edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Seymour DavidHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. On behalf of ACT I'd like to join with other party leaders in offering congratulations and respect and aroha to you Dame Kiri at the time of your 80th birthday and for your magnificent career. I think it's fair to say as Paul Goldsmith has said that Kiwis love it when one of us stands on top of the world a pre-eminent for such a long period of time but also the fact that you did it at a time when most of us were best known for rugby racing and beer showed the world and ourselves that we could be something different that we could be at the top of the world in opera. I think it helped New Zealanders find out who we are in the world and not just stand proudly but stand in a different way. And for so many New Zealanders who stand differently in many respects of their life I suspect that what you did was a revelation. Other members have shared stories and anecdotes of their connection to you throughout their lives. I was unfortunate to have to wait until just this afternoon to meet you but it was well worth it. And I hear stories about your very accurate shooting of pheasants with none other than the Queen. Now you know the Labour Party have offered you a membership but could I just suggest that maybe they're not the right party for you after all. And besides I hate to think what they'd tax you! Dame Kiri you are a true gem and a treasure for our nation. We're so honoured to have you here in our Parliament today. When we hear that soaring note—which I promise I will not repeat—at the end of the first line of Pōkarekare Ana" the hairs on the back of our necks stand up because it reminds us of who we are and the best of all New Zealand. Happy birthday and thank you."
Davidson MaramaHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai tēnā koe. E te māreikura tēnei te mihi haritau ki a koe e te whāea e te kuia. Nei rā taku hōnore te mihi ki a koe i tō huritau me ngā piki me ngā heke o tō haerenga tēnā koe tēnā koutou. [Dear friend happy birthday to you dear matriarch dear esteemed one. It is my honour to acknowledge you on your special born day and the trials and tribulations of your journey. Greetings to you.]It was indeed my honour today to want to speak and put my hand up to be able to honour Dame Kiri Te Kanawa who I'm not sure will remember but back in I think the mid to late 1980s—my father is Rawiri Paratene. He directed and toured with you for a documentary that was made at the time and I toured with him. I was on that road trip which I believe might have started at Te Poho-o-Rawiri Marae in Tūranga-nui. I think we travelled around Ūawa Hauiti. We spoke to the Kerekere whānau the Te Kani whānau Bob Mahuika. In that documentary Dame Kiri Te Kanawa was also spreading waiata Māori in among the different captions and the different parts of that documentary. I was a young girl and I was very very pleased today—I don't think that I have had the chance to see you up close since those decades ago. It was one of the proudest moments for my father to be able to be involved with touring with you. We got to see a part of the countryside that we hadn't seen before in many of the times. I remember that we also went through the sort of Waitomo Caves area and one of the biggest memories of that whole trip was I remember us also staying on Lake Taupō for some of your visit and the interviews that we were doing. I remember us being able to fit in a trip to Waitomo Caves while we were in these areas. I just remember the grace. I was a young girl who wasn't fully steeped in the land of opera but what I do remember is the grace with which Dame Kiri held what seemed to me like the privilege of returning home and being with whānau on marae. I remember the stays on the various marae and the whānau being really clear that they wanted to source some caravans for you to also have some space and we really wanted to honour that. But I just remember your grace and your wanting to be a part of all of these connections back to tūrangawaewae and whakapapa and whānau at the time. My father will be so pleased to know that I have been able to raise that on the floor today to congratulate you on your incredible international and decades of longstanding fame because of your unique talent and ability—fancy having one of our own wahine Māori right at the top of international and longstanding acknowledgment of talent in opera in the singing space. So it really is my pleasure. Thank you Mr Speaker. Hari huritau [Happy birthday] Dame Kiri Te Kanawa.
