edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
5. Statistics—Collection of Rainbow Community InformationJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of StatisticsStatistics—Collection of Rainbow Community Information5. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Statistics: What steps are being taken by Statistics New Zealand to ensure better collection of information about the rainbow community?Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): I've written to the Government Statistician to make clear that work on collecting information on sex gender identity and sexual orientation is a priority for me as Minister of Statistics and have requested that Statistics New Zealand's work programme in this area be progressed at pace. I note that while it is a priority and work will be progressed future decisions on how these topics are collected is the sole responsibility of the Government Statistician. But I do hope that the 2018 Census will be the last that fails to give New Zealanders the chance to identify themselves based on gender or sexual identity.Jan Logie: Why were these options not included in this year's census?Hon JAMES SHAW: Despite rigorous testing Statistics New Zealand have not yet been able to develop a statistically robust way to collect information on gender and sexual identity as well as sexual orientation in a self-completed questionnaire format such as the census. It's possible that interview-based surveys like the General Social Survey may prove to be a far more robust way to gather this information. That's why Statistics New Zealand have included a question on sexual orientation in the 2018 General Social Survey. That will enable Statistics New Zealand to test the methods and questions employed in collecting this information and will help to develop a statistically robust set of questions for the census in 2023 as well as all other social surveys in the future.Jan Logie: What options are there in this year's census for the intersex people who cannot accurately assign themselves biologically to male or female?Hon JAMES SHAW: As an interim option in this year's census people who want to indicate their biological sex is neither male nor female will be able to request a paper form and mark both male and female. More information is available on the Statistics website.Jan Logie: Why is this work an area of priority for the Minister?Hon JAMES SHAW: This is about helping to bring down the walls of discrimination bullying and stigma. People in the rainbow community have been feeling marginalised by the absence of this kind of data gathering and we need it so that everyone can feel represented in New Zealand's data. But also we need this information for the Government to make informed public policy and funding decisions based on good data. We need good data in order to be able to serve the rainbow community and population effectively.
2. Economy—ReportsTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Reports2. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the health of the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): International credit ratings agency Moody's published their latest credit rating opinion for the New Zealand Government this week. It assessed New Zealand's economic strength as very high and maintained the Government's Aaa credit rating. Moody's expects New Zealand's economy to remain among the fastest-growing Aaa-rated economies in coming years. It also says that in the longer term New Zealand's potential GDP growth is higher than that of many Aaa-rated countries.Tamati Coffey: What contributing factors to the Aaa credit rating did Moody's identify in its assessment?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Moody's pointed to this Government's commitment to preserving fiscal surpluses and reducing Government debt as a percentage of GDP over the next five years. They also noted the Government's priorities of strengthening the economy and employment and the focus on improving living standards. I'm pleased to see that another international ratings agency recognises this Government's progressive economic plan and our fiscal responsibility.Tamati Coffey: What other reports has he seen on the health of the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While headline growth indicators for the economy are positive another report released this morning the Salvation Army's 2018 State of the Nation Report is a salutary reminder that success in the economy must translate to the lives of all New Zealanders. The report states it is clear that the benefits of this recent strong economic growth have not been shared across the board or trickled down as the theory would have it." The Government is committed to generating inclusive economic growth and taking a more active approach through initiatives like the Families Package to ensure that all New Zealanders share in prosperity.Hon James Shaw: Did the Minister see in any of these reports any mention of an $11.6 billion hole in the Government accounts?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I didn't—SPEAKER: No. Order! Order!"
