edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipango Harete; Faafoi KrisHARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora. Thank you Mr Chair and Minister I acknowledge you for being in the Chamber this afternoon. When this matter was last before the House Minister Little was here in the capacity as I understand as Minister who was in charge of the commission of inquiry. So my question to you Minister as the responsible Minister for the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill into law: it's well known that there was a commission of inquiry and that commission of inquiry having been appointed and commencing its work in April of 2019 after the Christchurch mosque murder incidents—that the findings of the commission of inquiry were presented to the Governor-General in November 2019. So Minister this bill is not specifically addressing the recommendations under the commission of inquiry per se. But my question to you Minister because this is a counter-terrorism bill the commission of inquiry—one of its recommendations in fact recommendation No. 18 was to look at this legislation. That has been done. In your capacity Minister with that of Minister Little's what is being done in relation to a specialist agency being appointed when it's well known that the National Party has appointed a spokesperson to lead that? That segues into the application of the counter-terrorism bill. And I come back to Part 1—I'm mindful that the Chair may be pulling me back to the bill and I do that accordingly. So my question Minister is: what is the relevance of Part 1 in the totality of the counter-terrorism bill for the appointment and designation of an agency to lead this work?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for the inquiry. Certainly around recommendation 18 of the royal commission of inquiry the changes within this piece of legislation especially the ones around planning and preparation of terrorism offences go directly to one of the strong recommendations within recommendation 18 of the royal commission—something explicitly that they pointed out there to change within the context of our terror laws.I think also the member may have been talking around a contribution by Minister Little in the second reading speeches that were undertaken a couple of weeks ago or last week. I think it's fair to say that as a Minister responsible for the overall response to the recommendations within the Christchurch commission of inquiry he said he was working through all the recommendations and was open to the suggestion I think around the point that the member raised. I think what you have seen through the prioritisation of this piece of legislation getting some of the powers to the agencies and responding to the recommendations of the commission of inquiry have been the priority to date and that's why we hope to get this legislation passed as soon as possible to give the likes of police and other agencies the ability to prevent other attacks happening in the future.
McKee Nicole; Faafoi KrisNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you Minister. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the work of the Ministry of Justice. They did an outstanding job I thought in my short time here with their departmental report actually thoroughly going through and answering a number of questions. So I'd just like to acknowledge the work that the Ministry of Justice did for us there.My question to the Minister is: could the Minister inform us where in this part—or parts; we're taking them both—could you answer please if there's any part of these sections in here that would have actually made a difference to the LynnMall terror attack or the terrorist being able to attack members of the public?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for pointing out my error in also acknowledging the officials of the Ministry of Justice for their hard work especially under some of the time frames we suggested that they work to.That is a very difficult question to answer; legislation alone cannot prevent attacks happening. But the legislation that we are implementing through the House will give the authorities—the likes of police—more powers as we say to intervene if they find serious evidence of motivation and intent and purpose and also the bringing together of a number of actions where an individual or a group may be planning to undertake a terrorist attack.The answer to the question around the particular incident is in terms of control orders this person wasn't necessarily convicted of a terrorism act. But if we are looking forward it's hard to define precisely a case because it depends on the facts of the case.What I do think is that we are giving the likes of the police more tools certainly. In planning and preparation I think the members of the select committee were no doubt made aware of a High Court case where the judge in that particular instance gave a signal that a planning and preparation offence didn't exist so in that instance he could not make a judgment on the planning and preparation of a particular circumstance that was before him.So it will depend on the facts of each case but I do think again because of the changing nature of unfortunately some of the events that we've seen take place over the last two or three years the provisions within this bill will give authorities the ability to take more pre-emptive action. To pre-empt a criticism on that that I think might come during the debate: that is with the necessary safety precautions in there around taking a prosecution under this piece of legislation for example having the Attorney-General green-light any prosecution that may go to the court.
