third time.
Social Security Bill; Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill; Artificial Limb Service Bill — Third Readings
12. Question No. 12—Civil DefencePAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Civil DefenceQuestion No. 12—Civil Defence12. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) on behalf of PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What recent announcements has the Government made to improve New Zealand's emergency management system?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): The Government has released its response to the ministerial technical advisory group report into improving our emergency management system. New funding of $5.2 million for specialist rapid response teams known as fly-in teams has been allocated to support communities in an emergency. A further $1 million in new funding will progress other initiatives including the business case for a new emergency management facility a common operating picture across the sector and work on legislative changes required. Other non-fiscal reforms to the emergency management system are also being developed to ensure that all New Zealanders get consistent support in an emergency.Kieran McAnulty: How will fly-in teams help in an emergency response?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Fly-in teams will be comprised of experienced emergency management personnel with appropriate skills and experience including event controllers. Fly-in teams will respond without delay wherever they are required to work alongside and support the local teams to ensure a comprehensive and immediate response is under way. The $5.2 million in funding will resource four teams each with nine staff who will hold specialist emergency management skills. The staff will be drawn from across agencies and civil defence groups and will be ready to respond when an emergency strikes. The deployment of these teams will not only directly assist communities during disaster relief but support local civil defence groups who work tirelessly often under tough conditions.Kieran McAnulty: What other measures has the Government taken to keep people and property safe when responding to emergencies?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government has responded to each of the 42 recommendations in the report agreeing to implement most of them because we need to ensure our system is fit for purpose right now and in the years ahead. It is important we are robust in our response to the recommendations because there are lessons to learn from previous emergencies. Among other things I want to see the significant role that iwi play in emergency management acknowledged and incorporated into emergency planning. I look forward to working with community groups local government iwi cross-party colleagues and the emergency management sector to realise this plan.
10. Question No. 10—Pacific PeoplesANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Pacific PeoplesQuestion No. 10—Pacific Peoples10. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Pacific Peoples: What recent announcements have been made that highlight the progress of Pacific women in leadership positions?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Associate Minister for Pacific Peoples): This morning members across the House celebrated 125 years of suffrage by honouring 11 Pacific women who have been recognised in this year's Queen's Birthday and New Year's honours. Among the group was our very first Pacific woman in Parliament Dame Luamanuvao Winnie Laban. On top of this recently there have been several significant public appointments and acknowledgments of Pacific women across different sectors including Fepuleai Margie Apa appointed CEO for the Counties Manukau District Health Board the first Pacific CEO of a health board; Faumuina Associate Professor Fa'afetai Sopoaga last week awarded the Prime Minister's Supreme Award for Excellence in Tertiary Teaching; and Tessa Temata the first Pacific person appointed High Commissioner to her country of heritage the Cook Islands—a great example of the Pacific reset in action.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What is significant about these appointments and achievements?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Having diverse women represented at the most senior levels of influence and decision making is crucial to advancing the priorities and aspirations of all women in New Zealand. While I'm proud of how far we've come there is still much to do. For Pacific women the pay gap is wider there is a higher percentage in lower-skilled work and they are still too often absent from decision-making tables. However things are changing. This Government's commitment to things like pay equity access to upskilling and training support for families and diversifying representation at decision-making tables will make a difference to further advancing Pacific women. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is it important that Pacific women are supported into leadership positions here in Aotearoa and in the Pacific region?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: An initiative led by the Australian Government to grow women leaders in the Pacific shows that supporting women's leadership is key to reducing poverty promoting economic growth and democracy and increasing the well-being of women girls and their families. This research was in reference to the Pacific but the reality is New Zealand shares many of the challenges our wider region experiences. Our country is sure to go from strength to strength when we are able to truly embrace the value of our shared Pacific heritage the people who we share it with and the contribution that they make. This is important not only for the 300000 Pacific people who call New Zealand home but for all New Zealanders.