SpeechProgress to be reported.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Food Safety Law Reform Bill with amendment and progress on the Customs and Excise Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Huo RaymondCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Raymond Huo. My apologies Raymond Huo.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chairperson Tolley. It's a great pleasure—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm going to apologise again to the member because the time has come for me to report progress on these bills before the committee tonight.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I have so much more to say. I thought I'd stick to the appropriate theme this time but I'm sure I'll be told if I don't. And I won't repeat myself—I'm sure the Minister will remember my earlier comments.Obviously the powers within the bill are very significant and one of the really significant and very far-reaching powers I think we need to think very carefully about is the power of seizure. One of the difficulties with seizure is that it can appear quite disproportionate in the sense that the use for example of a craft to smuggle goods can lead to the seizure of that craft and not only the goods which are forfeit almost without saying. But the fact that assets used for illicit purposes may themselves be subject to seizure suggests that we need to be cautious about that. There are two clauses of the bill that perhaps push out a bit further these powers and they are new to the legislation. One is the ability to condemn goods—that is to say they become property of the Crown if conditions for their release are not met—which is in new clause 166A proposed through Supplementary Order Paper 12. We can understand why that might happen particularly if there has been some flagrant disregard for example for the placement of a bond or whatever that might be. But in many of these situations particularly you've got to remember that there may not have been a trial and there may not have been a conviction. In these situations we've got to be very cautious indeed in seizing these goods first. So whilst the power may exist I wonder whether there ought not be some very careful discretion not to exercise it in all circumstances. The other interesting move in this piece of legislation is apparent in a number of places including clause 169 which is the extension of customs' powers to the contiguous zone—that is to say beyond the usual jurisdictional limits of New Zealand which are the immediate waters outside of New Zealand but far out beyond that. Now that is consistent with international covenants on the law of the sea but in terms of extending domestic powers because customs' powers are fundamentally domestic powers well beyond our national borders—that is something that I would invite the Minister to give some consideration to and perhaps justification for. Whilst these significant powers are—and that includes power to seize. The power particularly to seize illicit imports or exports extends beyond our immediate zone—our legal jurisdiction—out into the contiguous zone and that is a significant geographical extension of the power of customs. So I'd invite the Minister to just explain how that is perhaps both consistent with good governance and with our international obligations. Having said that clearly we need to equip our customs with all those necessary powers and by and large the powers are entirely justifiable in the hands of an agency that is subject to law and subject to review. And on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Tolley Anne; Whaitiri MekaPowers and ObligationsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It is my view that it is now reasonable to move on to the next theme which is the debate on powers and obligations comprising Part 3 Subparts 1 2 4 and 8 and schedule 5; Part 4; Part 5 Subparts 4 7 and 10 and schedule 8; and Part 6 Subpart 1.Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Just by way of introduction to theme two powers and obligations the committee may want to know that the bill confirms the majority of customs' existing powers while recognising privacy concerns. Powers are backed up with modern sanctions. Specific thresholds must be met before customs officers can search an electronic device. So for my learned colleague Dr Duncan Webb this is the part you might want to take a call on.The bill further goes on to clarify the traveller's obligation to provide access to an electronic device for such searches. Privileged information will be protected in full searches of electronic devices. Controlled deliveries are highly effective in breaking smuggling networks and will be possible across a wider range of goods such as objectionable publications. There will be a streamlined process for imposing controls on imported and exported goods. Also the commercial transportation operators may be required to provide the passenger name record information—or PNR—they generate such as ticketing data and payment information. Limits are prescribed on when the power can be exercised relative to arrival or departure times. PNR is used in the advance risk assessment of passengers. The chief executive must have regard to the recommended practices of the International Civil Aviation Organization in respect of PNR data.The bill restricts the Customs Service to collecting using and disclosing passengers' biometric information in order to verify passengers' identity and to establish whether a passenger is subject to travel restrictions imposed by the courts or the Parole Board.The bill allows customs to set performance standards for users of the Joint Border Management System and as a last resort to suspend or revoke a user's registration. The bill further introduces a modern cost-effective infringement notice scheme for minor offending. Regulations will set the infringement offences and fees. Finally forfeiture and seizure provisions have been modernised and minor improvements made. But in substance the provisions are unchanged from the existing Act. Can I just make one small comment before I resume my seat. It is an acknowledgment that in this particular part at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submitted that this clause should allow the Minister of Customs to oppose a prohibition with reference to an established iwi interest rather than simply the public interest. I just want to acknowledge the select committee which accepted that the public interest test is broad enough to consider an established iwi interest. It is in the public interest to consider that the interests of iwi are taken into account.
Tolley AnneCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry the member's time is up.
