edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I'm delighted to speak on this landmark bill. This is a landmark piece of legislation that we are putting through its first reading. I want to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta a great leader a great Minister who will go down in history as one of the greats—one of the greats—for doing things that are advancing the causes of Māori. So I want to acknowledge her her fight in bringing this bill to the House and all the support that she has from around the motu up and down the whole country from councils and communities who yearn for their own Māori representation. That's what this bill does. It allows Māori representation to now be able to give expression to that in councils up and down the country. So I'm absolutely delighted in this bill.In the last Parliament I brought two bills to this House to fight for Māori protection of our rights in Parliament and also for local representation in Ngāi Tahu. It all comes back to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Mr Seymour spoke about what is the underlying philosophy. It's simple Mr Seymour: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is the underlying philosophy which we on this side of the House are giving expression to through the passage of this bill. Māori representation is a must because to give true expression and to uphold the promises of Te Tiriti Māori need to be represented at all levels of Government in this country here in Parliament and in local government. So we are through the passage of this bill able to give effect to that. It's long been overdue. I'm proud as a Māori electorate member myself to be able to support this bill along with our vast Māori caucus—first XV—and our members and this Government. We're very proud to be able to bring this landmark legislation to the House.Finally this bill is not only good for Māori; it's good for our country. It's good to have our local government areas reflecting the communities that they represent and really I think the undertones that have come through tonight from the other side are quite telling—quite telling in terms of just not being where Aotearoa is in 2021. That's why I'm so proud on this side of the House that we can advance real and meaningful legislation that will make a difference not only now but for the generations to come as we evolve and grow as a nation of Aotearoa upholding the promises of Te Tiriti. We're not perfect. We're not going to get all the way there in a hurry but we are making good progress. This is one great step in that direction and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.
Seymour David; Parker DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order Mr Speaker. If I could just ask the Minister said that the bills need to be passed by a certain date. I understand that an urgency motion should give some reasons why it is necessary for the bill to be passed early. The Minister's given the date by which he'd like it to be passed but he hasn't explained why that is.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm happy to elucidate a little bit more. In respect of Māori wards if Māori wards are to be in place in a date and time for the local government elections next year that creates effectively a cascade of dates backwards and in respect of the climate change auction prices that's necessary so that by the time the first auction under the revised emissions trading rules takes place there is a reserve price able to be put in place. At the moment the legislation doesn't allow an auction reserve and this legislation is necessary to put that in place before the first auction.
Parker DavidURGENCYHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move That urgency be accorded the first reading and referral to select committee of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill and to the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill.Both bills were introduced on Friday morning so they've been public for four days but technically they'd have to sit longer on the floor of the House before being read a first time but for the move to urgency. The urgency is needed to bring them above the line on the Order Paper so that they can be considered now and sent to select committee earlier than would otherwise occur. I'll summarise the reason as to why we believe urgency's justified but both bills have to be passed by a certain date as the Ministers will explain in more detail.The Māori wards legislation from the Government's perspective needs to be passed by 22 February and the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill by mid-March and we think it's desirable that both of these pieces of legislation go to select committee albeit for a truncated period. Urgency if it's agreed won't continue until tomorrow morning so that select committees running tomorrow won't be interfered with. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Rurawhe Adrian; Parker DavidDEPUTY SPEAKER: Ā kāti rā tēnā rā tātou katoa. The House is resumed. I understand the Government will move an adjournment to the Address in Reply debate.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is adjourned and set down for resumption next sitting day.
Address in Reply Debate
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Before I call the member—because I can see some movement up there—I'll just indicate if possible that at the end of the speech a couple of things will happen. The first is if there is to be a waiata it should start at a point fairly soon after the end of the speech rather than catch everyone by surprise. The second thing is that the House will be suspended at the end of the speech until 7 o'clock so we don't need to do that stuff afterwards.