7. Question No. 7—State ServicesVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of State ServicesQuestion No. 7—State Services7. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of State Services: Is the Government working to improve and modernise the way that the Public Service operates; if so how?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Yes the Government is embarking on the most significant reform of New Zealand's Public Service in 30 years. We want to see a Public Service that operates as one joined-up system to tackle the big complex challenges facing New Zealand and we want much more convenient public services that put citizens at the centre of service delivery. Virginia Andersen: What's a practical example of how this is likely to make a difference for the average New Zealander?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One practical example of how public services can be improved is during significant life events. There are at least a dozen occasions in somebody's life where they require major interactions with the Government: the birth of a child moving house moving jobs retirement the death of a close family member to name some examples. These are all examples of where having one single contact with the Government would be much better for citizens.Virginia Andersen: How are the working lives of public servants likely to be improved?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We're committed to an impartial politically neutral Public Service that will enable successive Governments to tackle the big challenges New Zealand faces and the reform process will reflect that. Public servants will have greater clarity around their roles and—importantly—obstacles to them working together in a connected way to provide better public services to New Zealanders will be broken down.
Kaye Nikki; Williams PotoHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look I'm pleased to be able to speak in this debate but I am also not pleased for the future of education. The reality is that we know that this Government is intensely ideological in terms of education. We've seen that through the scrapping of partnership schools we've seen that through the scrapping of national standards we've seen that through the scrapping of the Aspire Scholarship for many Māori and Pasifika students—a snuffing out of opportunities. And that is why it is no different when it comes to this Education Amendment Bill (No 2).The first point which I want to start with is actually on the back of a previous bill that we've had. The reality is that for tens of thousands of teachers in New Zealand this bill enables the Minister to be able to direct the Education Council on aspects of policy. It will lead—and this is actually put in the regulatory impact statement of this bill by the Minister of Education. It says This is likely to lead to a limited independence of the Education Council." The reality is that this is about ministerial control and State control of the profession. That's the first point.The second point that I want to make is that the heart of this bill is anti-choice for parents and anti-choice generally in terms of education and we can see this in cohort entry. Fundamentally the reason that National put the cohort entry policy through previously was that we saw the research and the evidence. What it showed is that there is huge disruption happening at year 1. There are a whole lot of teachers who are dealing with different kids coming in—their ability to form long-term relationships. That's why we put through that cohort entry policy. All it did was preserve the right of every child to start school at the age of five with a view that in order to do that and implement cohort entry there would be a small group of students who might start weeks—potentially at the most eight weeks—before their fifth birthday. What this bill does make no mistake New Zealand is rip up the concept that every child in New Zealand could have the right to start school at their fifth birthday because what it says is that for schools that adopt cohort entry there will be a group of children who will be held back because of the nature of the way that this cohort entry has been designed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member; the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."
Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to take the final call on the second reading of this Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee my colleague here was not wrong in saying that this is a very technical bill. I've got to say it was the first time I've sat in a room and talked to people about line of business restrictions anchor services and electromagnetic hypersensitivity but there's a first time for everything and I had my time.Hon Tracey Martin: Oh you're just new yet.TAMATI COFFEY: Ha ha! Yes I am. We got to sit there and listen to the many submissions—the people that came forward with all of their doubts and their concerns. There are a couple of things that I wanted to talk about in my very short submission. It was just about the deregulation of the copper line services. There was a lot of alarm amongst some of our submitters about what that would do—you take away the copper lines and it means that our airwaves will be filled with radiation and lots of harmful things. I've got a stack of submissions from people who submitted about that very point. To that I assure them that we took it very seriously—their concerns around this. To those people that submitted on that and are listening to this tonight I want to reassure them that the Ministry of Health ticked it off. They said that the bill has no impact on exposure to wireless radiation under international standards that set limits for maximum exposure levels to radio waves including the wireless radiation emitted through cellphones and wireless transmissions. That gave me a bit of certainty so I can tell those people that submitted that actually we've got your back. The Ministry of Health actually came and gave us that information and it was very welcome in fact.This is a very good piece of legislation. Look I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I'm very happy to come to this telecommunications amendment bill and looking back on the first reading of this bill it was in fact one of the last debates the previous Parliament held back in August of last year. Members might like to refer to speech number six in that debate which I thought was especially good.Hon Ruth Dyson: Whose was it? MICHAEL WOOD: It just wouldn't be modest of me to say Ruth Dyson.I want to refer to—firstly actually what I wanted to do is acknowledge and thank the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee for their work on this bill because when one looks at the changes that have been made to the substance of the bill in that process the select committee has done its job. It was clearly a bill that had broad support across both sides of the House and the select committee has assiduously worked through