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Madam Chairperson Tolley thank you very much. I just want to rise and answer a couple of questions—very good questions—that have come from the right side of me. Of course there is always an open invitation to the left side to ask some questions.In terms of the member Louisa Wall I just want to pick up the question she asked in relation to clause 288 around the $5000 upper limit threshold. Her question I understand was the rationale behind that $5000. Suffice to say that—well what I'm getting advised is—the $5000 is regarded as a reasonable upper limit to the $3000 and it's amended so that it's no longer open-ended. So there was obviously an attempt to kind of bring it in within a reasonable amount so it wasn't open-ended. So in terms of that—just initially answering your question—I also want to say that the Regulations Review Committee raised concerns about the fact that it was open-ended; hence the reason why we've got that $5000 limit. The Regulations Review Committee identified it and I think that's where we've got to the $5000. So that's just in response to that particular question.In terms of your further question to the member Louisa Wall around clause 297 particularly around the Privacy Commissioner—her question around the guarantee of protection of privacy information-sharing between agencies—under clause 297 we're talking about allowing the Privacy Commissioner to require chief executives to periodically review an agreement. So just for the member the Privacy Commissioner may request a review of an information disclosure agreement on any grounds he or she sees fit—for example changes in data practices non-technology. A review would look at the agreement's reasonableness against the changed circumstances—so just another layer of certainty for the very important question that the member raised around guarantees of the privacy of that information. So just a short call to answer and respond to the member's questions in the committee.
SpeechInformation DisclosureCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members we come first to the debate on information disclosure comprising Part 5 Subparts 5 and 6.
Tolley AnneCUSTOMS AND EXCISE BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee the debate will be conducted on the following four themes: information disclosure powers and obligations revenue and trade and mechanics and miscellaneous. There will be no debate on clauses 1 and 2 but clause 2 may be referred to in relation to the commencement of provisions as they are debated. The Chairperson will determine the length of the debate on each theme so there will be no closure motions accepted. There is no limit however on the number of calls per member. However the practice will continue that no more than two consecutive calls will be given per member. All questions will be put at the end of the debate.
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm pleased to take a call on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. Just by way of opening remarks I thank the Minister for taking a call to remind us all of the purpose of this bill. Can I also acknowledge the Hon David Bennett and obviously the former Government from which the bill originated as a result of the botulism scare in 2013 and obviously the decision by Cabinet in 2014 to limit the scope of this bill. So thank you to the Minister for explaining that.The bill as he's quite rightly indicated is another measure to ensure food safety production in this industry which is very important to many of the folk around the country. While the Minister was explaining and answering some of the former questions it reminded me that where I come from the Hawke's Bay I enjoy frequently every Sunday morning the Hawke's Bay Farmers' Market. They seem to have become a regular feature in many of our electorates.At that fair I'm always impressed with the innovation in the food that's been presented over the many years that I've been going to the Hawke's Bay Farmers' Market—food like olive oil and recently we've been having ostrich meat on the menu. I do want to say in relation to Part 1 of this bill Minister where you talked about the verification process I did have the occasion to talk to a particular supplier who passed on his comments around the supply of ostrich meat and his determination to farm ostrich meat. But he did pass on the drawn-out verification process that he had to face. In fact he talked about it taking more than 12 months to get verification.So there is a part in Part 1 of this particular bill that addresses verification and I guess putting it in layman's terms for this particular supplier I'd be keen for you to give the House if possible a bit more detail on how you see the verification process actually being rolled out. You talked about website tools to make that possible. But I'm sure for you as a West Coast MP and me as an East Coast MP—nothing beats the face-to-face engagement on the ground to help facilitate the ongoing innovation that a lot of our small providers in the food industry are keen to unveil.I