edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
8. Question No. 8—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 8—Education8. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to pave the way for a fully qualified early learning workforce?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): As part of Budget 2020 we are restoring the 100 percent funding band for teacher-led early childhood education services that employ fully qualified and registered teachers. The funding band was scrapped by the previous Government in 2010. The new 100 percent funding rates will apply from 1 January 2021. This takes the Government's drive to improve the quality of early childhood education another step forward. Reinstating the 100 percent funding band is one of the top action points in the 10-year Early Learning Action Plan that the Government has released. Jan Tinetti: Will this change support the sector to manage the financial impact of COVID-19?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes it will. This funding boost comes at a time when there's likely to be lower demand for early learning services. The new funding band will encourage centres to use fully trained teachers and to keep the fully trained teachers that they have in work. As we respond to the challenges of COVID-19 and rebuild together it's vitally important that this sector who work with our youngest New Zealanders is funded properly. A decade of underfunding has had a significant impact on the sector which is why early childhood education was our top education priority in this year's Budget.Jan Tinetti: What response has he seen to the restoration of the 100 percent funding band?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The New Zealand Kindergartens has said that This is just so exciting for us and has been a long time coming. It's such good news on the back of what we've been going through with COVID-19 and a great boost and recognition for our staff who have been working so hard during this time to support our tamariki and our community." The Early Childhood Council has applauded the Government for reinstating this band saying "We're delighted to see two sizable investments within a week after several years of ECE under funding". It is with great humility that I saw the comment from the New Zealand Educational Institute who said "The Minister signed a pledge before the last election to restore this funding so we're really pleased to see him follow through and make early childhood education a top priority after a decade of neglect that's gone before.""
5. Question No. 5—Social DevelopmentPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Social Development5. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent information has she seen on the impact of the wage subsidy on employers?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I have recently seen preliminary findings on a survey of businesses receiving the Government wage subsidy. The survey had high engagement with over 90000 respondents—around a 25 percent response rate. The survey asked 13 questions on the following topics: the impact of COVID-19 on businesses the efficacy of the wage subsidy awareness and uptake of the supports and services available to them through Government and likely future support needs. It has been heartening to hear the positive responses of businesses that have seen the wage subsidy as a crucial lifeline with 79 percent of respondents saying they have benefited a lot from the subsidy. Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What are some of the other preliminary findings from the survey? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: One of the highlights has been seeing that the vast majority of respondents said that the wage subsidy had a positive impact on cash flow 94 percent; staff retention 83 percent; and being able to keep operating for the foreseeable future 89 percent; over half—62 percent—also said that support for wages has helped employers address other non-staff overheads. It was also a positive sign that only around 6 percent of respondents were expecting to make staff redundant over the coming months. In saying that I acknowledge that larger firms indicated a higher likelihood of staff impacts than small to medium sized businesses. These results show that for the vast majority of respondents the wage subsidy is achieving its intended purpose with broader positive benefits and we look forward to how we can use these insights to support businesses into the future. Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will the findings of the survey support the Government's response to COVID-19? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The final survey results will include important demographic information such as industry regional spread financial turnover revenue from tourism and whether the business identifies even as a Māori or Pacific business. This will be useful as we try to understand the broader impact of the wage subsidy particularly on small businesses across regions and industries. More than this it gives an insight into what businesses are thinking their next steps might be and where the Government can improve our support moving forward—for instance the preliminary results show that there was less awareness around some of the other supports available to businesses like non-government business support from councils and chambers of commerce. Over the coming weeks we hope to learn everything we can from this feedback and we expect to be able to share a more fulsome range of findings when the final results are available next week.