some of the technical and other issues that do arise during these processes. It's made important changes to things like the definition of telecommunication" and the definition of "fibre network" to make sure that they are flexible in what is a fast-moving technological environment. But what I just really want to turn to in what's going to be a reasonably brief call is the fundamental purpose of this bill. This is actually really important because what we are talking about here are services that are monopoly or near-monopoly services and it is the duty of this House to protect consumers with good regulation in my view where that situation applies.In respect of this there was a very good quote from the head of InternetNZ Jordan Carter in the consultation phase of this bill and here's what Jordan Carter said. He said: "It is … important that New Zealanders have confidence and predictability in internet prices. InternetNZ believes that's best achieved by proactive regulation of pricing for fibre and copper services to be in place by 2020—so we all know where we stand. Regulators are the vital protection for consumers. Commercial deals in environments like telecommunications access pricing never end up with the best deal for customers—in the absence of a contractual price (as initially set [up] under the UFB programme) only a well-funded capable regulator has the analysis and power to stand up to the interests of companies worth billions of dollars and to encourage competition while driving the best possible bargain for those paying the bills."That is fundamentally what this bill is about: ensuring that we have the appropriate regulatory controls in place by way of price equality by way of information disclosure and by way of a range of other mechanisms to ensure that these companies which are monopolies or near-monopolies give Kiwi consumers a fair deal in what really is a utility in our modern life. I commend this bill to the House for reaching those objectives. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Kia ora.Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: This is a complicated bill. It's got a lot of technical detail in it and I think for those of us who are perhaps not even familiar with the sector it's rather hard to understand what's going on with it so it does help to have an understanding of the telecommunications sector as to why we need this legislation.What happens in this particular sector is we have four companies across the country which have local monopolies—in the case of Chorus it's not exactly local; it kind of goes over most of the country. But they have monopolies on supplying ultra-fast broadband to their own areas. Where you have monopolies you need regulation. We need regulation in order to ensure that the rights of the consumer are protected but in order to ensure also that the provider makes a reasonable profit. This is part of what this legislation sets out to do. It is trying to balance the rights of consumers with the needs of companies to make a decent return on what they're doing.So as the Minister took us through at the start of their speech taking us through some of the really rather technical detail in here—almost as technical as a tax bill and that's saying a lot—when you spin it down it's down to some very basic things that this bill is doing. It is ensuring that fibre networks are rolled out across the country but at the same time with protections for the rights of consumers and that right across the country ultra-fast broadband providers will provide a basic service at a reasonable price so that everyone may access the internet and in fact may access ultra-fast broadband. It's about deregulating the copper networks. We actually don't really need those copper networks any more as long as we've got ultra-fast broadband there so there is no need to regulate them any more.So that's what we're trying to do there. It's about boosting consumer protections to ensure that ordinary consumers don't have to pay too much for their ultra-fast broadband because monopoly providers can charge high prices if they want to. Right along with those consumer protections are the needs for protecting vulnerable consumers as well. May I suggest to the previous speaker Mr McKelvie—who quite rightly is concerned for his rural constituents—that our other concern needs to be for low-income people who also need to access the internet.I just want to speak a little bit to that. The internet is ubiquitous now. It is part of our lives. It is as much essential to modern living as the water networks the stormwater networks and the electricity networks. That's why we do need to regulate it and that's what this bill does. It's an excellent bill put together by a series of Ministers. I commend this bill to the House.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thanks Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd just like to begin my contribution with a quote from Vinton Cerf who's recognised as one of the founding fathers of the internet. He said The Internet is for everyone" and this bill will help to ensure that this remains the case. It's going to give certainty to the industry as well as protection to consumers—and that's something that I particularly like about this bill: protecting the consumers. It's going to give the Commerce Commission a greater oversight which will actually increase transparency. We'll have the ability to ensure that internet providers are going to be required to disclose information publicly and I think that gives the public certainty to ensure that there's nothing going on behind closed doors—that everything is out in the open and consumers can be informed and know what to expect. InternetNZ in one of their submissions said "Our vision for New Zealand's Internet market is one where competition investment and innovation deliver better opportunities for New Zealand. Our fibre network will soon reach 85% of New Zealanders and we want to see its potential delivered. Beyond fibre we want to see efficient investment and innovation to deliver better connectivity to all New Zealanders." and this is something that this bill will also allow.I'd like to think about my background of owning a small business and being in a rural area. I think these sorts of things—having good quality connectivity and internet services—are hugely vital for our small businesses and in the rural community and particularly when you get the two of those combined. In the space where my business is we are communicating with parents and children all over the internet through connectivity. We are talking about the progress that children are making every day allowing the parents to be able to contribute to their learning stories. It's really important that we have that good fast connectivity so that grandparents overseas can use the services as well that we provide. So I really like the fact that a lot of this bill focuses on the end consumer and that it's meeting their needs and that they are better protected and I commend this bill to the House."