Motions —Speaker—No Confidence
Bishop Chris; Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorMOTIONSNo Confidence in Speaker—Leave DeclinedCHRIS BISHOP (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice of no confidence in the Speaker which is in my name and on the Table.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Point of order Mr Speaker. Speaker's ruling 18/7 made by Speaker Jack back in 1970 and endorsed by Assistant Speaker Tisch in 2015 states that the one and only proper form of attack against the Speaker the presiding officer is a notice of motion in the House. The member has not put a notice of motion on the Order Paper. Therefore other members in the House cannot consider the merits of that because it has not yet been published.Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.SPEAKER: No I don't need assistance on that particular point. The House is actually the master of its own business in this matter as with some others and if the House chooses by giving leave to proceed in the way that the member is requesting it may. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Speaker's Ruling — Debating Chamber—Dress Code
Mallard Trevor; Waititi RawiriSPEAKER'S RULINGSDebating Chamber—Dress CodeSPEAKER: Members I've noted that one member in particular has notwithstanding the ruling that has been circulated to members decided to enter the House without a tie. This matter was a subject of consultation with members. My own personal view has been expressed widely that I think ties are outdated but that was not the view of the overwhelming majority of members who expressed their view to me. I'm therefore going to indicate to the leader of Te Paati Māori that I will not be calling him while he is not wearing a tie and he is not to enter the House again not wearing a tie.RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In an email you sent to the members of this House you did advise that business attire—and what I'm wearing is Māori business attire and a Māori tie; I stand here before you today in that manner. The second part of your email also talked about how a 2017 review of the Standing Orders supported members dressing in formal wear of the cultures they identify with. So that's why I stand here with this Standing Order at this particular time Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: OK I've noted the member's comments. He hasn't convinced me.
Mallard Trevor; Twyford PhilTUESDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MEMBERS SWORNSPEAKER: I understand that the Hon Phil Twyford is present and wishes to make the Affirmation of Allegiance. Will he please come forward to the chair on my right.Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I Phil Stoner Twyford solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Her heirs and successors according to law.
Tuesday 1 December 2020 (continued on Wednesday 2 December 2020) - Volume 749
Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Select Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 6 April 2021.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.SPEAKER: The question is That the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 86New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 86New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 86New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 86New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Part 2 agreed to.
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 10 inserting new section 35DJ be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 33New Zealand National 33. Noes 86New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 86New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Part 1 agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 84 Noes 33.
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill — First Reading
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: The Government has indicated to me that it's not their intention to proceed further with urgency at this time. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.The House adjourned at 1.02 p.m. (Wednesday)
Wood Michael; Mallard TrevorThird ReadingHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a third time. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Wood Michael; Mallard TrevorSecond ReadingHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a second time. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Wood Michael; Mallard TrevorHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I rise to take a brief call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the previous speaker for his enthusiastic and full-throated support for it. The issue that I just want to briefly focus on is the 48-hour stand-down changes. Just before I do that the thing I do want to note is that this piece of legislation is an important part of the overall legislative infrastructure for how we have managed our way through an extraordinary year. I think the way in which the Parliament and the Government have been able to come together to ensure that we have legislation that's fit for purpose that enables quick decisions to be made in the public health interest while also making sure that there is parliamentary oversight has actually been a bit of a standout success story of our democracy this year. I acknowledge all parties and all members for that.In terms of this particular bill the removal of the requirement for there to be 48 hours' notice when there is a movement down in alert levels I think is one that everyone would acknowledge is a sensible and pragmatic one. Of course we all understand why there needs to be notice before alert levels are lifted. They do by their nature require an imposition on people on businesses and organisations and it is only reasonable that there is a period before which people are required to comply with what are sometimes some quite major restrictions. But when it goes in the other direction and we're shifting back towards a more normal mode for people for businesses and other organisations there is no particular need on an ongoing basis for there to be a 48-hour period. Obviously sometimes the changes in going down alert levels will still take organisations some time to implement but there is no need for there to be a requirement around that. So that change and the others reflected in this bill are all pretty sensible all pretty pragmatic and contribute to us having an ongoing piece of legislation that helps us to keep New Zealanders safe in these challenging times. I commend the bill to the House.