Jackson WillieHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Mihi ki a koe e te whaea tae mai nei whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā haere mai haere mai haere mai.[Warm convivial greetings to you madam. It is an honour to have you here with us today. Welcome welcome welcome.]I rise to salute and celebrate the 80th birthday of Dame Kiri Te Kanawa on behalf of the Labour Party and particularly our Labour Māori caucus. And I emphasise Māori" because Dame Kiri is probably the most famous Māori performer of the last two generations. She comes of course from two very humble tribes: the first humble one Ngāti Maniapoto and then the even more humble tribe of Ngati Porou which coincidentally happens to be my iwi also which I think makes us relations. But we do want to wish her happy birthday and of course thank her for her significant contribution to music and the fine arts as one of the great world sopranos.We know of course of her beautiful renditions of great composers such as Puccini Mozart and Strauss but it is in the Māori language area that I really want to thank her. Her Māori language album in 1999 and her 2014 album Waiata really elevated te reo Māori to the world stage. Beautiful songs like "Karu Karu" "Pōkarekare Ana" and "Tarakihi" are now absolutely huge hits around the world. So we thank her; we thank her for her contribution to our Māori language. And I was reminded by the Māori caucus that we've lost a few seats and we have an available spot in the North at the moment Dame Kiri! So feel free to get in touch with me if you feel the need to join politics.Tēnei te mihi ki a koe e te whāea mihi nui ki a koe mō tō tautoko i tō tātou reo. E te māreikura ko tēnei te mihi maioha ki a koe ko koe tētahi o ngā tauira mana wahine i te ao Māori i te ao whānui. Kia ora tātou.[This is a warm greeting to you madam and a thankyou also for supporting our language. Dear madam this is a warm convivial greeting to you. You are a true reflection of Māori woman for the Māori people and everyone else as well. Cheers everyone.]"
Brownlee Gerry; Goldsmith PaulMOTIONSDame Kiri Te Kanawa—80th BirthdaySPEAKER: We come now to a very special occasion for Parliament. In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee I call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith to move a motion without notice.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That this House recognise the achievements and career of Dame Kiri Te Kanawa and congratulate her as she celebrates her 80th birthday.Very few New Zealanders attain global pre-eminence in their field; even fewer hold on to that pre-eminence for decades. Dame Kiri Te Kanawa was one such Kiwi. Her 80th birthday provides an opportunity for us to acknowledge her talent and her distinguished career. This House is a place of debate and confrontation as well as cooperation but it should also be a place where from time to time we pause to reflect on the great deeds of some of our fellow New Zealanders.Kiri began her journey in Gisborne then travelled with her adopted family to Auckland to learn her craft from Sister Mary Leo. In 1971 she made her Covent Garden debut as the Countess in Mozart's Marriage of Figaro. From there she ascended to the highest levels of international opera thrilling audiences and reviewers alike. One wrote She makes hideously difficult music sound easy as pie." When Charles and Diana married in 1981 before a global audience of 600 million the royal family turned to Kiri Te Kanawa to sing Handel's Let the bright Seraphim—the seraphim is a form of angel Willie. I remember watching the wedding in the middle of the night and feeling the feeling of pride that came with seeing a Kiwi at the heart of such an event.Honours have been heaped on her including the Order of New Zealand and the Order of Australia. As well as thrilling audiences she's inspired many fellow New Zealanders to reach for the stars. She inspires but she also helps. Twenty years ago her Kiri Te Kanawa Foundation as King Charles noticed was established and has helped more than 40 singers succeed globally as well.Dame Kiri Te Kanawa we honour you today."
Visitors — Cook Islands—Chairperson of the Cook Islands Parliament Public Accounts Committee
Obituaries — Rt Hon Jonathan Lucas Hunt ONZ
Brownlee GerryVISITORSCook Islands—Chairperson of the Cook Islands Parliament Public Accounts CommitteeSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome the Hon Tingika Elikana Chairperson of the Cook Islands Parliament Public Accounts Committee and his accompanying delegation who are present here in the gallery today.