Rurawhe AdrianHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members the House is in committee on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill and the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. Members we come first to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 26 Schedules 1 and 2 amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Genter Julie Anne; Mallard TrevorHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'll just make a short contribution on these orders. The Green Party is going to support all three of them. They're very sensible. It is good to see the development and roll-out of more alternatives to PCR testing.One comment I would make about the Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 9) which of course removed any references to Australia when it comes to quarantine-free travel is just to acknowledge those New Zealanders especially those who live permanently in New Zealand or who may have been planning to return to New Zealand in the last few months to relocate here permanently who have been caught out by the fact that the bubble had to be suspended and there's been just extreme demand for managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities and for people to come back into Aotearoa New Zealand. I think that it was the right call to suspend quarantine-free travel with Australia but I do think that the Government needs to urgently look at alternatives especially for those who are in states that currently have no community spread of COVID if there is a way for them to return and if they've been vaccinated to bypass the MIQ facility—if that is possible and can be done safely—because there's just a huge number of people whose lives have been disrupted. If they are citizens and residents of New Zealand then they really do have a right to return to this country and we've been asking the Government what they can do to increase the quantity of MIQ facilities in a safe way. But I think that there are states where there's no community spread and if people were able to travel from that state without passing through New South Wales or Victoria and particularly if they've been vaccinated—if they could be isolating at home they should probably be eligible for the pilot which is going to be rolled out to business people who are leaving New Zealand and coming back next month. I think that's going to happen in November. I'd like to see the ability of New Zealand citizens and residents to come back to New Zealand as a priority over discretionary business travel away from New Zealand when it comes to piloting safe quarantine at home. That's all we have to say. SPEAKER: Before I call David Seymour I'm going ask Mr Eagle to apply his mask to his beak.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of John Dennison requesting that the House initiate an investigation into the competency of the South Wairarapa District Councilpetition of Wendy Baker requesting that the House inquire into the implementation by territorial authorities of the Dog Control Act 1997petition of Santiago Gonzalez Novillo requesting that the House urge the Minister of Immigration to split skilled migrant category and residence from work residency applications into two separate and independent queues and resource them appropriately.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Annual reports of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and KiwiSaver.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Allan Halse the petition of Joanna Bissett-Clark and the petition of Louise Cluniereports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Anu Kaloti and the petition of Tyra Gabb report of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 10) Amendment Order 2021report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the petition of Ruby Powell. SPEAKER: The inquiry and the report of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill introductionCOVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill  introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Rurawhe AdrianTUESDAY 28 SEPTEMBER 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia tau anō te rangimārie ki a tātou. E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.[Allow peace to prevail over us once again. Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Thursday 23 September 2021 - Volume 754
Water Services Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the report be adopted.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 35New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 62 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Christopher Luxon's amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 61 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Parts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading
VoteTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2021-22 GST AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 21 September.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye. To the contrary will say No. The Ayes have it.CLERK: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill first reading.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.SPEAKER: I call on—sorry. The question is That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I seek leave for there to be a party vote on the first reading in order that the National Party can record its 33 votes in opposition.SPEAKER: Is there any—I see no objection to that. We will have a party vote on the second to last question.A party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for the Water Services Bill.
12. Question No. 12—Local GovernmentBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 12—Local Government12. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Yes in particular when I thank the Federated Farmers and Irrigation New Zealand for their involvement to ensure the workability of the Water Services Bill and to confirm that Taumata Arowai will work according to the scale complexity and risk profile of drinking-water suppliers so that there are more appropriate responses for small and rural communities.Barbara Kuriger: What is her response to Local Government New Zealand president Stuart Crosby's request to her and the Prime Minister with respect to three waters There needs to be more time to work through the key outstanding issues beyond the current eight weeks."?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: My response to Stuart Crosby has been what it has always been: we will continue to work with local government to ensure that the water reform proposals that are being forwarded are done in partnership with the sector.Barbara Kuriger: Will she pause or halt the three waters reforms given Local Government New Zealand and numerous mayors councils and communities across the country have called for her to do so and if not why not?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No. Pausing the conversation around the reform agenda will not change the scale size or complexity of the challenge confronting councils. We've provided evidence and research that shows that the looming costs facing councils will be unbearable by ratepayers. We've also highlighted the need for councils to consider this seriously because once Taumata Arowai is stood up higher drinking-water standards and environmental standards are enforced the several councils that are operating their waste-water treatment plants on expired consents will significantly bear the load of infrastructure investment.Barbara Kuriger: Will she take to Cabinet any changes to the water entity model; if so what will they be and if not why not?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I've given an undertaking to Local Government New Zealand that we will work with them and councils to understand the information. They will have up until 1 October. At that point I will present information to Cabinet and identify the range of issues that we can work on with the sector to address many of the challenges that they've identified during that period. I've given an indication in an earlier question of what those challenges are: governance arrangements the way in which councils will work with iwi and their communities around the benefits of reform and also the way in which economic regulation will help deliver those benefits."