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. The National Opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill through its particularly truncated passage through the House. We think it's a to the extent that it does anything sensible piece of legislation. I do have to wonder at the utility of the change—essentially the name change—from transferring the powers from the Minister of Health to the Minister for COVID-19 Response as the bill statement under the new Standing Orders that has been issued by the Minister makes clear. Section 7 of the Constitution Act 1986 allows for any member of the Executive Council to exercise powers conferred on another Minister under legislation. So yeah for tidiness I suppose it's useful to have the Minister for COVID19 Response in the legislation rather than the Minister of Health but I'm not really sure it was absolutely required. The explanatory note says it shouldn't be relied on in the long term and an amendment for flexibility and accuracy is appropriate. I suppose that's true. So if you're legislating anyway I suppose you may as well chuck it in the legislation as a minor amendment. But there's only one other item in the legislation.I should say also sir that we have a supplementary amendment to make the Minister of Health be added alongside the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to the people who must be consulted mandatorily during the development of the orders under the Act and that flows from the change I've just talked about. That makes sense but the only other thing is the 48 hours' notice requirement and that's really the sort of heart—to the extent this bill has a heart—of the bill and we support that. And I suspect without knowing for sure it was a drafting error at the time the initial COVID legislation was drafted and no one's going to be particularly hard on the Parliamentary Counsel Office who do a very good job for possibly a technical error because it was drafted in haste I suspect and again the exigencies of the situation demanded that and of course you'd expect perhaps an error or two. So we think it does make sense to allow the flexibility for when you're going down the alert levels if the Government decides—or the Minister in this case decides—to promulgate a change to the alert levels for example or a particular element of the alert level changes. The Minister has talked about mask wearing on public transport for example but people could think about other examples as well. Not having to give 48 hours' notice when going down an alert level we think makes sense.So look we don't wish to hold up the House. There's a tax bill after this and I know that members on this side of the House are far more interested in talking about the taxation response from the Government than this very minor but useful bill. Thanks.
Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill — Introduction
Mallard TrevorTAXATION (INCOME TAX RATE AND OTHER AMENDMENTS) BILLIntroductionSPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.CLERK: Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Wood MichaelInstruction to the Education and Workforce CommitteeHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move That the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 6 April 2021.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Right throughout the National Party's time in this House we've heard the same old arguments that we're hearing in response to this bill. They opposed Working for Families and yet they didn't repeal it. They opposed increasing annual leave and yet they didn't repeal it. And today we hear them oppose the proposal to extend sick leave and not once did we hear them say that they would repeal it. Why? Because when they're in Opposition they make a lot of noise but actually when they're in Government they realise in order to get there they had to give people what they want. And we've heard talk of a lot of costs scaremongering of costs—the same arguments we heard around the minimum wage. If we increase the minimum wage businesses will fail!"—no evidence of course and despite the fact that every single year when the National Party were in Government they increased the minimum wage. Yet when this Government does it they oppose it. Why? Because when it's their idea it's good—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat when I'm on my feet. The member's had a good minute for his introduction; he will now get on to the bill.KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you Mr Speaker. There is a simple principle at play here: if someone is crook they shouldn't have to go to work. And what we find with five days particularly with workers that have child dependents and have to look after their children when they're crook is they are forced to go to work when they're ill. That makes other people ill. We learnt that from COVID. The question was posed: why are we doing it now? Well I would say that we've certainly learnt a lot over the last few months and productivity is affected when people go to work crook and other people are crook and therefore they have to take sick leave. But if the provisions are there to allow people to take the time they need to get better less people get crook less businesses are impacted and we can all be more productive. It's not very—SPEAKER: Fewer. Fewer not less.KIERAN McANULTY: Right. Well thanks for that Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. I'll remember that next time you ask me not to involve you in the debate. So Mr Speaker thank you very much. I've said all I need to say. This is a good bill."