do know that you touched on this Minister but for the gentleman that I had the pleasure of not only tasting his ostrich meat but actually listening to some of his concerns in Hawke's Bay around verification I would ask if the Minister would just make it crystal clear how he sees it rolling out both in terms of people on the ground where our small operators are as well as the self-help tools that you addressed in terms of making the process a lot more seamless online. So Minister that's an important question for some of our small providers in the Hawke's Bay where I come from and I'm hoping that you can give a bit more clarity and certainty to the question around verification and making it a lot more seamless for our very small but very innovative operators around the country. Thanks very much for that.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Mr Chair for that. I will take one minute and 55 seconds to try and finish off what I started which was now three months ago—so best of luck.The bill itself—I demonstrated that I was incredibly supportive of this bill. It's gone through the select committee and all of the suggestions have been made. How controversial is it? Not very controversial; in fact it's had quite a bit of favour from the sector itself. So that's something to be applauded. It's in response of course to the botulism scare that happened here in New Zealand and as somebody from an electorate that is reliant heavily on tourism where we encourage people from all around the world to come and visit our shores we need to make sure that we're sending a positive message that when you get here our food is going to be safe.The proposals are mostly enabling or clarifying positions to strengthen the food safety system. We're going to be through this bill implementing the inquiry recommendations and the bill includes some other minor enhancements and technical amendments. The bill will also amend three main food safety Acts so that where possible similar provisions apply across the sectors. As I've said it's relatively straightforward this one. It had unanimous support and both sides of the House supported it during the second reading. The consultation itself took place and there was good support as I've said from the sector; a very solid piece of work. They also looked into the financial impacts this bill was going to have and I'm pleased to report that there were no immediate costs from the bill. There may be some cost to the Ministry for Primary Industries and to business to implement the proposals and that will be explored in more detail as regulations are developed.Two points that I wanted to—
Rurawhe AdrianFOOD SAFETY LAW REFORM BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 12 December 2017.Parts 1 to 4 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): When we were last considering this bill we were debating the question that Parts 1 to 4 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Tamati Coffey had the call and has one minute and 55 seconds remaining.
Conservation (Infringement System) Bill — First Reading
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise with pleasure to speak on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its first reading. Of course National supports this bill; it is of course our bill and it is very nice to be back talking on a bill that has cross-party support. I'm not going to say too much more than the previous contributors because it's been quite a comprehensive debate already. Can I just start by acknowledging my colleague and my electorate neighbour the Hon Maggie Barry for this excellent piece of work. The Department of Conservation (DOC) has wanted an infringement system for a long time and it's been very persuasive in outlining its need for it. The middle step that this bill creates will allow DOC to concentrate on its core business while still efficiently and appropriately responding to conservation offences. This bill is really an effective in-between for DOC rangers allowing fines to be issued for offences that deserve more than a warning but less than a prosecution. These offences can include minor breaches of fishing regulations camping in the wrong place dogs being let off the leash in prohibited or protected areas and taking plants from national parks. These offences aren't to be minimised of course but it is patently clear that punishing them with an infringement system commensurate with the level of offending is more appropriate than the heavy-duty tool of prosecution. Prosecution has its place but for lower-level offences it's a costly exercise that is time-consuming for DOC leaves people with criminal records takes up court time that can be better used and is ultimately not commensurate with the crime.A similar fine system exists under other statutes including the Fisheries Act the Resource Management Act and the Biosecurity Act. There is widespread support for the type of infringement system that this bill creates to deal with those less serious offences at the minor end of the scale while still holding people to account. This bill delivers what