4. Question No. 4—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 4—Transport4. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What is in the text of the email from the office of Rt Hon Winston Peters to him on Auckland light rail and will Auckland light rail be considered by Cabinet before the pre-election period begins on 19 June 2020?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): My office received an email from the office of the leader of New Zealand First on Auckland light rail as part of coalition consultation. It's not in the public interests to disclose cross-party discussions during the Cabinet decision-making process. And to the second part of the question that is my intention.Chris Bishop: Did the email contain an attachment and did that attachment contain a letter on ministerial letterhead?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I actually haven't seen the actual email myself but my staff have dealt with it. So I can't answer that member's question.Chris Bishop: Sorry is he saying that the office of the Rt Hon Winston Peters in his capacity as the leader of the New Zealand First Party has sent him an email about the Auckland light rail project and he hasn't seen the email?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So the email was sent by staff in the leader of New Zealand First's office. It went to my staff and it's been dealt with accordingly.Chris Bishop: Given the importance of Auckland light rail—in his own words—to the Government's programme for Auckland why has he not seen the email from the office of the leader of New Zealand First relating to that project?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because Ministers have staff who deal with these things and I've been briefed by my staff on what's in the email.Chris Bishop: When was the email sent to his office?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The email was sent on 29 February.Chris Bishop: Would it be fair to say that the email albeit that he hasn't seen it was a contributing factor to Auckland light rail not going to Cabinet in February as was agreed by Cabinet in June 2019?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context they were made and delivered including my statement welcoming the Opposition's stated policy of moving away from the non-specific 'do you stand by all your Government's policies and statements' questions." and my later statement at 11 a.m. this morning expressing regret that the member missed the memo.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his response to my question on Tuesday which asked how much additional spending he had so far planned to announce before the general election in September "As the member knows the Government has been very flexible all the way through our response to ensure we meet need as it arises but I don't have any specific plans in that regard."?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand by all of the statements I made in that answer and I think the member's impression wasn't too bad just then.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How did he not have any specific plans for new spending on Tuesday and then have his Government announce $400 million of new spending on Wednesday?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The basis of that spending was in the Budget and the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund announcements we made.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why can't he give a straight answer to the question of how much additional spending he has planned to announce before the election when he clearly has large spending announcements planned for virtually every day?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do find it difficult to give straight answers—sometimes anyway—for obvious reasons. Only you and I are getting this joke Mr Speaker but it's good that the two of us are sharing it anyway. We've been very clear that we've announced $30 billion worth of spending from the response and recovery fund. The remaining $20 billion is available for spending as necessary. It doesn't mean it won't be spent but it doesn't mean that all of it will be spent either.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think he can just dismiss questions about his intentions for billions of dollars of spending?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No and I haven't. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he assure New Zealanders that he'll keep a substantial part of the $20 billion spare from the COVID fund as a contingency in the case of a later outbreak?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I in fact talked exactly about that when I announced it on Budget day. I note that the member and his party have already tried to spend about $10 billion of it in the last two weeks.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How long is he planning to keep up his average of announcing $200 million of new spending a day since the Budget and how does he think New Zealand will pay for it?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would have to go back and look at the figures that the member has just put forward there. What we have done throughout the last 2½ months or so is what New Zealanders wanted us to do which is cushion the blow of this virus on both our economy and our society and we will keep doing that."
2. Question No. 2—Research Science and InnovationDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 2—Research Science and Innovation2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made about funding for the Research Science and Innovation sector?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): Yesterday I had the pleasure of visiting the Institute of Environmental Science and Research campus at Kenepuru to announce over $400 million in funding for the research science and innovation sector from Budget 2020 and the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. Crown research institutes will receive $196 million in additional funding so they can retain talent and continue their key research. A $33 million fund will enable Māori to determine and make further investments in research science and innovation priorities and $150 million has been made available for a loan scheme helping R & D - intensive firms retain critical capability and talent and maintain their important research. This Government recognises the critical importance of a strong and well-resourced science sector and has stepped up to the plate with funding that will see that necessary work continue.Dr Deborah Russell: How will this funding boost support the post-COVID economic recovery?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Scientists have been at the coalface of the immediate COVID-19 response and their critical capability will need to be maintained as more research is undertaken into the virus itself and as global efforts coalesce in the hunt for a vaccine. These investments will support the production of high-value products knowledge-intensive high-paying jobs and help New Zealand make a strong recovery from COVID-19. It will provide certainty to our entrepreneurs innovators and researchers that this Government backs them and their work and we will not repeat the mistakes of the past particularly following the global financial crisis by cutting funding to the sciences in response to an economic downturn.Dr Deborah Russell: What other announcements has the Government made to assist entrepreneurs innovators and researchers in response to COVID-19?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government moved swiftly to establish the $25 million COVID-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund designed to accelerate the deployment of rapidly standing solutions in response to the threats posed by COVID-19. The ingenuity of the applications has to date been impressive and I look forward to seeing how these solutions can be utilised in our ongoing response and recovery. And of course the Ministers of foreign affairs health and I also recently announced a vaccine strategy for New Zealand which will see $37 million of Government funding provided for the development of diagnostics vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 as well as participation in international efforts and support for our Pacific neighbours.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I am very proud to be able to speak on a most excellent Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill. The reason why we reinvest in rail is not just because it's a good thing particularly in places like the Hutt Valley to get people to and from work without emissions but also because it creates jobs—like the 80 jobs in the Hutt railway workshops. So it's a good thing and it's a great bill and I commend it to the House.