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker thank you and congratulations to you for your election to the position of Assistant Speaker. I find myself comically over-prepared for this first contribution that I make to the debate. I find myself also comically prepared in the face of an Opposition who would have us socialise the costs to all New Zealanders of the spread of the flu and colds and summer bugs for the benefit of a minority of employers who do not already allow their workers to take the sick leave that they need simply to keep the germs to themselves. I wanted to talk about a couple of the reasons why I think this bill which was introduced very ably by the new Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be met with applause by my constituents in Manurewa both workers and employers. By increasing sick leave we're supporting workers and giving people who care for their kids and dependents more flexibility to be part of paid work. It's important for people who I met on the campaign like Flor. She's a cleaner in the Manukau Westfield in the Manurewa electorate and she's a mum of two wee girls a step-mum to another with complex health needs and a carer for the elderly people in her family. As an employer myself I know how much people like Flor contribute to their workplace. You give a busy mum a task and she'll get it done by five and the members on the other side of the House who are employers will know that well. Flor wouldn't be able to contribute to the workplace safely and reliably without these 10 days' sick leave in the current environment. Why? Because like many working mums she's the pillar of her home and her employers know that too. But the reality in the workplace currently is without that statutory minimum she's not realistically able to take those extra days' leave when she needs them. It's also an important part of the package to support what the Government is already providing to businesses and workers as we accelerate the economy—things like the free apprenticeships programme which has doubled the number of female apprentices starting from 845 last year to 1786 this year. They are themselves likely to be workers who are most reliant on the statutory minimums. It's important to expand the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme so businesses can invest more in technology which allows people to work more flexibly in their house. Those are some of the reasons why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I can say very confidently to the Opposition that as an employment lawyer who has worked for employers and who has worked for employees and who has worked for unions this legislation is something we should be very proud of. You have been burying your heads in the sand. I have been working in this field for so long that I have seen—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! HELEN WHITE: —the terrible things that have been done to people under—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member—HELEN WHITE: —the old regime and thank goodness—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! HELEN WHITE: Sorry ma'am. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume her seat. The member does not bring the Speaker into the debate by saying you" to a member. HELEN WHITE: Sorry ma'am. Kieran McAnulty: Just say "the member who's sitting there". Hon Member: Like "The member's wrong." HELEN WHITE: The member is wrong—the member is certainly wrong. In the time that I have been an employment lawyer I have seen large employers who could certainly pay actually performance-manage staff for taking under the minimum entitlement because they saw it as a performance issue. It is an extremely unsustainable position given what we have seen in COVID that we are actually encouraging people to be in a workplace when they are sick. It is bad for our economy and it is bad for our humanity. I commend this bill."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's with absolute pleasure as a small-business owner that I rise in support of this bill.I think it's time that members opposite hear a real-life experience from a business owner rather than the uninformed opinions that they seem to think are what every business and business owner agrees with while those members of the National Party are wrong. I would like to talk about my experience as a small-business owner in so far as that I would rather that my staff if they were unwell stay at home. I am one of those business owners that provides more than five days' sick leave for my staff currently. I am looking forward to increasing it to 10 days for my staff because there is nothing worse than having sick staff members come in to work because they feel that they have to because they've got no sick days left. They've been at home looking after their children during the year because they're sick and they are desperately in need of those wages that they'd come along sick as a dog and get on with it. However then they pass on those germs to the other staff members. Then those staff members have to go away sick and you are losing productivity. So I already do it as a business owner and I am proud of the fact that I do it. I am proud of the fact that I am a good business owner and a good employer of my staff and care enough about them.It's not all about this pie in the sky idea that because of this piece of legislation all of a sudden every staff member in every business is going to take 10 days' sick leave automatically straight away and no one's going to be working anywhere. That is what that party opposite the National Party opposite seems to think. It's always a glass half empty rather than a glass half full with them. I am so proud to support this piece of legislation.