Brownlee GerryOBITUARIESRt Hon Jonathan Lucas Hunt ONZSPEAKER: Members I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 March 2024 of the Rt Hon Jonathan Lucas Hunt ONZ who represented the electorate of New Lynn from 1966 to 1993 and continued to serve as a list member until 2005. He was the Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1999 until 2005. Before becoming Speaker he held several ministerial portfolios including Minister of Broadcasting Postmaster-General Minister of Tourism and Minister of Communications. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of loss to his family along with our sympathy as they deal with the death of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me to observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.Members stood as a mark of respect.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 19 MARCH 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill — Second Reading (continued)
Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Tuesday 20 August 2024 (continued on Wednesday 21 August 2024) - Volume 777
Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Steve Abel's amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 5AA set out on Amendment Paper 58 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Darleen Tana's amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 5AAA set out on Amendment Paper 77 is out of order as being the same in substance as an amendment previously not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Part 2 agreed to.
Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan's tabled amendment to clause 1 to inset and retrospective validation" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 1 agreed to."
Kuriger Barbara; Utikere TangiCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to clause 2—TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Chair. Thank you Madam Chair. I'm just wanting to seek your guidance. You accepted a closure motion which I don't have any comment or challenge on but just prior to that you did indicate from the Chair that there was advice that was still being sought. Now the committee is at a point in time where it has now voted on clause 1 but some of that advice was not given to the committee. So I'm just wanting your clarity around that.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just to clarify for the member the advice that we're getting around amendment papers is actually further down in the order. Thank you.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you for the opportunity to have a further call. I actually just want to pick up on some of the points that my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty has made in his point of order. Because as the spokesperson in this debate I have been looking specifically at the broader issues here. I actually do have a number quite a number of specific questions particularly about the commencement date. It's actually a very critical part of the bill and I even saw the Minister nodding. So I just want to foreshadow that I have deliberately left off questions—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK so perhaps we can have those questions now.RACHEL BOYACK: Well Madam Chair just with respect—doing our best here to actually follow the Standing Orders and as I understand it when we get to particularly clause 2 I will have some very fulsome questions around the commencement date. So I have questions now—just foreshadowing that just to be really clear because obviously I understand it's helpful if members can provide advice to the committee that they have a number of questions so that the Chairs can actually allow people to make further contributions. Around the purpose I have two further questions for the Minister. I do refer to the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC) guidelines but on a different matter and this is around a strong understanding that when we're passing legislation that we should actually understand who may or may not be affected. That is actually part of the LDAC guidelines. So one of the things that we haven't yet engaged with the Minister about is a discussion about exactly how many people are affected. He does have his officials here and I would very much hope that there would be some information provided about how many businesses and sole traders operate instalment plans currently and how many have over the last 20 years. Because actually it's an important matter for us to understand the extent of how far this bill goes in terms of those who are actually covered by it. The second question I have which is specific and is around the purpose of the Act is around the penalty interest. One of my questions is whether the Minister considered also including in the regulations—and is going to consider—details around the penalty interest whether he considered looking at those penalty interest rates in the legislation that we're looking at tonight and whether he would look at including them in the regulations in the future.
McAnulty Kieran; Kuriger BarbaraHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Could you please provide some clarification of what you meant by We've nearly exhausted debate on clauses 1 2 and 3."CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well we're hearing the detail around validating the past practice and questions around how we move forward based on that. The first three talk about title commencement and principal Act so we have kind of defined what we're trying to do here and the Minister has made it clear at this point that he wasn't—Hon Kieran McAnulty: The question however Madam Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes we still have to put the questions. I accept that. But I'm just saying we're actually hearing things that are related to levies being collected by instalments which is down in clause 4.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): In Speaker's ruling 127/1 it outlines that in a clause-by-clause consideration the debate on clause 1 will be a more fulsome debate around the bill. That then allows for contributions to be around the broader aspects of the bill.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes I accept that.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you for that. Given that that Speaker's ruling is quite clear on that matter it comes as quite a surprise to get an indication from you that in your view we have covered clauses 2 and 3. So the reassurance that I think the committee needs at this point is that whilst that might be your view in terms of the topics covered in this debate when the question for clauses 2 and 3 is put there will still be the opportunity to contribute to that question.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes."