11. Question No. 11—CustomsGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of CustomsQuestion No. 11—Customs11. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Customs: What is Customs doing to facilitate trade and support New Zealand's economic recovery from COVID-19?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Customs is increasing trade opportunities and helping goods to flow more efficiently across the border contributing to the economic recovery of New Zealand's economy from the impacts of COVID-19. Internationally Customs is advancing work to upgrade the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement and is contributing to new free-trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union. In June a work plan towards a mutual recognition agreement with Thailand and the United Kingdom was agreed to while work on a secure trade lane with Australia continues to progress. Customs has expanded its Authorised Economic Operator programme the Secure Exports Scheme and made it easier for businesses to join—in particular Māori exporters. It has marketed the service so approved traders can benefit from certainty of supply chain and delivery time frames. Customs continues to engage with small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) through its work on APEC 2021 to learn more about some of the challenges and opportunities these enterprises face as they navigate the COVID-19 environment and ways in which Customs administration can support the economic growth of SMEs in the region. Supporting small to medium sized enterprises is a valuable way of increasing the diversity of New Zealand's export base and encouraging economic growth in the regions.SPEAKER: Can I just say to the Minister that that answer was far too long.Glen Bennett: How is Customs supporting the import of critical supplies here in Aotearoa as well as overseas?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Customs is working closely with industry groups and other Government agencies to ensure there are no delays in clearing critical supply chain goods including the COVID-19 vaccine. Customs recently led work to deliver a set of best-practice guidelines for Customs administration to support the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines in the APEC region. This was a great win not just for New Zealand but also the 21 member economies to ensure that COVID-19 vaccine and related goods flowed across borders as quickly and as efficiently as possible.Glen Bennett: How is Customs supporting New Zealand traders to navigate the impacts of COVID-19?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Since the onset of COVID-19 Customs has negotiated repayment plans with 350 businesses on around $130 million worth of debt. Of that amount only $30000 remains outstanding. Customs has also lessened the load by allowing refunds of interest and penalties on repayment plans. Measures like these provide much-needed breathing space allowing affected businesses to pivot if needed and ultimately build back better.
9. Question No. 9—Internal AffairsJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 9—Internal Affairs9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: How is the Government encouraging young New Zealanders to make informed decisions online?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I am pleased to inform the House that the Government's innovative and successful Keep It Real Online" campaign is back with the latest episode of the Eggplant series now available on TVNZ Ondemand and YouTube. This latest episode is focused on tackling misinformation. Misinformation is often camouflaged to make it hard to tell what's real and what's not. It's a big issue for our young people particularly at the moment when getting and sharing accurate information about COVID-19 vaccinations is so important. Equipping young people with the tools to determine fact from fiction has never been more critical. And can I also recommend that to the members in this House.Jamie Strange: Why was the theme of misinformation and disinformation chosen?Hon JAN TINETTI: We know from the last nationwide lockdown that young Kiwis are spending more time online than ever. We also know from a report released by the Classification Office that 75 percent of New Zealanders surveyed thought false information about COVID-19 is an urgent and serious threat to New Zealand society. So it's really important that young people are getting and sharing reliable information about COVID-19 and vaccinations so they can make well-informed decisions. This latest episode is targeted to 13- to 18-year-olds and explores how easy it can be to take information at face value without checking the facts.Jamie Strange: Why was the miniseries chosen as the format for the educational campaign?Hon JAN TINETTI: The Government recognises that traditional forms of public health and safety messages are not always the best way to reach our young people and that we need to evolve with the times. The whole purpose of the "Keep It Real Online" campaign is to explore complex and sensitive issues in a way that young people find engaging and relatable. The focus on identifying false information in the latest episode takes a light-hearted approach to this serious subject and encourages young people to engage their critical thinking. Students from Rangitoto College and Manurewa High School were involved in the creation of this episode to ensure that the messages are understood and that the storyline is engaging."