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): The honourable member Nick Smith wishes to talk about contradictions. So do I. Let's talk about the contradictions of the position of the National Party on this bill. Here we have one faction of the National Party such as it is led by Simon Bridges and Simeon Brown and the Hon Dr Nick Smith saying that the National Party opposes this bill and yet their leader goes on TV and says that personally she does not have an issue with it. How is that for contradictions? When the leader of a political party that likes to frame themselves as that side of the House—but I'd like to point out that we not only have the National Party on that side of the House now; we also have the Māori Party—welcome—and we also have the ACT Party the Green Party and some of the Labour Party. So it is not that side of the House that opposes this bill; it is the National Party—well half of it I suspect. Half of the National Party or perhaps slightly half. If the leader of the National Party cannot lead them into a position that every other party in this Parliament holds in support of this bill I think that we are in for a very interesting summer. The reason that the vast majority of this Parliament supports this bill is because we accept a very simple principle: no one wants to see people take drugs no one wants to see consumption increase but we accept that consumption happens. We accept that consumption will happen over summer and let's take measures to ensure that we increase the safety of that behaviour. That's what this bill is about and I think it speaks volumes that not only are the National Party divided but they are choosing this issue—an issue of safety primarily for our young—on which to desperately clutch at headlines to try and get themselves into the papers. I think it's a shame and I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. I'm very conscious that we're about to debate the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill. The bill refers to regulatory impact analysis though there be none provided on the Table. Now members of course can find it online but I just wonder if you could inquire: are we still putting all the documents on the Table because it's pretty important stuff for people to be able to read. It doesn't appear to be there unless I've missed it—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK. DAVID SEYMOUR: —and I wonder if the Minister might be able to say if he's provided it. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I'll just take a bit of advice. Thank you to the member. So the matter's not been called yet. It's not on the Order Paper. It's part of the urgency motion and so the matter will be tabled when the item is under consideration.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's good to take another call on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. As I've listened to the debate as it's progressed over the last day or so it's essentially been a debate on harm minimisation. So we know that any drug strategy or any approach to illicit substances has three areas: one being supply control which is for example police action to remove drugs; the second being demand control which is educating people about the harms of drugs; and the third being harm minimisation and that is to acknowledge that there is a level of drug use that occurs and to enable that to happen as safely as possible so people don't die.Now the alternate—the argument that we've heard against harm minimisation from those members opposite—is to turn a blind eye. It's to say it's illegal it's not happening we don't want to know about it—by enabling safety and lives to be saved we are somehow implicitly condoning illegal drug use. So that's where the crux of the debate lies and it lies right across many countries. We're not the only one having this discussion.This issue I remember was first raised by the Law Commission right back under the last National Government when the Misuse of Drugs Act was first being reviewed. And at that time under the past National Government it was declined again for those very reasons: it was perceived as not being able to be proven as reducing harm. It's difficult to look at that evidence when it's currently illegal but we do know for a fact that those people who have had a pill tested and have been told that it is not in fact the substance they thought they were purchasing they discard it. We know that happens. So we do know that it has an impact upon what people are ingesting.My concern to conclude is that what this split in ideology has actually demonstrated is the split within the National caucus because straight away when this idea was first touted by the then Minister of Police Stuart Nash we heard the spokesperson from National in support of pill testing—in strong support—and what we've seen since then is the diminishing liberal voice within the National caucus which has been subsequently subsumed by a very strong Puritan view that everything bad is wrong and rule it out and don't talk about it. And that will come at the peril of the next generation.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a short call on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill at its third reading—and what an interesting debate that we've had on this piece of legislation. I find the contribution from my Green colleague Chlöe Swarbrick to be Trumpian to say the least when she won't answer the question whether she'll accept the referendum result on marijuana. Her speech seemed to spend more time talking about her vision of more drugs in this world not less and she doesn't seem to understand that no means no. We also had a lecture from David Seymour in the ACT Party trying to lecture us on conservatism. Well I would encourage him to consider this study by Andrew Groves which said that there have been no studies which have fully tested in a controlled way whether pill testing reduces harm and the actual conservative approach is actually to look at the evidence to see whether there is a need for change. There have been no studies which have fully tested in a controlled way whether pill testing actually reduces harm and that is why here in the National Party we've been very clear that actually this should have gone to a select committee to actually look at the evidence look at the facts and actually have submissions and the public have their say. This bill will not reduce harm. The evidence from overseas is clear. The evidence in the United Kingdom is clear that where they have had legal drug-testing at music festivals the amount of people using MDMA ecstasy has increased from 1.2 percent of the population to 1.7 percent—an almost 50 percent increase in usage. Secondly in Australia we have seen that it is not the impurities in these substances but it is the ecstasy itself which is doing the killing. A University of New South Wales study of 392 ecstasy deaths between 2001 and 2016 found no deaths in those 392 deaths from