Strange Jamie; Rurawhe AdrianJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on this bill—this exciting piece of legislation that is an enabling bill for rail.There's a lot of confusion over the other side on this matter. Let me give an example: the Hamilton to Auckland passenger rail service is about to get going. The Opposition railed against that for years and then I'm at the sod-turning and I look out and I see the Hon David Bennett at the sod-turning—I almost dropped the spade! That's just one example of the confusion that we're hearing from the Opposition; we've got clarity on this side. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Chris Penk—five minutes.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Madam Speaker thank you. Obviously it's a pleasure to hear the lovefest about rail—heavy rail that is—because it's always good on a Thursday afternoon before we adjourn to hear that it's the Transport and Infrastructure Committee once again bringing love to the House around heavy rail. It's great to see on that side of the House their love affair with it despite a few ups and downs. They like trains just like us but with $4.6 billion invested there and entrenching rail as part of an integrated transport solution for Aotearoa New Zealand it can only be good. Look we'll hear many more of it this evening this afternoon but I just do want to end on a very short call. Hon Members: Oh!PAUL EAGLE: We don't need to talk too long with all this love in the House. You're talking for me.Can I just end by saying that it's great to see KiwiRail integrated into our metro rail lines in the Wellington region and I know that that's going to be a great thing for rail. Long live rail.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.
SpeechPAULO GARCIA (National): We have heard that these are exceptional times and they are unprecedented times which calls for exceptional focus exceptional understanding and exceptional effort to help New Zealand survive the effects of this pandemic and survive economically. The question really has been and continues to be what is best for all New Zealanders. When the lockdown had occurred our Government immediately made available wage subsidies and wage subsidies have been the topic of other members' talks as well on both sides—both sides giving evidence that they believe that the wage subsidies have worked in hearing accounts from both sides. Clearly the desire on both sides of the House is to make sure that we do all we can for all New Zealanders. It's just that the evidence that they have presented on the wage subsidy for example and evidence that we have like my own personal meetings with businesses and asking them about the wage subsidy just come up with different accounts. The wage subsidy has been very useful for employees but the businesses have not found this useful for them to deal with the ongoing costs that they've had.At some point through the lockdown the Government also came up with the suggestion to businesses to go to their banks and the offering of Government guarantee. At some point when the businesses continued to be declined by the banks the Government then went on to say that they were unhappy with the unsatisfactory performance of the banks which then led to a Government loan programme of $10000 for a business which would be interest-free if paid in 12 months. Businesses continued to tell us on the other hand that taking on additional loans and taking on more debt that they knew they couldn't pay over 12 months was just not an option for them. Then again continued meetings with businesses restaurants medical practices bakeries small businesses employing maybe one to five people—the response that I have received personally has been that the wage subsidy while it has been good for employees has not been good for them. Getting down to level 1 is indeed a move that should be based on science. I add to this discussion that coincidentally I have two daughters who live in overseas countries—one in Sydney one in Taipei—and both countries had a much lower grade of lockdown compared to New Zealand. In particular I was quite amazed with the fact that Taipei which is 23 million - plus people in one-seventh the land size of New Zealand had actually performed better in terms of dealing with the pandemic. So there is science to be discussed about what really should be and how fast level 1 should be allowed.What is hard and early? This phrase has been repeated many times. I think it will be borne out by global facts at some point. What is good about history is that the facts will be borne out and as they happen in point in time and I look forward to what is hard and early.
