edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipkins ChrisBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following agreement at the Business Committee I seek leave to include the following Government notices of motion in an urgency motion despite Standing Order 97: a notice of motion on adjustments to Vote Audit; a notice of motion on the extension of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act; a notice of motion on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order; a notice of motion on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order; and a notice of motion on the adoption of amendments to the Standing Orders. Copies of these notices of motion are on the Table of the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2019/20) Bill — Third Reading
Hipkins ChrisIMPREST SUPPLY (SECOND FOR 2020/21) BILLThird ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time.
Williams Poto; Rurawhe AdrianHon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Social Development): Thank you Mr Speaker. What I want to do is talk about this Government's investment in social development specifically around reducing the impacts of family and sexual violence. I mean this Government recently announced $183 million and we have been unprecedented in our response to family and sexual violence and our Prime Minister has absolutely led the way. Not only have we looked at some of the more traditional ways of reducing violence but we looked at some of the other systemic issues. We've invested in perpetrator services supporting people who use violence to change their behaviour—hugely important. The other big investment that we've made—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry the time for this debate has expired.
Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill Third Reading & Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill Second Reading
Coffey TamatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you very much Mr Speaker.Hon Willie Jackson: Negative negative.TĀMATI COFFEY: Yes very negative from that side of the House—very negative; too negative in fact—which is why they're going to be sitting in Opposition for another three years. Look we're here to talk about Budget 2020 and the investment that this Government has put into the people of New Zealand. We've gone through COVID-19 we had a strong health response led by this side of the House—led by this side of the House because we knew that the right thing to do was to go hard to go early. We knew that we'd have to sort out the economic response as well. We are doing that and when the member opposite the member for Tauranga stands there and says There is no plan for jobs" he must have been living in a cave because there has been so much investment into jobs. When we talk about the investment we're talking about all kinds of things. The wage subsidy scheme: that's an investment into the people the many people that found themselves through no fault of their own without a job. We extended the wage subsidy scheme; that's gone and helped a few more people to be able to get back on their feet. The cash-flow loan scheme was also a big help to small businesses that chose to take it up really favourable conditions on that and I know plenty—and have spoken with plenty—of businesses that have seen that and said "Thank you to the Government for actually being able to stand here and help us to get through this incredibly tough time." When we're talking about the Māori spend there's nothing that warms my heart more than knowing that we boosted support for Whānau Ora. Whānau Ora which during COVID-19 actually helped our people to be able to get through reached out into small rural communities Māori communities and actually delivered for them the basics—the things like kai things like hygiene packs things like masks—to be able to give them some reassurance that actually the Government was on their side. Two hundred million dollars was appropriated in a Māori employment package and that's what the member for Tauranga needs to hear. He Poutama Rangatahi Mana in Mahi Māori cadetships and apprenticeships—all of these when they're layered together are an attempt by this Government to be able to transition people who might find themselves without jobs. Whether or not that happened before COVID or after COVID we still need to make sure that we're graduating our people into good worthwhile jobs and that's what we've gone and done. But I would like to briefly talk about the impact on tourism and the investment that this Government has put in: $400 million. We were pleased at Whakarewarewa over the weekend to have the Minister of Tourism there to be able to talk about the significant investment—$400 million—into our tourism sector to be able to ensure that jobs were kept and people were looked after. This is a great Budget and this side of the House is relentlessly positive.Debate interrupted."
Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill — First Reading
Robertson GrantIMPREST SUPPLY (SECOND FOR 2020/21) BILLFirst ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 4 AUGUST 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.PRAYERSSPEAKER: Kia orana. Members because it's Cook Islands Language Week I've asked the Hon Alfred Ngaro to say the prayer in Cook Islands Māori.Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Ka pure tatou ki Te Atua. E Te Atua mana te akameitaki atu nei matou ia koe no toou takinga meitaki ta'au e riringi mai nei ki runga ia matou. Te akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata. Te akama'ara nei matou i Te Ariki Vaine e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou uriuri'anga manako. Kia rave matou i ta matou anga'anga i roto i teia ngutuare na roto i te pakari te tuatua tika e te aka'aka no te meitaki o to matou basileia i Nu Tireni nei. Na roto i te ingoa o Iesu Mesia amene. Amene.
Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 561 in the name of Chris Penk be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand National 48; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Agriculture Biosecurity Fisheries and Food Safety; Vote Forestry; and Vote Lands be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 50New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Votes agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 50New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
12. Question No. 12—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 12—Justice12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Would the repeal of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018 improve New Zealand's democracy?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: On behalf of the Minister of Justice no and I think the rationale for that is summed up in the name of Mr Carter's bill.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the repeal of the electoral integrity law consistent with the Government's coalition agreement?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government's coalition agreement was to pass the law in the first place.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he accept a majority of this Parliament does not support the Government's Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The voting record in the Parliament would suggest otherwise.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can he name any other occasion in the 24-year history of MMP when the Government has lost a vote on a core supply and confidence commitment?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We didn't and I'd point out that the bill hasn't passed. Hon Dr Nick Smith: It's passed its first reading. Does he agree with the statement of the Green Party that the Government's electoral integrity law is fundamentally inconsistent with democracy and free speech?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I'm not sure that he has any responsibility for the Green Party.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I understand you could ask within a Minister's responsibility questions in response to the statement.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order or a conversation?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Happy to have both. Does the Minister agree with the Inter-Parliamentary Union representing 167 parliaments and 16000 parliamentarians including every member of this House that laws enabling parliamentarians to be dismissed by their party or leader undermine a basic principle of democracy?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the assertion that that's what the law change does.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary?DEPUTY SPEAKER: No you've used them all up.
10. Question No. 10—HealthBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 10—Health10. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Health: Thank you Madam Speaker. Wonderful to see you in the Chair. Does he have confidence that enough New Zealanders are downloading and using the official NZ COVID Tracer app for it to be effective in the event of an outbreak of community transmission?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): No. But it is important to remember that the COVID Tracer app is just one of the tools that are available to us. The work of the public health units and the National Close Contact Service remain the mainstays of our contact tracing and I have confidence in the effectiveness of their work. The more people that are using the app the more useful it will be. I do encourage people to download it install it and use it every day and I note that the latest update which allows people to add in manual contacts where there is no QR code is now live.Brett Hudson: Has he sought confirmation that all Ministers are using the COVID Tracer app and that they scan QR codes they come into contact with and if so are they doing so?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can speak for myself and say that I have downloaded it I've registered it and I use it regularly and I expect all other members of the House to do the same.Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He didn't address the part that said Has he sought confirmation from his ministerial colleagues?"DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to just repeat your question? I'm sorry.Brett Hudson: Has he sought confirmation that all Ministers are using the COVID Tracer app to scan each QR code they come into contact with and if so are they doing so?DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Minister does need to address that.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No I haven't. I don't have ministerial responsibility for whether or not Ministers use the app although I have been told by many of them sitting around me that they are using it and I can in fact attest to the fact that the Prime Minister reminded everybody in her party including the media to use it this morning when we visited the wonderful Trade Kitchen in Naenae.Brett Hudson: How can New Zealanders have confidence in the app when he can't even confirm whether members of the Government are using it?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can't confirm that members of the Opposition are using it either. I'm not the police in this regard. I do encourage all members to use it.Brett Hudson: How many of the 621400 registered users who have downloaded the app are using it to scan QR codes on a regular basis?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did go through this with the member's colleague Dr Reti when he asked this question. We don't actually collect that data. That data is held by the individuals on their phones.Brett Hudson: How can the public have confidence in the app if he doesn't even know if people are using it?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker sorry; force of habit. A bit of muscle memory there! I think I answered that question earlier. One of the things about the app which is important is that people record their own data and they have control over their own data."