8. Question No. 8—COVID-19 ResponseCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 8—COVID-19 Response8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What specific progress has been made with negotiations with Pfizer for COVID-19 booster shots which the Director-General of Health said over a month ago were at sort of a fairly crucial stage" and is New Zealand intending on ordering booster shots for the COVID-19 vaccine programme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): To date the Pfizer vaccine has been approved for two doses and Medsafe awaits data from Pfizer clinical trials before approving its use for additional doses. The Ministry of Health is in continual discussion with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies about New Zealand's future vaccine needs and it continues to review all of the latest scientific evidence. Commercial conversations with the suppliers remain sensitive and I won't be disclosing specific details.Chris Bishop: Why were negotiations with Pfizer for booster shots at a critical stage over a month ago; why have they not yet concluded?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the context of commercial negotiations you often reach particularly important points in the negotiations and I'll imagine the director-general felt at that point that we were at a particularly important point in the discussions with Pfizer.Chris Bishop: Right. Why has New Zealand not taken a no-regrets approach to ordering boosters—in other words ordering as many as we possibly can as quickly as we can to give ourselves options in the event that we need them?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is exactly what the New Zealand Government has been doing around vaccines. That is why we continue to adopt a portfolio approach to vaccines so that we have options based on what our future needs may be so that we're not narrowing down too much and making decisions too prematurely about what might be best for New Zealand's needs in the future.Chris Bishop: Will New Zealanders be at the front of the queue for booster shots if they are needed?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It will depend on the nature of the booster shots needed when they might be needed. I can say that from the conversations we've been having with Pfizer I am confident that in the event that the evidence stacks up supporting the need for a third shot of the Pfizer vaccine we will be able to get access to that in a timely manner. But I also want to reiterate that we are not banking on that being the only option that New Zealand needs to have access to. We are in discussions with other pharmaceutical companies. Where agreements have been signed and it's appropriate to announce them that's what we do.Chris Bishop: Is the Government in discussions with companies other than those that we have advance purchase agreements with for the four vaccines at the moment and if so what are those companies?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question yes. In answer to the second part of the question those are commercial negotiations."
7. Question No. 7—AgricultureANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of AgricultureQuestion No. 7—Agriculture7. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent support has the Government provided for the agricultural sector?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): The Government continues to support the engine room of our economy as we build our recovery from COVID-19 and seek to position ourselves in high-value markets. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank those people through the farming sectors who have worked right to keep our export revenue coming into this country. I recently announced further investments to support them through the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund. To date the Government has co-invested more than $150 million into 157 projects worth almost $299 million in total. It's a key part of the Government's Fit for a Better World accelerating our economic potential road map. We've also announced funding of catchment groups with 171 now supported across New Zealand by the Government and we are supporting a total investment of almost $29 million.Anna Lorck: What are some of the recent projects being funded through the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We're investing $6.68 million for example into a seven-year partnership with Beef + Lamb New Zealand which is targeting a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of product produced. It's also expected to result in more efficient cows within the next 25 years through the use of artificial insemination and genomic selection to identify the bulls with the best genetic markers earlier in their life and with greater accuracy. We're also contributing $2.6 million to a $5 million project to develop a commercial-scale autonomous robotic asparagus harvester to help address the ongoing labour shortages in the asparagus industry and to support New Zealand asparagus growers to tap into high-value export markets.Anna Lorck: How is the Government engaging with the farming sector in practical ways to help it restore waterways?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We have said that we want waterways restored within a generation and to that end last week I also announced the $2.1 million funding for 31 farmer-led catchment groups in the lower North Island—in the Rangitīkei Manawatū and Wairarapa. This enables growers' groups and farmers to employ catchment coordinators and farmers to develop farm environment plans to understand the environmental challenges and opportunities on their property as well as helping farmers to produce nutrient budgets calculate their agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and understand changing environmental regulations. It's through farmers working together in catchment groups and integrating the practical insights from them into their farm plans that we'll be able to shift the dial.