Hipkins ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The House will adjourn today and will next meet on Tuesday 16 June when the Budget debate will be concluded. Other legislation to be considered in that week will include the second readings of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill; the committee stage of the Arms Legislation Bill; and the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill. The Government intends to extend the sitting of Tuesday 16 June into Wednesday morning. On Wednesday 17 June there will be a general debate in the afternoon followed by a members' day.
Mallard Trevor; Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaTHURSDAY 4 JUNE 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.PRAYERSSPEAKER: Because today is the 50th anniversary of the treaty of friendship between New Zealand and Tonga and the fact that we will miss Tongan Language Week because Parliament will be prorogued for the election I've asked Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki to say the prayer today in Tongan.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Māfimafi kuo mau ta'imālie 'i ho'o 'ofá. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu. Ke ke malu'i 'a e Kuiní mo tataki mai mu'a 'emau ngāue 'i Fale Aleá. Ke fai'aki 'a e poto faka-'Otua - 'a e 'ofá mo e 'ulungāanga malu ko e 'uhí ko e mo'uí mo e nofo melino 'a e fonuá. Pea 'oku mau kole 'a e ngaahi me'á ni 'i he Huafá ho'o 'Aló ka ko homau Fakamo'uí. 'Ēmeni.SPEAKER: Before I ask Chris Hipkins to give the statement we currently have some very strict rules as to attendance in the gallery and it is reserved for a security officer and current members of Parliament only so I'll have to ask my old friend Rick Barker to leave.
Wednesday 3 June 2020 - Volume 746
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 509 in the name of Matt Doocey be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon James Shaw to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 506 in his name be agreed to: in clause 110(3) replace new section 127(2) with:(2)However—(a)the EPA may amend an emissions return or assessment at any time to give effect to the correction of a unique emissions factor under section 91A; and(b)if the EPA is satisfied that an emissions return was fraudulent was wilfully misleading or deliberately omitted mention of emissions or removals in respect of which an emissions return was required to be submitted the EPA may amend the emissions return at any time under section 120 so as to—(i)increase the number of units required to be surrendered by the participant:(ii)decrease the number of New Zealand units to which the participant is entitled in respect of removal activities.in clause 110(3) new section 127(3) replace subsection 2(c)" with "subsection (2)(b)"after clause 223B insert:223BASection 127 amended (Time bar for amendment of emissions returns)after section 127(2)(b) insert:(c)if a person submits an emissions return on receiving a notice from the EPA under section 134A(1) the period of 4 or 7 years in which the EPA may amend an emissions return under subsection (1)(a) or (b) starts from the date of submission of the emissions return.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments to the amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 506 in the name of the Hon James Shaw be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 2 to 7 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 2 to 7 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently."
Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill — In Committee
10. Question No. 10—ForestryHon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of ForestryQuestion No. 10—Forestry10. Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Along with my colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor from the one billion tree fund the Government through my good self and my colleague have announced $10 million to aid planting wetlands and waterways create jobs in communities and improve the environment. In addition to this it will boost the local nurseries but most importantly provide sorely needed jobs in the rural community in the primary produce sector. [Hon Shane Jones knocks over glass of water]Hon Tracey Martin: How will this build on other initiatives which protect our wetlands and waterways?SPEAKER: Speaking of wetlands!Hon SHANE JONES: I do have a reputation as being a Minister who's hot to trot and I've now been cooled down. I accept that. Last year in a neglected part of Aotearoa the Waiapū catchment we allocated a sum of $5 million and in fairness to my colleagues from the other side of the House it was picking up an obligation that they took on board in the settlement of the Ngati Porou claim. We worked out that in areas such as that catchment improvements are not possible until we get the nephs off the couch and teach them actually how to start fencing again. We bring forward people that have been dislocated from the job market and we hope to continue doing that with the $80 million recently announced for waterways riparian planting and stock reticulation. There is so much to talk about and more will be stated as we move closer to a certain date towards the end of the year.Hon Tracey Martin: What other announcements has he made recently?Hon SHANE JONES: It's important that we bear in mind that it's not only about growing trees and environmental resilience but it's also investing in the next generation. Ngā Karahipi Uru Rākau forestry scholarships have recently been announced. This is to encourage young women those who have already left school Māori school-leavers and indeed anyone who wants to invest time money and effort in gaining a qualification so that we can turn the forestry sector from a low commodity game and increase both the skill the talent and the transparency in particular amongst those who play a role in advisory services and our log mongers—and need a great deal of training and education to ensure that our future industry is on the strongest footing possible.