6. Question No. 6—EnvironmentJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 6—Environment6. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Is regulated product stewardship useful for reducing waste to landfill; if so why?Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yes regulated product stewardship helps put the responsibility for waste and what happens to products at the end of their useful life on manufacturers brand owners retailers and users rather than on communities councils neighbourhoods and nature. Regulated product stewardship schemes for challenging products such as agrichemicals and their containers; tyres; refrigerants; farm plastics; and computers TVs and other electronic goods will help ensure that these products currently lost to landfill or sometimes dumped irresponsibly are recovered and the materials in them reprocessed or reused. Regulated product stewardship asks businesses to be responsible producers so we can all be responsible consumers.Jan Logie: Why were the priority products chosen?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The Ministry for the Environment consulted with the public and stakeholders to identify products which harm the environment through poor disposal products which would benefit from resource efficiency and from a regulated scheme. Industry readiness and active engagement of stakeholders to ensure a successful scheme was also considered. The six product types I announced yesterday—tyres electrical and electronic products agrichemicals and their containers refrigerants farm plastics and plastic packaging—can all cause environmental harm and the relevant sectors are actively engaged in either planning or developing product stewardship schemes. That's what we want—to work in partnership with businesses and stakeholders for robust schemes which create jobs make our economy more efficient and reduce waste to landfill.Jan Logie: How does mandatory product stewardship create jobs and innovation?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Businesses like E-Waste Services in Porirua in the heart of the Mana electorate which I visited yesterday is just one example. What started as one person in a home-based business recovering computers has recently expanded to employ 12 people and they anticipate doubling their staff in 12 months. The business employs people like Wayne who used to be a truck driver. He loves his job pulling apart TVs and computers separating out screws and other metals and circuit boards to send away for reprocessing to recover precious metals such as gold and helping the planet.Jan Logie: How does this help fulfil the confidence and supply and coalition agreements?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: When it comes to tyres all parties of Government agree that product stewardship is an important part of reducing environmental harm. The Greens' confidence and supply agreement commits to minimising waste to landfill and New Zealand First's coalition agreement commits to tyre stewardship. Moving to mandatory product stewardship for these six product streams helps fulfil both these commitments.
5. Question No. 5—Social DevelopmentWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Social Development5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about putting children first as part of the Government's welfare overhaul?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yesterday I announced that this Government is putting children first and making our welfare system fairer by removing the punitive subsequent child policy. The subsequent child policy was introduced in 2012. The policy has meant that parents who have a subsequent child whilst on a benefit have work obligations imposed on them earlier from when their youngest child is just one year old and depending on the age of their next oldest child this can also affect their eligibility for the sole parent support benefit. This is a policy that has furthered inequities in the welfare system for parents and their children undermined the value of parenting and exacerbated stigma and stress for many families.Willow-Jean Prime: What difference will this make for parents and children?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The subsequent child policy has a disproportionate effect on Māori women. By removing the policy we can further our commitment to improving outcomes for Māori and valuing the role of carers who are predominantly women. The first 1000 days of a child's life are critical for their long-term development. It is not fair that these children might not be given the same time and support simply because they were born while their parents were on a benefit. Removing the subsequent child policy will give the estimated 9000 parents affected the flexibility to be carers. However the removal of this policy does not preclude parents who are able to work from getting access to the employment and upskilling support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that this Government has significantly bolstered investment in.Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the subsequent child policy being removed?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: MSD has found no evidence that the subsequent child policy has positively impacted financial or social outcomes for those affected. This highlights for me how punitive policies underpinned by judgment of those in our welfare system are ineffective and only serve to stigmatise people who in this case have been disproportionately Māori women. Under our confidence and supply agreement this Government has committed to creating a fairer and better welfare system and removing excessive sanctions and this—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member has answered the question thank you.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I'd like to finish my answer—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry but I think the member has already answered the question—Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Point of order Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Actually my word count is—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry sit down. Sit down. It was a very long answer. It was a very simple question much of which in the member's answer had already been stated. I think the answer has been completed.