impurities or contaminants. The deaths came from the use of the drug itself and so what this bill is doing is giving young people the green light to go ahead and it's saying this drug is safe. Well I'm sorry these drugs are not safe; these drugs are deadly and what we are saying is we're giving them a little ticket which could be their ticket to their death. That is something which I think is incredibly dangerous and we will see more harm from this law change. There has been no evidence given from the departmental statement. The departmental statement on this bill is absolutely bereft of detail. The only people consulted have been KnowYourStuffNZ the organisation in this country which has a direct interest in this issue and the departmental statement does say that this will put the cost on to the Department of Health to have to fund this activity here in New Zealand. So I reject what my friend David Seymour says. This will have a cost on the taxpayer. David Seymour: What cost?SIMEON BROWN: And I wish he had read—I would suggest you read the departmental statement because it's probably good you read that before you come down here and make statements which are opposite to that. So the National Party will be opposing this legislation.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Te Mana Whakawā I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge you—yesterday I had forgotten to do that. Thank you for also pronouncing my name correctly. So I look forward to future pronunciations from the rest of us. It is an honour and a privilege to speak on this Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Minister of Health the Minister's leadership in bringing this bill into urgency—because it is. It's the reason for the season. We are going into the festive season where we are having all these festivals and we want every person that attends the festivals to be safe. The Minister also had the insightful—we heard the other side talk about how there needs to be a contest of evidence that it didn't go to select committee da da da da da da; well actually they have the opportunity to do that next year when the Minister brings it back. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for that. So just to remind us that this bill ensures that our young people who attend festivals have access to drug testing and the opportunity to make an informed choice and for the organisers—if they find a dangerous substance in these drugs—that they use social media that they use every method that they have to warn festival goers and to warn the country of effects of the dangerous drug that's circulating. Also we know history tells us that Māori and Pasifika people are more likely to be arrested around New Zealand for certain offences. This bill ensures there's no risk from prosecution. The evidence taken at the testing will not be used to prosecute anybody who uses the testing services. I want to again commend this side of the House on my right—that we can all work together in this House except for that side together on something that will add value to the safety of all New Zealanders. Te Mana Whakawā tautoko ahau ki tēnei pire ki te Whare. Kia ora.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm not quite sure how we are incubating the drug dealers however—however. I'd also like to respond to the Hon Simon Bridges. I'm sorry I've never been to Rhythm and Vines. I have never been to One Love our own local concert and—Hon Simon Bridges: I'll go with you. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Oh all right it's a date Simon Bridges. It's a date—One Love. I would like to take a very quick call to refer to this bill. As we know it is about harm reduction. What we all wish for our children and the thing that we teach our children is that we very much hope that they will not go down this path but what we do know is that at a certain point our young people make their own decisions. Those decisions are being made with their peers in mind and yes there is peer pressure. What we really want is for kids to say no but what we do know is that they don't—that they actually take the opportunity to try things out—and this bill is merely simply about making it safer for those young people to try things. We are not encouraging them to do so. It is still illegal to take these drugs and to possess these drugs but what we want is safety for these young people. I'd also like to say very quickly a big thankyou to the volunteers who go to these concerts who spend day after day and evenings in hot stinky tents where they've got people and they have those conversations which talk about the harm that can occur when they take these drugs. Whether they are having the ingredients that the person who purchased them wants to take or not they're having those conversations and they are persuading or talking with people and saying This is the harm that will occur. Do you need help? Do you want an alternative to taking this?" That in essence is what this bill does. I commend it to the House."
Craig Liz; Rurawhe AdrianDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill is an incredibly important bill because it's going to ensure that young people are kept safe this festival season by putting in place a time-limited solution to make sure that drug-checking services and the festival organisers who host them can operate with legal certainty. That's because at the moment those that are operating these drug-testing services and those that are hosting them are at risk from prosecution under the current law. The issue is that services like KnowYourStuffNZ are actually going out there and they are doing the checking services because they believe that those services have the potential to reduce harm and save people's lives. Now this is only a temporary measure; so it expires 12 months after it comes into force because in the meantime the Minister of Health is going to go back to Cabinet with a more detailed solution. At that time Parliament will be able to debate in detail and will have a full select committee process so the people of New Zealand can come in and provide their feedback on that more detailed solution. Important bill; important to get under way before Christmas; and I commend this bill to the House.Hon Mark Mitchell: Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll let you get back to your desk! I call the Hon Mark Mitchell.