DOC wants: a flexible system that many other departments already have. New Zealand's natural environment is a top priority for National and this bill is a further step towards protecting it. I'm looking forward to scrutinising this bill when it comes to the Environment Committee which I serve on and I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Chairperson Williams it does give me pleasure to speak again on this bill. I'd just like to speak about the Pāhau River. The member who represents Canterbury there may be aware of this but this is a river that recently has been given an award. It is the river in New Zealand that has reduced the E. coli count by the most for any river in New Zealand which is a wonderful achievement by the dairy farmers in that area. That's on the back of some other great achievements in North Canterbury where by the use of pivot spray by the use of moisture probes and only irrigating when necessary and by the use of riparian planting some great things have been achieved in North Canterbury in dairy farming. However one of the problems is that those achievements have been lost in the noise that's been created deliberately by those who seek to turn town against country on this and other issues—which will bring me very shortly to this bill and to summarise this bill.The important point is that this bill ensures that there will be sufficient governance of the dairy industry to ensure not only for farmers but for the rest of New Zealand that the industry—which we all accept is extremely important to New Zealand—is properly governed. We've heard that in the past through suspensory loans through subsidies and through other means Governments have been very involved in ensuring that farming does stay in a good state and this Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2)—DIRA as we call it—is simply an extension of that. It is about ensuring that we get an extension to the exemption—that we get this extension that will guarantee we can do the necessary work to ensure there is sufficient competition in dairying in the South Island; to make sure that the continued intervention—positive intervention necessary intervention that has made the New Zealand dairy industry and other parts of farming in New Zealand the success they are today—continues.I recommend this bill to the House as a means of ensuring that the necessary governance over this vital industry is maintained. Thank you Madam Chair.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): As we have heard dairy obviously plays a key role in New Zealand. This bill amends the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 (DIRA) to prevent the expiry of certain provisions in May 2018. The Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) aims to prevent the expiry of those provisions to provide certainty for the dairy industry about the regulatory regime. There are three key words here: No. 1 is continuity No. 2 is consistency and No. 3 is competition. We've certainly heard a lot about competition and markets thrive under competition and that's what this bill attempts to do.Dairy makes up approximately 40 percent of New Zealand's total primary sector exports. New Zealand's largest dairy processor Fonterra as we know was established in 2001 from a merger of the two largest dairy cooperatives and the New Zealand Dairy Board. It was created under a Labour Government and it is something we're certainly very proud of.The DIRA Fonterra provisions are due to expire in the South Island on 30 May 2018 hence the reason for this bill. This bill will allow a more strategic focus to be taken to issues facing the dairy industry including for example environmental issues—as we've heard from the member Gareth Hughes—land use and how to achieve the best outcomes for farmers consumers and the New Zealand economy.The DIRA was passed in 2001 to manage Fonterra's dominant position in dairy markets until sufficient competition emerged. We've heard a lot about that around that aspect. The DIRA therefore contains automatic expiry provisions that were triggered in 2015 in response to Fonterra's reduced market share in the South Island. If we look at DIRA in the South Island—my family once had a dairy farm there and it was the largest producing dairy farm in the South Island; it had only 300 cows. But certainly this is an example of the Labour Party standing up for farmers in the South Island.The DIRA regulatory provisions on Fonterra in Subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2 provide a means of promoting efficiency that would ordinarily be provided through competitive market pressures. Hon Ruth Dyson: Which you'll talk about later on Part 2. We're on Part 1.JAMIE STRANGE: Ah. So just coming back to the three key points there I mentioned around No. 1 continuity—so it provides continuity for farmers it provides certainty for the market around consistency and around competition. It allows for checks and balances around Fonterra.So we certainly commend this bill to the House and we're not going to take too much more time. Thank you for listening to contributions.