Rutherford Tom; Kuriger BarbaraTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take one call from Rachel Boyack but I think we've really exhausted actually clauses 1 2 and 3 and some of the questions are actually going further. So I'm going to take one question on that because we're just waiting on some advice about some amendments for clauses further down. But I think we are pretty much exhausting the first three.
Boyack Rachel; Doocey MattRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for engaging in this debate. But I did want to come back to my initial question because the Minister's response to my question about the differing legal opinions between ACC and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) was that actually they were quite close.I wanted just to highlight what it actually says in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) on page 2. It says in the third to bottom paragraph on that page that MBIE's view is that the relevant sections of the Act do not provide for ACC to charge debit interest as part of an instalment plan fee." Then it goes on to say "ACC does not necessarily agree with this view." So I think given that this is grey and given that there is potential legal risk to the Crown it would actually be really helpful I think to the committee to get on to the Hansard some more detail around the legal differences of opinion between ACC and MBIE and some further detail from the Minister.I don't need to use my full five-minute contribution but I do have more questions around the broad nature of the bill. The other matter I wanted just to touch on at this point for a response from the Minister was around how long ACC has started to actually differentiate in its invoices to businesses the amount that is the actual levy and the amount that is the debit interest. We can see here that ACC hasn't always separated those out. So one of the questions I've got is are people who pay these levies in instalments actually aware that they're also paying a debit interest fee on top of it? Is it actually separated out on the invoice? How long has that been happening for? Because obviously there is concern from the Crown and I understand one of the reasons that stakeholder engagement hasn't happened before this bill was drafted was because of the risk of legal action.So I am very interested in hearing from the Minister just how much information is actually passed on to levy payers so that levy payers are actually aware how much is the actual levy how much is an admin fee and how much is the debit interest. So I'd be very interested to hear about that level of detail from the Minister.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you Mr Chair. In answer to that member's second question first the employer or self-employed person would get a schedule setting out what is being paid and then in the invoice that would set out the interest and the levy. Then in answer to the first question I suppose some guidance on how we've got here today for either retrospectivity or validation the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines say that validation legislation can be used where a practice that is "generally understood and intended to be lawful but that are in fact [could be] unlawful as a result of a technical error"."
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I would hope that in your calculations the shorter that I speak the longer the Minister might speak. That would be very helpful to the committee. So I do hope that he takes that on board.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Chair will judge.INGRID LEARY: I will ask two really quick questions. One is just that I didn't really hear the Minister rule out the question from the Hon Peeni Henare about whether he's thinking of tinkering with the quantum of the levy. The next levy setting round is in 2024 and the regulatory impact statement (RIS) says that ACC wants to be able to charge appropriate fees. So my question is: if that's in his thinking will he rule out changing the quantum of the levy in the 2024 financial year? That's my first question.My second question is that I note that previously in ACC there was a fee charge for a three- or six-month instalment plan. The RIS mentions that some years ago due to staff turnover—Hon Chris Bishop: What's this got to do with the title?INGRID LEARY: —to do with staff turnover—sorry the member is asking what this has got to do with the title and I'd just like to help the member out and say that because this is in urgency my understanding of the—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Chair will look after that. We don't need to respond to ill-informed comments from the right.INGRID LEARY: So given that previously fees were charged there doesn't seem to be any record of when that occurred or the justification for what happened. That would have been very helpful actually to set the precedent for this current move to create a fee. I'm just curious to know how on earth a Government agency that has charged a levy which is quite a specific thing cannot have a sort of whakapapa or details of what happened previously to be able to recall. That's institutional knowledge which is quite important and would have helped inform the policy. So maybe the officials can help the Minister with that second question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I go on for the consternation of the members on my right if I refer them to Speaker's ruling 127/1—Dean. You'll understand why—on a clause by clause at the first clause we're allowing a broader discussion. It will narrow in subsequent clauses.