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Maritime Powers Extension Bill which makes two tweaks that sound pretty simple but have some significant implications. Currently there's no legislative basis in New Zealand's domestic law to exercise customs powers in international waters in respect of ships that are suspected of attempting to traffic drugs into New Zealand and this amendment bill will change that.It basically empowers customs to be able to board and search and take enforcement action in international waters and it amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to create offences relating to drug smuggling in international waters outside of New Zealand. Basically what we have now is domestic law that governs what's known as New Zealand's territorial sea which is about 12 nautical miles out from the shore and what's known as the contiguous zone which is sort of 12 to 24 nautical miles. But beyond that which is international waters we have no powers—or customs has no powers now—to respond to ships that are potentially smuggling drugs and are in those waters. There's always been a risk of organised criminal groups evading border control but of late we've seen that it's happened more often than not—a small number of cases but typically they're at the very highest end of offending.This bill will allow customs an additional tool to intercept drug smuggling and this of course is one part of what this Government is doing to address the issue of the drug epidemic which also includes investing $8 billion over four years in health and making mental health and addiction a priority. So without further ado Madam Deputy Speaker I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a second time.
Maritime Powers Extension Bill — Second Reading
Wall Louisa; Tolley AnneLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee it was my pleasure to hear those three submitters. I speak in support of this Maritime Powers Extension Bill which essentially is creating the legal mandate and justification for our customs officials our police officials and our defence officials to stop the supply of illicit narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances which is actually the title of article 108 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—I've just had a look at it. The interesting part of this discussion—I just did a Google search actually—is the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Europol estimated that the global drug trade is worth $435 billion.Dr Duncan Webb: How much?LOUISA WALL: It's actually—$435 billion and that was in 2013. There may be some more up-to-date figures. The reality is that this industry is lucrative so we need to implement measures such as this. I want to agree with my colleague Mr Macindoe. In his previous role as Minister of Customs he was responsible for helping secure $54.2 million for the Customs Service. We know through that investment—because this is a complementary piece of legislation you're absolutely right. What have we done with that money? We've actually got people on the ground in Washington Hong Kong and we will have in South America and South-east Asia and what I wanted to highlight is that having people in those destinations has meant that $114 billion worth of illicit drugs have not arrived in Aotearoa New Zealand as they were designed to do.In fact that's what this bill is all about. We need to cut supply. We have to do it using whatever tools we have and these international instruments actually force us to cooperate. At the end of the day that's what it's all about. We need a concerted collective effort to continually fight against drugs that are doing massive damage in our communities. I don't have much more to say other than to commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did overlook the fact that this was a split call. I call Harete Hipango.
SpeechASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Just ruling on the point of order: that is the sole discretion of the Chair.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Rurawhe AdrianASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that—Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A point of order? I'm about to put the question so unless it's about—I've started the question—Tim van de Molen: Yes but not completed it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Tim van de Molen.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you. I draw your attention to Speakers' ruling 59/7: It is a longstanding convention that when a member is speaking from the backbenches other members who are sitting near that member do not interject because of the effect it has on the live microphone." That has been a constant—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! You can raise that after the vote."