McKelvie Ian; Williams PotoIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just wanted to raise a point of order with respect to this bill and remind the committee that the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act passed in the time that we have dealt with the No. 2 bill in the committee stage. I thought that was pretty amazing because that was quite a substantial piece of legislation.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call another member to speak I am encouraging you all to speak specifically to the substance of the bill and to give us some discussion and debate that hasn't been heard before. We've been going for an hour and a half and the substantive part of the bill appears to have been covered. So I am encouraging members to take a call if they have something new to add to the debate.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you very much Mr Chair. The member who has just spoken Nathan Guy has raised some fairly legitimate I think questions about the process the Government has followed in this bill so I am very happy to respond to those as to why the bill was introduced under urgency yesterday and then urgency was discontinued last night and the bill has been brought back during the regular sitting time today.The bill was introduced under urgency because we want to have it passed by the end of the month. We want to provide the certainty to the farming community in the South Island that will go with that. Therefore the only way to do that and to have it passed by the end of the month was to ensure that there was no select committee process between the first and second readings. Urgency was required to deliver that yesterday and we did just that last night.We could have continued through urgency this morning for example and passed the bill before lunchtime today. However that would have most likely affected the select committees that Parliament had scheduled to meet this morning. I'm aware that there are a number of annual review hearings that took place this morning including one on my own portfolio of education that most likely would have been cancelled had the House been sitting. I am sure that the Opposition members in their role of holding the Government to account would have been somewhat disappointed had I as Leader of the House put Parliament into urgency that would have resulted in annual reviews being cancelled because the House was sitting and select committees aren't supposed to meet while the House is sitting. So therefore I made the decision to end urgency last night and bring the bill back for the remaining part of its committee stage this afternoon then we will do the third reading tomorrow and the Government will still meet its objective of passing this bill through reasonably promptly to give that certainty required.The member David Bennett asked a variety of questions as did Nathan Guy as to why certain provisions were not in the legislation. The legislation quite simply preserves the status quo. As the member previously indicated it simply pushes out the clock to stop the South Island provisions from expiring whilst a wider review takes place. The matters that the members have raised simply sit outside of that objective. They are wider than that objective. The objective is very simple: it's to preserve the status quo while a wider review takes place.The final question is: why the urgency? Well obviously there is a ticking clock; there is a deadline here. I note that the previous bill that was introduced into the House in March last year by the previous Government was not progressed in any way. A full select committee process could have taken place between March and the general election had the previous Government thought that this was a priority. They clearly didn't. Therefore this Government is left cleaning up the mess that we inherited.
Points of Order — Urgent Debate Application—Speaker's Ruling
Seymour David; Mallard TrevorDebate interrupted.POINTS OF ORDERUrgent Debate Application—ProgressDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In accordance with the Standing Orders I reissued a request made yesterday for an application for an urgent debate on a matter. I notice you haven't acknowledged or ruled on that. Is it not normal for the Speaker to rule on an application for an urgent debate?SPEAKER: The letter was opened in my office after question time had started. I will consider it and rule on it tomorrow.
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Introduction
Voting — Leave to Record Vote — Child Poverty Reduction Bill
Ministerial Statements — Cyclone Gita—Assistance for Affected Countries
Speaker's Statements — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Presiding Officers
Hipkins ChrisSALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL (RENEWAL OF LICENCES) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)IntroductionHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In accordance with discussions of the Business Committee I seek leave for the order of the day for the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill to be discharged and for the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2) to be introduced and set down as members' order of the day No. 5.For the information of the House the bill is in the name of Louisa Wall and it was incorrectly drafted by the Office of the Clerk. The result is that the sole substantive provision in the bill makes reference to a non-existent section of the principal Act. If the bill had not been replaced then the House would debate a bill that contains a fundamental error and if it passed first reading it would likely be confusing for the public who wish to make submissions on it. By granting leave the House will enable the bill to be replaced with one that contains the accurate amendment. I note that the error was made by the Office of the Clerk and not by the member in charge of the bill whose submitted draft cited the correct sections of the principal Act.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none. But before I call on the Clerk to give the bill its introduction I do want to remind members that when bills are drafted by other people in their names they are responsible for checking them before putting them in the ballot. It is the sole responsibility of the member and I think the member concerned is exceptionally lucky that the House has been this generous.
Mallard TrevorQuestion No. 10 to Minister 13 FebruarySPEAKER: Before we come to question No. 4 from the Hon Gerry Brownlee I said yesterday that I would look at the content of a particular supplementary question to question No. 10. Upon reflection having looked at it I should have ruled out a question from the Deputy Prime Minister and I apologise for not acting on it at the time.Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about giving us one of our supplementaries back?SPEAKER: Or taking one away for commenting on the ruling.