3. Question No. 3—HealthANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 3—Health3. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about upgrading vital infrastructure at Auckland City Hospital?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Yesterday I visited Auckland City Hospital to view the infrastructure upgrade programme that they have been progressing using Budget 2018 funding of $275 million. Chris Bishop: Budget 2018!Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This includes upgrading and replacing key infrastructure—just hold on for a moment—including lifts fire protection systems boilers electrical substations and water systems. They have been making such good progress that the Government is now able to help fund the second phase of this very important work so I was able to announce an additional $262 million for Auckland City Hospital that will help to fund new central plant and service tunnels new tanks pumps and air handling systems.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is this investment required?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Most of the infrastructure at Auckland City Hospital is almost 50 years old and the majority of the site relies on services from a central plant building. Infrastructure failure could compromise the entire hospital system's network and its ability to provide care that New Zealanders need. Unfortunately this is a risk for many of our hospitals up and down the country and that's why we're improving hospital infrastructure in DHBs with a $3.5 billion allocation of funding for this purpose so far to date. The funding I confirmed yesterday brings this Government's investment in core Auckland DHB assets to more than half a billion dollars in just two years as we make up for a decade of neglect.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: When will the second phase of infrastructure upgrades at Auckland City Hospital get under way?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news: the work is already under way. Initial work like site investigation surveys and testing are progressing well and the physical work is due to begin in October. This is a significant piece of work and at its peak the project will require as many as 350 extra workers on site. Confirmation of this project sends a strong signal to the construction sector that the Government has a rolling maul of major construction work to provide confidence and support to the businesses and their workers.
SpeechVALEDICTORY STATEMENTSSPEAKER: Now members it's my intention to indicate that at the conclusion of the Hon Nathan Guy's valedictory the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 4 August 2020 so I don't have to interrupt any celebrations that are occurring at that stage. I also want to indicate now to people in the gallery who are guests of the Hon Nikki Kaye that at the end of her speech could they please leave quickly and in an orderly way—if they are above the Government benches through that door; and those in the Speaker's gallery through that door—so that we can have the opportunity for the Hon Amy Adams' guests to get in. Could Amy Adams' guests who are in the back row come down to the front row when that occurs. We lost about 10 minutes yesterday which we would prefer not to happen again. There will be some spare seats on this side but people in the gallery can only go over there when others who are specially invited have their seats. Now it is my pleasure to call on the Hon Nikki Kaye to make her valedictory statement.
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — Second Reading
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. A pleasure to make a short contribution on this the second reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. As has been relayed by the Minister in his contribution the crux of Part 4A is that it prohibits payments in most circumstances for people who provide that support for their loved family members and it also prevents certain complaints from being made to the Human Rights Commission and certain proceedings being taken to the courts. So in essence repealing Part 4A removes inconsistencies with human rights laws and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.We in National stand to support this bill at the second reading and I just want to thank and acknowledge the many people that made submissions on this bill and I would also like to acknowledge the Health Committee. I would just like to note some of the key issues that were raised in the submissions. There was some dissatisfaction noted in submissions around accessing disability support in terms of the process that applicants must need to go through in terms of the assessment process with the Ministry of Health. A number of submitters told the committee that the process is lengthy and complicated some saying there are a number of hoops to get through but also some having no knowledge of the fact that such a fund existed. There were also a number of submissions in terms of the remuneration for family-funded care and the main concern raised was how the needs assessment and services coordination organisation determines the level of support a person will need in particular around making a