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): Like my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick over here I was getting a little bit excited coming into this debate here tonight about the fact that we might have had a new-found regard for teachers coming from the other side of the House but when I hear this bill which I'm very proud of being called a pedestrian bill that simply goes to change the name—I'm sorry but that excitement has really gone right down. This is about raising the status. This bill is about giving democracy back to our teachers. While the other side of the House might not value democracy because we've heard that Oh it's about competencies. We couldn't have those teachers you know just being elected. Imagine the skills that they're bringing."—while we see that from them we do value democracy on this side of the House and we do value our teachers. So we are bringing democracy back to our teachers.While that side of the House might not listen to their teachers and might not talk to their teachers I certainly do. In fact just prior to coming to this House I had a group of teachers in my office who were excited about this bill. They are absolutely excited. I was a teacher in 2015 when the Teachers Council became the Education Council and back then it was like the straw that broke the camel's back. In education we had been demoralised through legislation after legislation that showed that the then Government did not value us as teachers. This is about putting this right. While that side don't listen to their teachers I do and I hear in staffrooms right around this country that they are excited about this bill coming back in and they're going to have that democratic representation back on their professional body again. This is what is right and we are putting it right so I therefore commend this bill to the House."
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. This is an exciting time for education in New Zealand as we reach the third reading of this very important bill which will once again ensure that teachers are elected on to the teachers' council.I spend a lot of time—as Erica Stanford mentioned she does—in staffrooms and whenever I talk to staffroom teachers about this bill and I talk to them about teachers going back on the council without fail their heads are nodding and people are saying That's fantastic news." This Government has been listening to teachers around putting teachers back on the teachers' council.We have heard from Opposition members around competency and around knowledgable people and teachers teacher educators principals and early childhood leaders are competent. They are knowledgable. They do know what's taking place in their field. In fact they are at the coalface so they know better than anyone what's happening in their industry.I've got a few friends who are real estate agents and I thought I would have a look at the Real Estate Agent Authority board just to compare. On there we have a barrister a Queen's Counsel an accountant a consultant and we have a director of a real estate company on the board. We have a real estate agent on the board of the Real Estate Agent Authority.Kieran McAnulty: Get out of here!JAMIE STRANGE: I know—outrageous! The point I'm making there is that if it's OK for the real estate agent board why isn't it OK for the teachers' council?I'm particularly excited that the name is changing from Education Council to Teaching Council because it highlights the important role that teachers play in our society. It elevates the teaching profession.We heard from the Hon Nikki Kaye that people on the teachers' council have to make decisions around registration and leadership. Who better to make decisions around registration than teachers who are registered and who understand the process? Who better to make decisions around leadership in schools than principals or than early childhood leaders?I commend the work that the Minister has done on this bill. I think it's common sense. It's certainly welcomed by the profession. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Luxton Jo; Rurawhe AdrianJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am really really thrilled to stand and take a call in absolute support of this bill the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. Why am I thrilled? Well because today is the day we give back the power and the ability to teachers to manage their own governing body. These teachers pay registration fees towards this governing body so why on earth should they not be able to be part of this governing body? The reason that we are giving this back to them is because we believe in democracy on this side of the House. We trust teachers unlike the previous Government who took that choice away did not trust them did not value them did not see them as professionals and did not see them as being capable of managing their own governing body. Well we do. On this side of the House we do. We trust them and we believe in lifting the status of teachers.We hear from the other side that Oh it's just you know changing a few words—changing a title." Well actually words can be extremely powerful and these words have a lot of meaning to the teaching profession. I too go out and speak to teachers about various things but I actually make the point of asking them what they think about this bill. Sarah the principal of the Timaru Girls' High School is really really rapt that we are undertaking this piece of legislation because she was really really disappointed when the choice was taken away from teachers previously and we hear that "Oh only 13 percent come out and vote for this." Well you know does that mean that when we don't get a high turnout in voting for our local council and stuff we should just not do it? Absolutely not. People still should be given the opportunity to stand up and have a voice and have a vote on what they believe in. I think that it's really exciting as I've said many many times before that early childhood education (ECE) is going to have representation on this council in the form of an elected ECE teacher—elected by their own sector I might add—and an educational ECE leader in that space. It's time that we had a seat at that table and I'm so proud that this Minister of Education recognises the importance of ECE education and ECE teachers in the profession. I absolutely wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Sarah Dowie—five minutes."