Leary Ingrid; Doocey MattINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like to suggest to the Minister he considers under the title clause changing the name to Accident Compensation (Interest and Compounding Penalty Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill". The reason I raise that is because as I alluded to in my second reading speech there's quite a good explanation here about the interest that is going to be charged in the name of fairness but when it comes to the penalty interest—if I can just read from the regulatory impact statement: "Those who don't meet the instalment are charged penalty interest at a rate of 1 percent per month" and it compounds monthly. The justification for that is the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation (Interest Rate for Late Payment of Levies) Regulations 2002 which sets the rate of interest charged.So it looks to me on the face of it that there is a presumption under this architecture that by making this so-called administrative change that then the regulations kick in which can automatically prescribe a penalty amount. If that is the case I think given that we don't have select committee it would be really clear to have that recorded because otherwise what we could be doing is overreaching by saying that it's OK to charge the interest but we haven't actually unpacked what the sovereign power is that is providing ACC the powers to charge penalty interest at that rate—and I can see it's under the regulations.My second question and I will keep my contributions short in the interest of trying to get through my 30 questions which I won't do all at once because it would be incredibly boring hearing my voice over 30 questions but I would like the opportunity to ask more questions at a later stage. My second question is just how was it that after 20 years of doing this practice that nobody ever thought about suddenly this has become topical and top of mind? The reason that that is important from a policy perspective is for us to understand that the purpose of this bill is to actually create a fair instalment process rather than to collect revenue. It seems very odd to me that suddenly out of the blue when there is a small amount of revenue to be gained—perhaps it was because the Government was looking under every rock and in every hidey-hole to try and find alternative sources of tax that they could through levies and fees and so on just to be able to try and met their $12 billion shortfall on the Budget. Or did somebody actually alert the Minister? Was it the legal team? Do they still have a legal team given the cuts to ACC? I mean these are real questions because it's very weird that after 20 years suddenly this comes up and the justification for it is about a fair instalment process. So I'll sit down and I do hope the Minister answers those questions and I have some more soon.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you very much Mr Chair. In response to Ingrid Leary her first question on whether I'd considered that change to the title of the bill the answer is no and the second question—why is this bill being brought to the House now—is because I said yes."
Webb Duncan; Doocey MattHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair and thanks to the Minister for answering that. He didn't quite answer the question I'd like an answer to. The regulatory impact statement (RIS) as with all the impact statements here over the past day—it has been pretty clear that they've been made under pressure and they haven't necessarily explored all options. I know someone else is going to talk a little bit about legal advice but my question is: was the option explored of actually going and getting a determination through the courts of whether or not the authority existed? Of course David Seymour gets mentioned all the time because of his views about good law-making and the first question is: is it needed? So the best way to test whether or not it's needed is actually to go to the courts and ask: is this within the law or not?Now there's a declaratory judgments procedure that would do that quite well quite effectively and very inexpensively. Far fewer minds than are here tonight would have to do that work and it would actually be a lot cheaper quicker and more effective.The other question I have—and I really would like a clear answer—is this: what's the number? On page 8 of the RIS it's got an approximation of ACC's instalment plan use in 2021 so let's guess that it's not a million miles away from that. The total revenue—and it's made very clear that that revenue is the levies plus the 2.7-odd percent—is $1.314 million. So the question then to backwards account is: how much of the $1.3 million is the levies that we're here talking about? My rough calculation comes up with—and it's not quite right because I haven't done it perfectly but it's $35870.Now if we are here passing a bill on a Saturday night because ACC is not sure whether they can charge $35870 or not I think we've got some problems about the use of Government resources. So can we be very clear that the annual amount of the interest charged that is in question here: is it roughly $35000 or—it is possible—have I got my maths wrong on that Minister Doocey?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): In answer to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's first question the advice I received was No need to drag the ACC through courts for a technical change."The second part of his question: the estimated amount of the interest debit from 2003-04 to 2022-23 is an estimated $218.6 million. It's just unclear because of IT changes but it's around that amount."