5. Question No. 5—Broadcasting and MediaBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Broadcasting and MediaQuestion No. 5—Broadcasting and Media5. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by his statement we are constantly reviewing our safeguards to ensure we have the right tools to respond to potential issues of foreign interference" in relation to reports over Skykiwi's terms of service?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Yes.Brooke van Velden: When was he first made aware that a leading New Zealand news outlet Skykiwi warned its users their information could be shared with relevant State agencies if they violate Chinese law and does he believe Skykiwi's terms of service are an infringement of standards expected by media?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I became aware of the situation the member describes in an online article in the last two weeks and I simply point out to that member that the law in New Zealand covering New Zealand citizens and residents is the law of New Zealand and laws from other sovereign countries are not enforceable in New Zealand.Brooke van Velden: Does he believe that New Zealanders of Chinese origin are exposed to Chinese State surveillance and censorship by Skykiwi; and if so what is he doing to protect freedom of speech on media platforms?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it is a stretch to say that purported conditions of use or participation on an online platform constitutes external surveillance by a different sovereign State. New Zealanders participating in any form of media in New Zealand have the benefit of our laws including our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the confirmed freedoms of speech and expression and for news media outlets who are covered by for example the Media Council which Skykiwi is they have the benefit of the principles and values and rules of that organisation and methods of recourse if a user considers those rules have been breached. Brooke van Velden: Will his inquiry ensure that we can stop Chinese Communist Party interference of New Zealand media to the extent where media outlets feel obliged to share New Zealanders' data with the Chinese Communist Party?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not quite sure what inquiry the member is referring to but what I can say is that there is a review of media content or regulation under way that will also include what the likes of the Media Council and the Broadcasting Standards Authority do to ensure that the organisations under their remit comply with the standards that those organisations stand for.Brooke van Velden: Does he believe New Zealanders of Chinese origin have the same rights to be free from foreign interference and freedom of association as all New Zealanders?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well the people who that member refers to whilst in New Zealand are covered by New Zealand laws and rules and norms and that includes our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which confirms and upholds the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of speech."
2. Question No. 2—COVID-19 ResponseANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 2—COVID-19 Response2. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent progress has been made on New Zealand's COVID-19 vaccine programme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): New Zealand is successfully rolling out at pace the largest immunisation programme the country has ever seen. Nationwide three-quarters of the eligible population aged 12-plus have now received their first dose and 40 percent have received their second dose meaning that they are fully vaccinated. Fifty-three percent of Māori have had their first dose with 26 percent getting their second. For Pasifika the vaccination rates are 68 percent for the first dose and 36 percent for the second. In terms of our over-65 population 91 percent have received at least their first dose and 80 percent their second. For those aged between 40 and 64 80 percent have had their first dose and 44 percent their second. Angie Warren-Clark: How is the vaccine programme specifically progressing in Auckland? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A phenomenal effort has been undertaken by the people of Auckland over the last six weeks seeing them leap to the front of the pack with the highest vaccination rates of any region in the country. To date 1740608 doses have been administered in Auckland; 1134586 people have had their first dose allowing them to hit the 80 percent mark in terms of first doses; and 606000 of them have received both doses and are therefore fully vaccinated. I want to pass on my thanks to all those who have been involved in this effort and all those who have already been vaccinated. This is a mammoth operation and they deserve full credit. Angie Warren-Clark: What innovative steps are being taken to help increase vaccine numbers in Auckland? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Just this morning I met with vaccination providers and the DHBs in Auckland to discuss the ongoing roll-out of the campaign. Auckland have introduced of course the now famous Shot Bro buses which are being targeted specifically to locations where people are currently gathered under level 3 restrictions. The buses are focused on reaching communities less inclined to be actively engaged with the health system. It is a really good example of taking the vaccine directly to the people and today these buses are out back on the roads in south west and east Auckland. I was able to speak with a number of people involved in that earlier today. They are considering other similar and novel approaches to increase vaccine uptake and I'll be having similar conversations with other DHBs and providers throughout the rest of this week.
Coffey Tamati; Dean JacquiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour): There's a little process that needs to be gone through now a little system and I get that and I embrace it wholeheartedly. Thank you Madam Speaker. I will take a short call on this. I don't sit on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee but I understand the work that's gone into this. I want to first of all start by thanking as we do the many submitters who have come before the committee and put forward their thoughts. I also want to just acknowledge that this is a ground-breaking piece of legislation here. This is a first-in-the-world piece of legislation: the ability to be able to require financial institutions to be able to disclose the impacts of climate change on their business and explain how they're going to manage that. The previous speakers said it; there are some businesses that are already doing that and I congratulate them. I sit on a philanthropic trust. And actually one of the key measures that we talk about is how we're going to respond to the impacts of climate change. There are businesses all around the country that are really taking this into consideration. This is becoming a common conversation around the water cooler these days the effect of climate change the protests that are happening out in the streets with our kids are striking because they think that this is important enough to actually take the issue out on to the streets and make sure that we that all of us from the business sector to us here in Parliament to the education system are actually recognising the impact that climate change is having on our environment and making sure that we respond to it. We've declared a climate emergency and plenty of councils around the country have followed suit. So what this is is actually part of that journey. As we work to negate the effects of climate change which is just the position that we've ended up with then we have to acknowledge that actually there's going to be many steps on that journey and this piece of legislation is just one of them. Again thank you to all of the submitters that put in their submission. We've traversed a couple of the tension points from previous speeches that were raised in committee and some of the ways that they've been dealt with. I won't go back over that again—just to say that it's nice to see that there is cross-party support for this with the big parties in the House. And I too commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2.00 p.m. Tuesday 28 September. Good afternoon.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 4.58 p.m.