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you so much Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in strong support of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. I'd like to first of all acknowledge the Minister of Education the Hon Chris Hipkins for his leadership in the education sector. I'd also like to thank the Education and Workforce Committee and everyone who came to make a submission on this bill. I agree with the Hon Nikki Kaye that our teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand our parents and everyone our students as well—they deserve the best. Education is one of the keys to a successful flourishing country. This legislation will ensure that we get the best especially for our teachers. I have spent the last couple of months talking with parents with teachers with students and with community leaders right across Aotearoa. Initially I started with Pacific communities and I'm now talking with our ethnic communities. They have been generous with their time giving us ideas about how we can ensure the best education system for their children's future.It is in all of our interests to ensure that we continue to have the best education system in Aotearoa. But we know that the education system does not work for all of our students which is one of the reasons why we are supporting this legislation because it is in our interests to ensure that our teachers—and many of our teachers have told us this—have a say in who is on their governing board. One of the best ways that we would ensure the support of our teaching profession is to ensure that they have full democratic participation in what it is that governs them. We know that teachers—because they've told us—would like to ensure that their name is in this council so ensuring that the Education Council is changed to Teaching Council reflects that intention. Also as a result of the select committee one of the things that was recommended and added to this legislation now is that we should have Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand with the inclusion of Aotearoa" in the name. That is really crucial because it also reflects the bicultural nature of our country Aotearoa New Zealand.This House has heard many times before when we were talking in the second reading of this bill about how in 2015 the previous council cancelled the right of teachers to elect their own representatives. This legislation once it's passed will still have the majority of teachers being elected on this board because seven of the members will be elected; only six of the members are going to be appointed by the Hon Chris Hipkins.We fully support this bill. I strongly commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is an absolute honour to take the short and last call on the third readings of the legislation arising from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill: the Social Security Bill the Artificial Limb Service Bill and the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill.It's disrespectful if I don't respond to what's been said today but firstly I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister for Social Development Carmel Sepuloni—the leadership of this House—where she acknowledged that it's 80 years to date that the first Labour Government introduced the Social Security Act in 1938. The Minister further thanked those who are in the Public Service who supported the journey of this legislation through the House. What I particularly like about what the Minister said is when she echoed Nanaia Mahuta when she talked about sweeping the floor before putting down new furniture to form a solid foundation.I want to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston. She spoke about lost opportunity. My reading of the submissions received is that it encapsulated Supplementary Order Paper 25 the loud voices of the 121 submitters. They wanted a truly neutral policy rewrite which is what this legislation is all about. The lost opportunity here wasn't this rewrite; the lost opportunity was an opportunity for this House to truly be bipartisan—to truly be bipartisan—and support the rewrite. What the 121 submitters had said was that they wanted it policy-neutral.The Hon Peeni Henare spoke about the importance of empathy and caring for people. The Hon Alfred Ngaro talked about—an almost comradely commendation of the Hon Peeni Henare's birthday. It is sad that that wasn't afforded to this legislation.I want to acknowledge Darroch Ball who said that this rewrite was policy-neutral it was easier to navigate and it brings the Act into the modern drafting era.Priyanca Radhakrishnan the gem wasn't the gender stuff. The gem was from the Hon Simon O'Connor—let me get back to my notes. The gem was: Me thinketh the lady protest too much." I think that's what he said. In this year the day before the 125th anniversary of where the women fought and won the right to vote it is shameful—shameful—that those words were uttered through his mouth.What we heard today is that they complained about the 500 pages. Actually I think the public who voted you into this House would expect you to have read those 500 pages. You owe it to New Zealand.I want to thank the first Labour Government for their leadership 80 years ago. They cared for those who needed help they cared for those who needed a home when they didn't have a home and they cared for New Zealand's future—80 years ago. I want to say thank you for their leadership 80 years ago that did that and echo the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. I commend this legislation to the House. Malo."
Radhakrishnan Priyanca; Williams PotoPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill that has been divided of course into the Social Security Bill the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill and the Artificial Limb Service Bill. Now we've heard some real gems from members opposite during this debate. The one that took the cake though—that has to be mentioned given that we stand here today to celebrate 80 years of when the Social Security Act was initiated in 1938 and the day before we celebrate 125 years of suffrage—was the gem from Simon O'Connor which was absolutely derogatory and dismissive of over 50 percent of the population when he termed it gender stuff" and then anything that goes to advancing the status of women was "identity politics" apparently.Then of course the de-writes of the rewrite of the Act which Maureen Pugh referred to—yes. What was supposed to have been policy-neutral under the previous Government was actually a piece of legislation that snuck in a whole bunch of policies so a de-write of that is actually policy-neutral. So thank you for actually making the point that we on this side of the House have been making.The 500 to 600 pages referred to by members opposite as the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was actually—if they had bothered to read that piece that was tabled they would have known that that was actually the bill in its entirety with the changes and not an SOP. So perhaps members opposite should actually read what they're talking about before they stand up and speak in this House.The final point that I will make is that what members opposite are doing when they're not supporting these bills is not supporting a rewrite of an Act that has 500 parts it's inaccessible it's incoherent and what we are doing here today is actually tidying that up and making it accessible and making it coherent. Members opposite by throwing their toys out of the cot because we've taken out the policies that they held so dear and made this actually policy-neutral are not supporting a tidy-up of an old Act that is out of date. What we're doing is trying to make it accessible to those who need it most. With that I commend these bills to the House.Dan Bidois: Madam Assistant Speaker it's a pleasure to take a call—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Dan Bidois."