Bennett Glen; Pugh MaureenGLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora Madam Speaker. This is heavy heavy conversation this evening. It's about the abuse about things that are physical that are sexual that are mental. It's non-discriminatory in terms of family violence—it covers so many facets of our communities and society whether you're in the wealthiest of suburbs the poorest of suburbs or anywhere in between.Family violence not only impacts on heterosexual couples but in my case I know and I know of stories within my own rainbow community of relationships and civil unions relationships and marriages relationships and partnerships which have been violent which have been manipulative which have been physical. That's why there's old legislation. There were compromises made back in 1980 when this legislation was first brought in so that's why we need to change it. And I think we need to actually fully remove the two-year ban across the board. But this is just simple legislation.Angie Warren-Clark who is actually a family member of mine has worked in this space and I just want to acknowledge her this evening for her work her legacy that will live on beyond her in this House. I commend this bill.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. Members given the time the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also make a contribution on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. Like many others tonight I'd also like to very sincerely acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark a former member of Parliament who I know was very passionate about this bill and was also very passionate about the work that she has previously done and was very passionate in so far as being able to hand it on to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell who has shepherded it through and cared for it very much in the same way that Angie would have if she was able to.I would like to acknowledge the Justice Committee. I heard Dr Deborah Russell say earlier on that it was a small change that it made a real difference. Whilst it may just be a small legislative adjustment and whilst it may have been a relatively smooth process it had required us to really challenge the rationale behind the status quo and in that way it was profound in so far as the thinking involved. Whilst I said the process was relatively smooth there were several things that needed to be worked out. Nothing is ever as smooth as it sounds on the surface. But where there's a will there is a way and there should be a way because there most certainly is a will behind this bill. I think that was very ably summed up by saying simply that all people deserve to be able to leave a relationship where there is violence.I'd like to again take my opportunity as others have tonight to acknowledge Charlotte and to acknowledge Ashley Jones and all of the other people who contributed and lent their experience to the understanding of the select committee. It was invaluable. It was worthwhile. It made a difference. It does count. I hope that everybody who has made this happen tonight can feel very very proud of the contribution that they have made via this House process. So I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look I've been listening to the speeches tonight and a lot of ground has been covered. I don't intend to repeat some of the statements and arguments that have been made but I particularly want to acknowledge Deborah Russell not only for the work that she's done here but for what was quite frankly an outstanding speech outlining the reasons for this bill and its history. It was presented in a very thorough and compassionate way and I really appreciated that.I also want to acknowledge my friend and former colleague Angie Warren-Clark who this bill was her original bill and it's a real passion of hers. She has dedicated many years of her life to keeping women safe. But this may be in fact her largest contribution in the sense that it will have impact on thousands and thousands of lives.I just want to touch on a couple of things. Everyone has been very affirming of this bill but I do want to touch on some more technical aspects. The first is that in fact at select committee we almost retreated somewhat from the original idea but that's for good reason. There was a suggestion that any evidence of family violence should be admissible as a cause for obtaining an order of dissolution.What we wanted to avoid when we finally reached the conclusion that you really needed a protection order—a final protection order in respect of which the appeal period had expired—we wanted to ensure that we didn't find ourselves in a situation where there was litigation around whether or not family violence existed and the possibility that that would be further traumatic for the people involved. So I wanted to identify that.I also wanted—and this is linked—to identify the fact that we were concerned with the suggestion that this is leading away from no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce when introduced was a world-first I think in New Zealand. It has served us very well where parties don't have to go and recriminate— they just have to want to separate. It's still important that that's the case here and all this does is trigger a truncation of the period before which a divorce can be sought.We do need a review of our law around divorce and dissolution and relationship property—it's well overdue. This is just one small reform but I think it's a very good one. Once again I commend all of those—the many many people who have been involved in getting it to this place—and I commend it to the House.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Motion not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 49 Noes 65.