judgment of how care is based in terms of how long it would take to do a particular task in providing that care and support to their loved ones. This is a difficult position for family members to be in and there are increasing pressures on those families in terms of completing those tasks. So submitters did feel that the assessment relied too heavily on calculating the hours worked and trying to quantify how long it takes to perform a particular task in caring for their loved ones. There were also some concerns raised by submitters in terms of health and safety concerns. The reality is that caring for people with high support needs relating to disabilities chronic health conditions mental health and addictions and aged care—these are very high-risk jobs and again it is about supporting those family members who are doing the best they can being very dedicated to their loved ones their family at home.We support this bill at second reading but we are disappointed that people with disabilities were overlooked in last year's Budget. However I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a privilege and a pleasure to rise in support of this bill on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. I do sit on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and we do hear from time to time from veterans and their families as to the harrowing experiences that they've had but also the harrowing experiences they have after their postings are over and that extends to their family members. So I'd like to acknowledge this Minister for what I know is a deep sense of care and responsibility for all veterans and we're very pleased to see that now this will extend some of the support in terms of mental health care in terms of their children's bursaries in terms of rehabilitation of veterans coming into conflict with the law and undergoing imprisonment—all things that the Green Party supports and all things that I'm very happy to note the entire House is in consensus on this afternoon which is a compassionate and fair approach to caring for our veterans. So I commend the bill.Bill read a third time.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look it's a real pleasure to stand again and speak in relation to this bill. Mr Speaker with you sitting there it's reminded me of 2019 when we attended the Gallipoli services and what an honour and a privilege that was to be in Turkey at the time and to see the dawn services. Certainly when you have that opportunity to experience standing on the soil and indeed the bones of those who have given service it is a tremendously privileged but also sobering experience.I haven't got very much to say on this bill except that we have worked collegially across this House as we should in these matters. I'm very pleased to say that we listened well. We were respectful as indeed we should be on these matters. I think as well it is very clear to me that these changes will make a material and real difference. There is more work to do and we will be addressing this in future parliaments. But I absolutely commend this bill to the House.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the gallantry actually of the Minister for Veterans in both the technical parliamentary sense of that phrase but also in relation to the conduct of the Government parties in relation to this legislation. The Minister has highlighted already today and I have acknowledged the fact that there is a larger picture at play. We start by acknowledging that veterans have served our country and so it's appropriate that our country serves veterans. We've talked about the fact that the Paterson report as it's frequently known has made a number of recommendations. Some of these are larger items of work but those that we can cover today that we can pass before the Parliament rises ahead of the upcoming election we should we can and we are.So having acknowledged those points that are not within scope but which were the subject of various submissions at the select committee and acknowledging the Minister's feedback in relation to the discussion around the response times and noting that that is a genuine view that has been provided to him by his officials and expressed by him on behalf of the Government I say that we are satisfied that some good is coming of this. I won't rehearse the detail in relation to the particular additional support for veterans and their families during and at the end of their lives. So I conclude my remarks at this the third and final reading of the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) by saying that National is pleased to support it. We look forward to its passage as ongoing work that is so vital in this space.
SpeechThird ReadingHon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): I move That the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Hon RON MARK: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Oh you're going to speak? Well keep going.Hon RON MARK: Thank you. I just want to acknowledge and thank the whole of the House for their support in what is a very important piece of legislation to all veterans throughout New Zealand.Chris Penk: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I call the gallant member Chris Penk.