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Serendipitous—that that last speaker had the call before me Maureen Pugh sitting next to Dan Bidois because so often when we discuss legislation in this House it can be a little bit focused: we're talking about legislation we're talking about words on a bit of paper. But our select committee was lucky enough last week to go to the Work and Income office in Willis Street with those two members opposite and several others and what we saw was a personification of the change that has taken place with this rewrite. The change has taken place because—as every member here who does electorate work who does casework will know—many of the issues we have are people desperate people coming to our offices who simply cannot navigate the system. They would go to offices and see a fortress-like mentality. They would go to an office and see in the past dispirited staff who as a result of directions from above were really there to bat away. Well what we saw last week—and I invite those two members to reflect on that—was a change. What we saw was an office where actually the whole rationale the whole ethos has changed where if we treat these people properly they will get jobs and they'll feel like they are part of a system. And when I look at this legislation arising from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill that's actually the reality of where we come to.This is a very short call and I don't think it needs much. All I'd ask is that anyone here who has any doubts about the change speak to people who have come out of those offices and see how positive they will be. What we want them to do—and I agree with Alfred Ngaro; it'd be nice to have everyone working to their capability and earning towards what they need. But there are those who will not be able to do that so it's treating those people—and understanding that this is incredibly important and this legislation is the start of that. So to those members and those others I invite you to go and have a look at your local Work and Income office and just see the change because that is where the words in these bills come to a manifestation of what we need to be as a country. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
Urgent Debates Declined — Chief Technology Officer—Process of Appointment
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity. I rise in support of the third reading of these particular bills. I do want to acknowledge both you Madam Deputy Speaker and of course my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for the hard work done to reach this point in time. I just want to pick up on a couple of points made by the previous speaker Louise Upston. Talk about missed opportunities. Nine long years is what the last Government had to make sure that we had a piece of legislation that would serve the most vulnerable in our country that actually would make sure that it empowered them and caught them at times of vulnerability not actually penalise them and not have a more systematic regime to make sure that we're measuring the way we invest in helping these people instead of—guess what?—actually helping them. Our Prime Minister in this Government has made it very clear that we want to do everything in a humanistic way. Every piece of work must be humanised and must show empathy compassion and care.For that side of the House who don't understand what a policy-neutral bill is I'm going to offer on behalf of the Minister and myself the opportunity to sit down so I can explain what a policy-neutral bill is because everything that that last member's contribution pointed to was actually policies from her time in Government—her time in Government. What we set out to do was a policy-neutral rewrite that would allow us to actually build a platform—a strong platform—that showed empathy and that showed support to Kiwis and New Zealanders who needed it the most.I don't wish to take too much of the House's time but I do want to say this. On 14 September great things happened. On 14 September 1938 80 years ago this particular piece of legislation the Social Security Act passed into effect. On 14 September 1975 a kuia by the name of Dame Whina Cooper set out from the Far North to march upon Parliament with the moniker Not one more acre." On 14 September 1979 it was my birthday. I want to commend this bill to the House."
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDChief Technology Officer—Appointment ProcessSPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Paula Bennett seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government's decision to stop the process of appointing a Chief Technology Officer. This is a case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. However I do not think the matter is sufficiently urgent to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. It can be adequately addressed in tomorrow's general debate. Therefore the application is declined.
Thursday 13 September 2018 - Volume 732
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 8 be agreed to: delete clause 8.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 9 be agreed to: delete clause 9.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 94 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment agreed to.