Voting — Correction—Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill
Tuiono TeanauVOTINGCorrection—Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Before we move on to the next speaker I just need to correct the last vote—it won't change the outcome. The Ayes were 49 and the Noes were 68. I misread it—can't blame the glasses they're new. It was just my misreading.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour): I guess I'll take the call. I'm not sure what's going on in the electorate of Tukituki but I think someone had one too many Berocca this morning. There was some enthusiasm going on over there. I'm a little bit shocked and dismayed and where the member addressed the bill I'm unsure but it was a wonderful party-political advertorial for the last 10 minutes. It was magic and I'm hopeful that the little gold stars that they get in the caucus room for every time they get the talking point right—I hope that she's top of the leader board for that.But the bill—as people have reflected on during the first reading and now the second reading there's been real reflection on the history on I guess the bigger question of retirement and of actually having money tucked away to ensure that people actually do well. And the Hon Dr Deborah Russell earlier spoke and gave a bit of a history lesson about the 1990s. I guess for me I was looking back to the 1970s and Norm Kirk's superannuation bill—Rachel Boyack: Didn't National trash that too?GLEN BENNETT: —which got trashed but that's another point. The reality is that this is around the protection for KiwiSaver members. And when KiwiSaver was first brought about and when the Hon Sir Michael Cullen established it back in 2007 I was in a position where I wasn't actually able to sign up. I was in a different position in our household. We didn't have a lot. And so at that time our choice was not to sign up for it. But I've been a part of it for a long time now. And so as I look at this it's very much—as other members have said and as our member Tracey McLellan who has presented this bill has said—around protections for people. It's actually around protecting people from discrimination and the previous member had talked about a member's bill that they have in the ballot around young mums and I'm sure it sounds wonderful but this very much often is around women who are discriminated against because they leave the workforce to go and look after their children. The officials said there wasn't a problem to solve—there's nothing there. But the fact is we don't actually have the data or the information on this to know exactly what is going on there.So this is fixing something as well that had been taken out in 2008. This is ensuring that we protect people and ensuring that we don't discriminate. I commend this bill to the House.
Trask LauraLAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. So I take this call on behalf of our member Todd Stephenson who sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee through this. So ACT does not recommend that this bill be passed for various reasons. One is because we believe this bill would negatively impact the relationship between the employee and employer. The majority of employers act responsibly when it comes to the employee's KiwiSaver membership. Flexibility should also be maintained in relation to the total remuneration approach. This is a benefit for both the employer and the employee. This bill creates uncertainty for employers by creating a new circumstance in which new personal grievances could be made including when they might alter existing employment relationships. This is something we clearly do not agree with. We do not believe that creating more hoops for businesses to jump through under the Employment Relations Act is productive for employees and employers and we believe this bill needlessly adds more unnecessary State involvement into the private sector.We take on board the recommendation of the Finance and Expenditure Committee; the majority of the committee ultimately do not agree that the bill should be passed. So that is the rest of my speech tonight. Thank you.
Wednesday 31 July 2024 - Volume 777
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That debate on this question now close.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; New Zealand First 8.Noes 60New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11.Motion not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I call Vanessa Weenink but just before the member starts I have been watching this debate about the expiry of the gift cards and I actually feel like a lot of the points in this debate have expired. So I'm really really looking for new things. Thank you.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I move That debate on this question now close.
Bishop ChrisAPPOINTMENTSAssistant SpeakersHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave that the House appoint the Hon Jenny Salesa as Assistant Speaker—SPEAKER: Yeah that comes shortly. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Can I just do it now? SPEAKER: Yeah it's all right—yeah. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I seek leave that the House appoint the Hon Jenny Salesa as Assistant Speaker until the end of Thursday 22 August 2024 despite Standing Order 29. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. Thank you. [Members applaud] That's very nice—that's a whole day's worth. Incredible! Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You can have the rest of the day off. SPEAKER: Thanks very much yeah.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for presentation. No papers have been delivered for presentation. No select committee reports have been presented. And no bills have been introduced.
Salesa JennyWEDNESDAY 21 AUGUST 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Mafimafi kuo mau taa'i mālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Kuiní mo tataki 'emau fua fatongia 'i he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto Faka-'Otua 'ofa pea mo e 'ulungaanga malū ko e 'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'alo ka ko homau fakamo'uí 'Emeni.