SpeechIn CommitteeHon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Thank you Madam Speaker. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look it's a real pleasure and honour indeed to stand and speak to this bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister for his efforts to bring this bill to the House and my colleagues across the House for their agreement to this bill.It was a real privilege actually to listen to the stories of our submitters. We had some 50 written and/or oral submissions come to us. I'm ashamed to say that there were some things that I learnt that I did not know about in the history of our country. I have to acknowledge the member who has just taken his seat Chris Penk for his great summary of the issues that were out of scope but nevertheless very important to us. There are some of those issues that the Paterson report made reference to and we'll indeed be addressing the more mid-term factors—that will be addressed in the new Parliament.What I have to say is that we've made some changes. They are relatively minor in comparison to the bill itself. But what I have to say is the stories of the men and women who've served our country were fascinating. They were delivered as only those in the military can do. Everyone's presentation their bearing—they were very factual and to the point but told us some quite horrific details of things about their service that I want to acknowledge and honour in this space.Now just very quickly we have made three changes. The three changes are to the timeliness that's the first one. That was the removal of these 30 days in order for the Veterans' Affairs to make a decision. Now we have done that not to make it slower; we've done it to actually facilitate speed. But one of the things that we heard from our servicemen and women was that they themselves did not feel that they knew what was happening in the process. So we've also built in an additional piece of information that says that the person applying needs to be informed of the process. Some of these are very complex decisions. They're very time pressured. We just wanted to acknowledge that while the 30 days have been removed sometimes the process will take shorter sometimes it will take longer but the process needs to be fully informed of the person as well.The second part that we've changed is providing treatment and rehabilitation to prisoners just making a clear definition of who those people were and ensuring that should a veteran go into prison and are actually currently receiving an entitlement or support for mental health or illness they will continue to receive that if it is not available in that prison environment.Thirdly childcare assistance—the childcare payment upon the death of a veteran. It's opening up and giving more flexibility around the New Zealand context of families now with much more relevance to what we see our families looking like in this country. So that really sums up the three changes in the bill. I have to acknowledge that there are some issues that will need to be addressed in the upcoming 53rd Parliament and we look forward to that but for now I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Nash StuartMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd just like in my brief time to ask the Minister around progress of the south-east marine reserve. I attended a candidate's meeting as it happened on Sunday at the Tautuku Fishing Club that esteemed establishment where there's general widespread concern within both the commercial and the recreational fishers about the process in particular which has been kind of expanded under their nose from what they started submitting on to what they now find themselves submitting on. So the process is one; also I guess the degree of evidence to support the reserve in the first place or certainly to the extent that it is being proposed.Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): Thank you. What I would say is the south-east marine protected area—the whole process started in 2014. So this has been going now for six years and a long time. What happened is there was extensive consultation. There was a working group put together extensive consultation. The group came up with two proposals and at the very end they digressed so it wasn't a unanimous proposal put forward. There were two options in that. The first one was more extensive than the second one but on both those proposals it's gone out to further consultation before the community. I can promise you as the Minister of Fisheries I have not come to any firm conclusions. This is true consultation and I am listening. I've had a meeting with Kāi Tahu. I understand their views I also understand the views of the crayfishers down there as well and I've taken those on board in my thinking about where we'll end up with this. What I'll say with that second round of consultation on the options that were developed is it started pre-COVID but because of COVID it's actually had to start again. So I think submissions may well have closed now. If not then they're about to close but obviously this won't be decided by myself or this Government. It'll be a decision that will have to be made in the end by the next Government and the next Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation. But there is true and meaningful consultation gone on in terms of this.
O'Connor DamienLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I just want to refer to what Mr van de Molen just said about Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers. Next week under urgency we're going to look at a charging regime for people coming into New Zealand. Has the Minister given any consideration to how that's going to work with RSE workers and in fact whether RSE workers from countries that are COVID-free are likely to be caught up in the charging regime?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Very simply no I don't believe at all that they'll be caught up.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): OK. I think we're just going to slide into the next part of this sector. There don't appear to be any further contributions. A relatively seamless transition between Ministers.
Allan Kiritapu; van de Molen TimKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Just in the interests of the administrative functions of the committee I thought it may be useful just to illustrate that we have two minutes remaining on this side. We are enjoying the collaborative nature of the discussions but I did want to just make it clear that we have one more Minister to go and fisheries is that portfolio. But if the Opposition wanted to make—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): It is actually up to each party to determine how they manage their time. I indicated at the start of the debate how much time was available.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): On this side of the Chamber we're happy to and very gracious to extend some of our additional allocation of time to enable the Ministers to answer questions. I think we have 29 or 30-odd minutes of total debate left and we still have about an hour of allocation I understand so they're welcome to 20 minutes if that's going to help to respond to the robust question coming up from Mr McKelvie.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): So you're allocating 10 minutes to Labour for fisheries and 10 minutes to Labour for forestry. Is that correct?TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Do you want any more for forestry? Lawrence Yule: I have more questions for the Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No no—sorry; I just need to be clear on this. When we're allocating time we should communicate it clearly.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I understand the forestry questions have been asked and answered. [Interruption] We have one more question for forestry so let's do five minutes there and the rest for Mr Nash.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): What is the rest sorry? How many minutes are you allocating to Labour for fisheries?TIM VAN DE MOLEN: They're welcome to an additional 10.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Ten OK. Thank you.Mark Patterson: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Will it be allocated across the Government benches or is it specific to the Labour Party?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No it's specifically to Labour and if you want to go and negotiate with Mr van de Molen I'd say the time is perfect. Mark Patterson: OK thank you.