Seymour David; Mallard TrevorVOTINGLeave to Record Vote—Child Poverty Reduction BillDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave of the House to have a vote entered opposed to the Child Poverty Reduction Bill the context being that I had authorised another member to cast a proxy but as the bill passed on the voices there was no party vote.SPEAKER: Well the House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that process being followed? There appears to be none; a vote will be so recorded.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Leader—Green): On behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand I extend our sympathies and support to the people of Tonga Samoa and Fiji in the wake of Cyclone Gita. The Green Party welcomes the Government's quick response to provide relief aid to help in the clean-up and recovery and we will back further support as the full extent of the damage and loss becomes clearer. The images of destruction that we have seen from Tonga are truly heartbreaking. It is almost impossible to comprehend what it's like to be caught up in such a ferocious storm with Gita carrying winds of nearly 280 kilometres an hour. It's an absolute credit to the authorities and to the emergency teams in Tonga Samoa and Fiji as well as the people of those nations that they saw the danger coming and prepared as best they could. But in the face of a category 4 or category 5 cyclone there is only so much they can do. So once again our hearts do go out to our friends in Tonga Samoa and Fiji those with whom we have such close ties and we also want to extend our support to family members here in New Zealand who have been watching and worrying from so far away. Rest assured the Green members of this Government will provide our support to ensure that our friends and neighbours who are caught in the path of Cyclone Gita will have the help that they need.In my capacity as Minister for Climate Change in a Government that has clearly stated its commitment to meeting the challenges of climate change can I say that the tragic destruction that we have witnessed in Tonga the extensive flooding that Cyclone Gita left in Samoa and the expected damage in the south of Fiji only strengthens our resolve to do what New Zealand can to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to the frequency and severity of these kinds of extreme weather events. We have a responsibility to our whānau in the Pacific who live in such vulnerable environments as Cyclone Gita has once again demonstrated to show leadership on climate change and to show the determination and action that other countries can follow. But of course the immediate challenge and the focus must be on the clean-up recovery and rebuild and our hearts go out to those in the Islands.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you. On behalf of the National Party I'd like to join the Prime Minister in acknowledging the uncertainty many of our Pacific neighbours are facing in the wake of Cyclone Gita and also to affirm our support for the Government's humanitarian responses. Our thoughts and the thoughts of all New Zealanders are with those people across Tonga Samoa and Fiji who are injured or displaced and those who are now looking ahead to how they rebuild their homes and their lives.Disasters of this type are now all too regular an occurrence and I could only suggest that infrastructure resilience becomes a priority for New Zealand aid and development in the Pacific. Equally a more speedy process for biosecurity approvals on produce imports from the Islands may assist these economies in the recovery that their people must now begin. We also extend our thoughts to those here in New Zealand with families in Gita's path who are still waiting for communications that are yet to be restored with communities across the Pacific.As the Prime Minister expressed New Zealand has a longstanding history of being on hand to help when the Pacific is challenged by natural disasters. We encourage that support and that tangible help. I'd like to pay tribute to the staff from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the New Zealand Defence Force the Ministry of Health and Fire and Emergency New Zealand who are working alongside their Pacific colleagues to coordinate and deliver support to communities that need it. Our best wishes are with them.
Ardern JacindaMINISTERIAL STATEMENTSCyclone Gita—Assistance for Affected CountriesRt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I wish to make a ministerial statement. In the early hours of Tuesday morning tropical cyclone Gita made landfall in Tonga causing significant damage to homes livelihoods and infrastructure. It also impacted on the islands of the southern group of Fiji on Tuesday with reporting from damage assessments expected over the course of the day. Prior to this Gita caused widespread flooding in Samoa. Sadly there has now been one confirmed fatality and some people have been injured. Whenever disaster strikes in the Pacific New Zealand is on hand to help. Our Pacific neighbours know they can turn to us in times of need and New Zealanders can feel that we have done all we can in our response to date. We remain in close contact with the Samoan authorities and have made initial funding of $50000 available which is being used to support damage assessments as well as relief for flood-affected families including those that remain in evacuation centres. Our high commission in Apia is working with local authorities and NGO partners to distribute New Zealand's pre-positioned relief supplies. In Tonga where the destruction is more severe and widespread I want to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for making initial funding of $750000 available before the cyclone even reached landfall. It has delivered over 10 tonnes of aid including 1000 tarpaulins 200 shelter tool kits 500 family hygiene kits and 2300 water containers to meet immediate needs. We've also deployed a 10-person team of experts from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the New Zealand Defence Force the Ministry of Health and Fire and Emergency New Zealand to assist with the coordination of New Zealand support and to continue needs assessments. The New Zealand Defence Force carried out aerial surveillance yesterday and collected imagery to assist the Tongan Government with damage assessments. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Governments of Samoa Tonga and Fiji in responding to this natural disaster. We remain in close contact with Tonga Samoa and Fiji authorities to determine how we can provide further support and work collaboratively into the future. In the meantime our thoughts are with all of those who have been affected.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.SPEAKER'S STATEMENTSChamber Lobbies and Galleries—Presiding OfficersSPEAKER: I've got just two brief points to make. The first results from a couple of members who looked slightly frightened as I came down the Noes lobby on my way in. I just want to make it clear that I'm not asking for either the lobbies or the entrance to Parliament to be blocked off from members of Parliament at the time that I am using it. People are most welcome to use it at the same time as me and if they see me coming they don't need to turn around and go the other way. Another slightly more serious matter: members may have noticed presiding officers using computers in the Chamber. They only use them to message the Clerk at the Table as an alternative to passing notes. This is a trial that has run from the beginning of the Parliament following the use of similar systems in some overseas parliaments.