Rurawhe AdrianHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Rurawhe AdrianClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3 which are clauses on the title commencement and repeal.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you to the member who's just resumed his seat. As I recall the problem with the psychoactive substances legislation as passed in 2013 was that it set up a permitting regime under which no permits were given and all that meant was that the stuff that up to that time had actually been on shop counters and stuff just went underground and worse other substances entered the underground market and nobody knew what it was—and that's what put people's health at risk. This does the opposite. This says if you are getting stuff and you don't know what it is what the substance is or what it contains particularly when it comes to things like synthetic cannabis you can get it tested so you are safer. That option wasn't available under the psychoactive substances legislation as at 2013—not available even now lawfully. This is about making that process lawful to keep people safe and the message will be very clear. I don't think it's a good idea for people to be taking a whole heap of mind-altering substances but people do that and what we want to know is that if they are going to experiment with it if they are going to try stuff out that we have a regime that does the best we can to keep people safe. The psychoactive substances legislation didn't do that; this will do that.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the call on the last vote that we had for Part 1 the numbers given were incorrect. The Ayes are actually 86 and the Noes are 33. So the record will be amended.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I won't take too much of the time of the committee on my comments on this except to say that the operative sections of this part are clause 19 and clause 20 which set up exceptions to the criminal liability provisions of the Psychoactive Substances Act and simply mean as was provided for in Part 1 that a person who provides to a drug-checking service a psychoactive substance otherwise unlawful under the Psychoactive Substances Act is not—the drug-checking service at least is not criminally liable for having possession of it while they're carrying out the testing and until they return it to the person who has given it to them in the first place.
Rurawhe AdrianPart 2 Amendments to Psychoactive Substances Act 2013CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We now come to the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 17 to 23 Amendments to Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.
Rurawhe Adrian; Little AndrewPart 1 Amendments to Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Kāti rā tēnei te mihi ake ki a tātou. Members when we suspended last night the committee was debating Part 1 of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill which is the debate on clauses 4 to 16 Amendments to Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chairman. When we adjourned last night David Seymour had asked a searching question about the application of proposed section 35DH in clause 10 of the bill and he had wondered whether in the references to an employee or volunteer of a service provider not being liable for anything they do or fail to do in the course of the performance or intended performance of the service provider's functions that meant they were off the hook for for example health and safety breaches. I am pleased to advise the member that no they won't be.It's important of course—as former member of the House the Rt Hon Winston Peters used to say words matter. So you have to look at all the words of a provision. If the member looked at the rest of the words in subsection (1) of the proposed new section 35DH where it says unless it is shown that they acted in bad faith or without reasonable care"—now that's in relation to the performance of the functions as defined in the bill and those functions are set out in proposed section 35DB. Providing an employee or volunteer of a drug-checking service provider carries out those functions in good faith and with reasonable care they won't be liable for any act or omission on their part. It does not absolve them of the responsibility to comply with the requirements of the health and safety and employment legislation which of course will apply to the host of the event and any other person conducting a business or undertaking that is operating around the event."
SpeechTUESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2020(continued on Wednesday 2 December 2020)DRUG AND SUBSTANCE CHECKING LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.
Wednesday 9 December 2020 - Volume 749
12. Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and SafetyIBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety12. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What progress has he made on protecting security guards' terms and conditions?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Our Government recognises that we need to support security guards given their important work including being on the front lines of keeping our managed isolation facilities secure. We're delivering on a commitment to better protect their pay and conditions by adding them to Schedule 1A of the Employment Relations Act—giving them extra protections in a precarious industry.Ibrahim Omer: What effects will this have on the industry?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: With these new protections the 7800 security guards nationwide will be able to keep their jobs and retain their pay rates and conditions when a business is sold or restructured. This will help stop the race to the bottom where companies are under-cutting each other leading to an industry that competes on service quality which helps the companies already offering good conditions.Ibrahim Omer: What response has he seen to this announcement?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: This was welcomed by Jayson Ormsby a security guard that I met on Monday night. He said that restructures and contract changes were common and the law changes were a big relief. The Security Association chief executive Gary Morrison said that he was not against the changes and that there are a lot of good employers out there [but] there are a few ratbags [in the] industry." And finally the members opposite's favourite New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president Richard Wagstaff said "This law change means that security guards will be better protected at work" and "It is great to see the Government acting swiftly on this election promise."Kieran McAnulty: What has enabled this progress to occur?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: This progress is able to be made because in 2018 the Government amended the Employment Relations Act to allow new categories of employees to be added to the protections of Schedule 1A; reversing the changes made in 2014 by the previous National Government which closed off access to that category for vulnerable workers."