O'Connor DamienLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Minister thank you for your answers to my questions on TB. I just want to come back to them for a minute because the scale I've mentioned is significant in Hawke's Bay. But one of the new issues that's emerged is that plantation forest owners do not pay a levy a TB levy and what happens in the growth of the forest is that the possums all go and live in the forest and as soon as the harvesting operation starts they are obviously disturbed and they all leave and go out into the fields. So my question really is: is the Ministry for Primary Industries doing any work or is Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand doing any work on whether in fact we need to review the structure of payments particularly around forestry operators and the need to poison prior to harvesting? In Hawke's Bay as I understand it that is one of the factors that has made the spread way worse than what was anticipated.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Can I acknowledge that that's a very sensible question and it's one I discussed when I was in Hawke's Bay. Of course there should be an obligation on all landowners to contribute to pest control. As I say normally—and the forest owners have reassured me indirectly that they do that pest control as part of normal operations. I guess the issue of harvest time—I mean clearly if the trees are coming down and the possums want to get out then what is the best way to control that? Look I haven't engaged in a discussion on that but I can commit to the member that I'll see from Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand what conversations they have had because it clearly can lead to and in the future will lead to the movement of possums and if they have TB then a very rapid transfer into farmland. So I'll commit to do that.
McKelvie Ian; O'Connor DamienIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll be very brief. I just wanted to make a comment that I noticed earlier in the afternoon session that Minister Nash got to make a comment about one Andy Haden and I couldn't resist making a comment about him myself because surprising as it may seem I played a bit of rugby with and against Andy as a schoolboy. He was an intimidating man even as a schoolboy but I think it's significant that he was also from a Whanganui farming family and it's an appropriate time to acknowledge him. He was a great New Zealander albeit controversial at times. Very quickly I just want to get on to the—Hon Stuart Nash: Only in Wales.IAN McKELVIE: Quite a few times. I wanted to get very briefly on to the forestry sector and particularly the billion trees that I know Barbara touched on a minute ago but I really want to understand—whether the Minister in the chair the Hon Damien O'Connor could tell us what number of trees have been planted in the billion tree project and also what number of those trees had been planted on class 6 7 and 8 land. I realise that's a complicated question and may not be able to be answered immediately but those are the two things I think would be of great interest to us. One other question in the forestry sector I'd like to ask and that is why the Government is not currently recording the difference between trees planted for production forestry and those planted solely for carbon farming.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you. Can I start with the last question first and it's one I asked myself of Te Uru Rākau and I think we do have to define that. I think we've got clear figures on support from Government. In fact there's no support for carbon farming. The only support from Government is actually for forestry. But there has been investment by individuals buying farms to just plant them for carbon sequestration and so we're mindful of that. We have been working through keeping a close eye on it to make sure. As I say there've been indications that—we're in a coalition Government but I guess certainly the Labour Party has indicated there'll be a change in that policy and that is that people who want to plant over 50 hectares will have to seek a resource consent on anything below class 6. So we're mindful of the pressure there and I don't have the figures of the number of trees planted in those areas but I can get those for the member. Can I just come back to—sorry to answer the question that Mr Yule asked as to 570 farms—so it is quite a big number—under movement control. We acknowledge that and that is a challenge—so I'm not trying to hide anything there and yes if we can get that down to a far lesser number then we'll all be better off with that. Can I just go and finish on Andy Haden and say that he has played with the Parliamentary Rugby Team too and I would like to take a brief opportunity to acknowledge him—his connection to agriculture and to rugby and I guess to the culture that is a big part of rural New Zealand. He will be a loss.