Thursday 1 February 2018 - Volume 727
Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading
12. Customs Service—Role in Harm ReductionLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of CustomsCustoms Service—Role in Harm Reduction12. LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Customs: What advice has she received regarding the role Customs plays in reducing harm to New Zealand families whānau and communities?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): I have been advised that each year the use of illicit drugs costs this country $1.8 billion in social harm and Government interventions. The social cost of amphetamines alone is close to $350 million. Every year each frequent user imposes $15000 on their whānau and friends. The cost on families and communities is astronomical and this Government is absolutely committed to bucking this trend and reducing harm. Customs' role in this is vital through their focus on stopping the illicit importation of methamphetamine and disrupting the ability of organised crime groups to influence the market and profit from this smuggling activity—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. She's well and truly answered the question.Louisa Wall: What advice has the Minister received regarding the role customs plays in reducing harm to New Zealand families whānau and communities?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: We believe seizures made offshore last year before they reached New Zealand prevented $57 million in potential social harm. In 2015-16 34000 New Zealanders reported using meth—1.1 percent of the adult population—but the disturbing thing is waste water results indicate actual use is much higher. Māori are three to four times more likely to use amphetamines than non-Māori in 2015-16. Declaring a war on P is a priority for customs.
11. Local Government Minister—Written Questions ResponsesJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Local GovernmentLocal Government Minister—Written Questions Responses11. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all her answers to written questions?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Yes.Jami-Lee Ross: Does she stand by her answer to written question 15168 where she said she'd received no correspondence from the Whangarei District Council between 26 October and 28 November 2017?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.Jami-Lee Ross: How then can it be that her office replied to correspondence from the Whangarei District Council from 7 November 2017 when the council asked to meet with the Minister?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member can't understand the difference between an invitation and a piece of correspondence he might want to ponder that a little bit further.Jami-Lee Ross: Does the Minister still stand by all of her answers given yesterday where she said she'd received no correspondence from the Whakatāne District Council when clearly she had replied to it as demonstrated yesterday?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is referring to the document that he tabled in the House yesterday which he described as correspondence from the Whakatāne District Council" and then sought leave to table and was given leave to table he was in fact referring to an invitation the Minister had received from the chair of Local Government New Zealand's zone 2.Jami-Lee Ross: Is the Minister telling the House that correspondence received from the office of the Mayor of the Whakatāne District Council isn't from the Whakatāne District Council?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Not if he's acting in a different role.Jami-Lee Ross: When can councils and the public have any confidence that this Minister will start taking her job seriously?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Minister does take her job very seriously and she's not spending her time obsessing about the difference between correspondence and invitations as the member seems to be.Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a letter to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta the Minister of Local Government from the Whangarei District Council on 7 November 2017.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Is there a group? If so—Jami-Lee Ross: This is the last one. There'll be more next week. I seek leave to table a letter from the office of Nanaia Mahuta to the Mayor of Whangarei dated 27 November 2017.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."