McDowall James; Dean JacquiDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call on this bill. The objective of this bill is to ensure that the effects of climate change are routinely considered in business investment lending and insurance underwriting decisions. However these effects are already routinely considered by business. We have sensible incentive-based mechanisms in place and furthermore successful businesses are those that are responsive to changing consumer demands. There is little doubt that the companies covered by this bill respond to those demands and publish information about their sustainability initiatives including around climate change. Just look at any annual report over the last 10 years at the very least and I don't think we need to mandate greenwashing. The people who work in these companies are everyday New Zealanders who deliver products and services to us provide employment and for the most part work to make New Zealand a better place. The good news for the Government is that even if they don't want to trust businesses there is already a system in place to account for climate change: that is the emissions trading scheme (ETS). It puts a price on carbon under a national cap. This imposes costs and businesses will respond by innovating and adjusting their operations. So we don't believe this bill is needed. It also adds unnecessary reporting regulation and frankly the idea of forcing companies to better demonstrate responsibility is cynical because it assumes a lack of foresight. However under the ETS carbon prices are known to businesses. They can see longer-term price signals and respond and account for them. If the Government really wants to look for entities that need better foresight perhaps they should reflect on their woeful uptake of electric vehicles (EVs) in their fleets or maybe they've just been waiting a little bit of time to give themselves a discount. Record coal imports and an increase in carbon emissions under their watch. At least businesses operate under a carbon cap. This bill will have little to no impact on reducing emissions or meeting our international climate change commitments but it will increase costs to businesses. We sometimes hear that convoluted tax bills are a tax lawyer's best friend. Well I think this bill is a marketer's best friend and with fines going up to $2.5 million maybe the title of this bill should be changed to Go Woke or Go Broke". Thank you Madam Speaker. We oppose this bill. Tāmati Coffey: Madam Speaker?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh! I call Tāmati Coffey—just in time."
Rurawhe AdrianHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Water Services Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.
Pugh Maureen; Rurawhe AdrianMAUREEN PUGH (Junior Whip—National): Point of order Mr Chairman. I couldn't find the Standing Order but I understand that a member can only move a closure motion once.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No that is not correct.
Allan KiritapuHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): I move That the question be now put.
Cameron Mark; Mahuta NanaiaMARK CAMERON (ACT): Very quickly Minister—just Part 2 clause 47. It talks about the aesthetic values of the drinking water. Notwithstanding we're obviously now encapsulating properties with 30 or less dwellings in this is the Minister concerned that that is potentially purely subjective when it talks of what is deemed to be aesthetic values without limitation?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for the question. The reference to clause 47 was in fact a provision that's been carried over from the Health Act into this legislation.
Mooney Joseph; Mahuta NanaiaJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. Mr McAnulty's very keen! Has the Minister received any advice on the anticipated number of small water-suppliers who will disconnect their schemes given this and therefore the number which will fall on local councils to supply an alternative solution?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Only from members of the Opposition speculative though it is.