O'Connor DamienLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Minister can I just first of all thank you for the Government support in the recent Hawke's Bay drought. It's never enough money but it was gratefully received. But I do want to ask you a question about TB in Hawke's Bay and whether in your view you think we have the system and the set-up of Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) in the right way bearing in mind that half of Hawke's Bay farms are under movement control at the moment. Almost the entire rural area of Stuart Nash's electorate is under movement control—pretty close to it. So it's a big issue at the moment. Whether we've actually got the structure and the OSPRI process right the funding right is a question I'd like to understand or whether it needs more investment into the future.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Look thank you. I'm more than happy to answer. I'm not sure I've had an update. The claim of the number of farms under movement control is far greater than I—and I'll get clarification on that if I can. OSPRI has been—it's an interesting entity. It hasn't worked well at times for a number of reasons. I'm not going to go into them. I think the member might know it's been through a bit of a faulty period that has led to I guess poor performance in National Animal Identification and Tracing and some mistakes around TB. But the issue in the Hawke's Bay related I guess to the reality of consultation and the right of landowners to contest the ability to get access for 1080 control. If people say they don't want 1080 on their land they just want ground control then there's a risk that if you've got a high population of possums and you've got you know some pretty extensive bush areas then chances are you're not going to get the possum numbers down to the point where you need them. That indeed is what happened in the Hawke's Bay. Those possums seem to have moved into those farms brought the TB with them and of course we had an outbreak.There's extensive experience of that on the West Coast my patch. You know there have been splurges in outbreaks of TB and it's taken a while to get them under control. I think there is some good cooperation in the Hawke's Bay there. I've been up and visited. It is a challenge for farmers if you've got it. You know I can go back to the 1960s. I relate very closely to their dilemma and so we'll make sure the OSPRI is performing and we've certainly made some changes to make sure—it's such an important organisation. They've got to get it right.
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I'd like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of questions in the time I have allocated. First of all though I would like to reiterate the constructive nature of the committee session which has been enhanced somewhat by the new chair Barbara Kuriger. There's certainly a different tone within the Primary Production Committee and it has been working well. We did traverse a little bit the issues of the strong wool sector within the Estimates hearing and I know that subsequent to that there has been a report come out. You've taken a very proactive stance. You've recognised quite early on in your tenure and of course as a longstanding member of this Parliament that it's a sector that has great potential. It's a product in many respects whose time has come—the sustainable properties up against the synthetic petrochemical-based alternatives that are wreaking havoc with our environment. So I would like to hear some thoughts—subsequent to the Estimates debate we have had this release of the wool report—and how you see this progressing from this date.
Mahuta NanaiaHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Madam Chair I was just awaiting a response to the question. The second question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was in relation to the increase in funding for the Crown Māori relationships role and whether that was deemed sufficient and certainly on par with the State Services Commission in the scope of the responsibility. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): This is within the purview of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. What I can say is Te Puni Kōkiri does conduct some of the role and functions for some of the settlements in terms of ensuring that the Crown meets its obligation to report against the various Treaty settlement—I guess—requirements across Government agencies. This the relationship that iwi continue to seek as a result of their Treaty settlements is an ongoing relationship. I certainly believe that the Minister responsible is undertaking with diligence the role and responsibility of Government departments to implement their part of the agreements with various iwi. So in short you can put any figure there but by and large iwi largely measure progress in a very continual way and that's how many of the settlements seek to enable a relationship an ongoing relationship. As that relationship evolves and matters are being addressed no doubt the Minister may revisit the budgetary requirements in order to implement the necessary enactments. Vote Māori Development and Vote Treaty Negotiations agreed to.