McLellan Tracey; O'Connor Greg; Kuriger BarbaraDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Further to what my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has just said when we're talking about authorised persons and the process that's going through—because if I go back a step the first bullet point under the intentions of this bill is: explicitly empowering Corrections to monitor [prisoners'] communications and information sources for intelligence purposes to improve prison and public safety". So there are the four sort of parts to this bill and this is one of them. I understand as the Minister very very briefly touched on earlier on in his opening remarks that the system needs a little bit of updating. The way that prisoners communicate with each other isn't always by snail mail anymore; there are all sorts of other forms of communication so that needs to be accommodated.But when I look at new section 127K inserted by clause 33 which is just a little bit further on from the previous clause that was asked—and I do think that the way that that's worded does lend itself to some future sort of misinterpretation. But new section 127K "Monitoring of exempt prisoner communications and information sources" says that the authorised intelligence person who we know therefore is an employee appointed from the chief executive "who is monitoring collecting or using prisoner communications and information sources under this subpart and who forms the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the prisoner communications and information sources are exempt prisoner communications and information must— (a) promptly stop monitoring collecting or using them". I just wondered if you could give us a little bit more information on how that process actually works. So you can imagine a person during the course of performing their duties as an authorised intelligence person is privy to information that they then have reasonable grounds to believe is exempt—let's say it's medical information. When they—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported.House resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and reports it with amendments. The committee has also considered the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Corrections Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. today.The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Wednesday)"
Webb Duncan; Mitchell MarkHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mr Chair thank you for that. It's good that we're doing a whole lot of new material. I haven't heard any repetition for some time as we're working progressively through this bill.I have a very short point and it is actually about the collection of intelligence information. Section 127F on page 24 of the bill says that The chief executive may authorise an eligible employee to be an authorised intelligence person" So this is the person who can surveil prisoners open their mail listen in on their telephone conversations listen in on their visiting do all of those things—so highly invasive—for an intelligence purpose which is a restrictive purpose.But I want to focus in on the words "eligible employee". Now it might sound like that means it's a corrections officer who's been identified. But I dug around because I was a bit perplexed by that. Section 111 of the principal Act says "Eligible employee means a person who is an employee of the chief executive"—that's fine—"an employee of a contractor an employee of a contracted provider or a contracted provider" So these are not public servants.Now Minister I think we've made a mistake here. I don't think we intend an employee of a contractor who is not a sworn officer to be able to search and surveil a prisoner because that is an exercise of quite an extraordinary State power. I would suggest and I suspect that we always intend that it's corrections officers who are employed by the department through the chief executive who are able to surveil prisoners and see this highly personal information and use it for intelligence purposes. And there's a bit of a slip here because all of a sudden we've got people who are three steps removed. It's a person who is contracted to a person who contracts the department. That can't be right. We can't have people who are not answerable through the State being intelligence officers and surveiling prisoners.I'm going to leave it there because it's an important point and I'd really appreciate an answer from the Minister on that. Kia ora.Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Yeah it's a good point because I agree with him that it is a big power—it's at the discretion of the chief executive. Quite simply why it refers to contractors is of course we have a private prison that's being run by Serco."
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I move That debate on this question now close.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I move That debate on this question now close.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Yeah thank you for the member's comments. Look at the end of the day that clause means that we want to put Corrections in a far better position—much stronger position—to be able to deliver rehabilitation programmes. The reality of it is and I'm sure that the member has visited one of our corrections facilities he will see that there is an up-tempo; that it's a very challenging and dynamic environment. Corrections over the last few years have been operating severely under capacity in terms of numbers. We are starting to fix that: for the first time in a long time we were above the rate of attrition and doing very well with recruitment training and deployment of new corrections officers.But to codify it and not give them the flexibility and the ability to be able to recognise the environment that they work in would mean that you could be putting Corrections in a position where they're breaking the law. And we're not going to that. The whole focus of this legislation is to make it safer for both corrections officers and prisoners and for us to be able to delver more rehabilitation to those that need it—and that's exactly what this bill is going to deliver.
Redmayne Suze; O'Connor GregSUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'm aware I haven't heard any new information in recent times but I'll hear Dr Tracey McLellan.