McAnulty Kieran; Mahuta NanaiaKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): To the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta if a water supplier stops providing water to households that were drawing from their source what happens?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Actually that's a really good practical question because if that did happen then it would be beholden on the council to provide drinking water. Those provisions are within the Act. I would have hoped that where those arrangements are currently in place those drinking-water suppliers would see the benefit of looking at the acceptable solution process to give assurances as to what their responsibilities are let's say because they could be providing drinking water to the local farmhand living on their property before they just cut the lines. But if they cut the lines then the obligation will fall to the councils.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to get on to one or two other issues. I think that one of the challenges that we have in our communities at the moment is that this bill is very much confused and I guess mixed up with effectively what is the three waters proposal. So a lot of the challenges that we have as MPs and people explaining this in our regions and in fact councils have got the same issue is that a lot of the issues that arise in this bill are actually issues that could be compromised—or not compromised so much as could change as a result of the three waters bill. I want to go to a couple of things where effectively we're merging—and the Supplementary Order Paper to some extent merges—the link between drinking water stormwater and waste water. In my history in local government we've often talked about water metering and how you might utilise that. And one of the things that occurs to me is that this bill and the regulator could eventually—not this bill but the regulator could then start to impose conditions on whatever arises from the three waters proposals that adds significant costs that may not have been foreseen in the process of the three waters work being done or in fact in the cost relating to the smaller water supplies involved in this. If for example you put water meters into a system like this—I'm not going to argue the value of them because actually I think they're quite valuable; the problem is they're hugely expensive. So you could add a massive amount of cost because of the actions of the regulator. They might end up adding a massive amount of cost to a process that we don't fully understand. So I guess that's another fear that I think's been raised in our community not only around water meters but also around how you might link the water-in water-out process effectively because a lot of talk has happened in my lifetime or in my experience in local and central government around how if you put the water into something you've got to take the water out again. So I think there's some fear in the community particularly the smaller communities and particularly the small rural towns around the implementation of cost in those instances that might then add significantly to the cost of those small water supplies.I know I'm taking the Minister down a bit of a path into the three waters stuff but I don't really want to go there. I think the question relates to what the water regulator will have the power to do and what they're likely to do. I know that's a bit of a difficult question too.
Mooney Joseph; Rurawhe Adrian; Mahuta NanaiaJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I'm just having a look at the meaning of drinking-water supplier" and my understanding is that if there is a bore where the water is sourced and it goes to more than one household then the person who is responsible for that bore is a drinking-water supplier. I'll point to an example—actually I'll come to that.I'll just move again to offences which I raised earlier and I note that in clause 162 a water supplier who is responsible for the supply of unsafe drinking water is subject to a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding $600000. I have an example in my electorate where a farmer who has four households taking water from his bore has disconnected those in anticipation that this would pass given the Government's majority and concern about the offence provisions and that it would place too onerous a burden on him and that those households will now be reliant on rainwater if and when they can get it which is not always a guarantee in parts of my region. So I would ask Minister if it is appropriate for persons in that small water scheme to be subject to an offence of such magnitude—whether that is proportionate.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Joseph Mooney.JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Maybe I'll let the Minister—the Minister is conferring. I'll wait for the Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well you need to speak.JOSEPH MOONEY: OK very well; I'll speak in the meantime. There was a question I had earlier that I would be interested in—and I know that many people in rural New Zealand would be interested in—and that is whether there is intention for Taumata Arowai to take into account the percentage of water that is used for stock and the percentage of water that is used for households because it's very difficult—well in fact impossible—to distinguish between the uses of the two in many rural water schemes.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): My apologies in responding to the member but just to get clarity of my own in terms of the way that the legislation is intended to apply. The whole reason why we want to ensure that drinking-water suppliers of a small category such as that that you've explained and other members in the Chamber is that if they go through the process that is outlined in the bill which is to apply for an acceptable solution in the provision of drinking water therein is the regime by which they will be regulated by if you like or managed by. If they do not provide safe drinking water then there is a level of liability that will fall to them to the drinking-water supplier."
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the call to Joseph Mooney I will say that we have had nearly an hour of this debate—most of it has been on Part 1. Members can address therefore other parts as well. The Government side has moved closure motions and I'd just encourage members to use the time wisely.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Can I just come to the Hon Eugenie Sage's question around the role of regional councils in relation to Taumata Arowai. We've been very clear from the outset that the regulatory function of regional councils will remain in relation to environmental standards. However one of the reasons why we ensured that Taumata Arowai could play a role to ensure greater coherence in reporting oversight of storm- and waste-water systems is because there was a variable way in which reporting occurred in this area. So the member is right to highlight that we did amend the Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that there was a greater emphasis on environmental performance because we are not effectively talking about infrastructure. And within the scheme of the approach for Taumata Arowai we needed to ensure that if there was going to be a higher obligation on compliance monitoring and enforcement we needed a more coherent picture to understand what was happening. That does not impact on the regulatory role of regional councils and we have stressed this in the way that we've designed Taumata Arowai's responsibilities and we've tried to ensure that that is at the heart of the oversight and reporting role that Taumata Arowai will have.