5. Question No. 5—EnvironmentDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 5—Environment5. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he believe it is appropriate to impose new regulations on the rural sector given it is likely that New Zealand is about to enter a recession?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I believe that allowing pollution to get worse is both wrong environmentally and economically because if it continues to get worse it would cost more to clean up not less. The new national environmental standards in effect hold the line. The changes under the national policy statement do not take effect for several years by which time New Zealand is expected to have recovered from the economic impact of COVID-19. I note that the overall time frame to clean up all of our waterways to a healthy state is a generation and that will span a number of economic cycles.David Seymour: Is he concerned about the job losses and mental health pressures that the Ministry for the Environment's own analysis says will result from the regulations he's putting in place?Hon DAVID PARKER: The cost-benefit analysis which is very very thorough and has been peer-reviewed says that while many important benefits can't be quantified those that were quantified have an aggregate annual value of $359 million per annum up to 2050—primarily from improved swimmability reducing health risks ecosystem services water storage as a consequence of wetland protection and the like. The estimated costs are approximately $166 million per annum which means that overall the net benefit is $193 million per annum over 30 years excluding brand benefits which can't be quantified but are positive.David Seymour: Why is the Government focusing on putting new costs on the rural sector instead of resourcing local government in urban settings to clean up waterways such as Remuera's Hobson Bay where E. coli readings are 700 times safe levels?Hon DAVID PARKER: We're not. And to use the language that the ACT Party used to relate to what we're doing is internalising externalities to avoid the tragedy of the commons. In respect of urban issues we are applying the same standards to urban areas. I think it is noteworthy that the Auckland Council is bringing forward more than a billion dollars of expenditure to separate sewage from storm water to avoid the very issues that the member complains of which I agree do need to be addressed.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well I'm quite happy to support this bill in contrast to the previous speaker David Seymour because this bill is actually what is needed in terms of approaching a very particular and specifically important issue for New Zealand and in part that is around the two-stage approach to addressing our water management system.Now healthy waterways are vitally important to this country. There is a birthright to all New Zealanders: that many of us believe that we should be able to swim in our rivers. Now that is quite an emotive argument but it is one that resonates with most people in this country. But there is a strong economic argument for why we need clean rivers and waterways and to ensure the wetlands and lakes remain pristine where they are or get back to that point where they can be. And that is that we rely on our competitive advantage to sell our products overseas and if we continue to let those degrade we undermine that. I commend this bill to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I support this bill absolutely. It does four fundamental things. It ensures that the Environmental Protection Authority has the ability to support the regional councils on enforcement action. It enables faster and better nationally consistent water management. Time is short so I'm going to just jump to the final thing that I love the most and that is that it enables climate change to be brought into the Resource Management Act. I think this is a fundamentally wonderful bill. I commend it to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to speak on this bill because this bill is going to make a real difference down in Southland where I live. If we look at what's been happening with our New River Estuary down South and just decades of accumulation of silt coming down the rivers and nutrients what it basically shows is that if we drop the ball on freshwater management we end up with what we've got down South which is knee-deep waist-high—depending on where you're standing in our estuary—toxic thick mud. So what this bill will do is create the framework and the consistency for regional councils across the country so that they can do their freshwater planning in a consistent way. If you look at the previous national policy statement and what happened—and I think the previous speaker Jacqui Dean was talking about muddles". But looking at it under the previous system each regional council pretty much did its own thing and so we get incredible variability across the country in terms of how they're managing it. So what this is doing is creating a much more strategic framework that sets out how we will be managing this and it sets up freshwater hearing panels. What we've got there is some consistency because we've got freshwater commissioners appointed by the Minister who are taken from a common pool which means they've got consistency of view across the country but we're also including members from regional councils and also local tangata whenua. So we've got the right mix for making decisions. This is an important bill. It sets up the framework for where we need to go forward on freshwater quality and I'm really happy to commend this bill to the House."
Privacy Bill — In Committee
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to take a call on the Privacy Bill an excellent piece of legislation which was brought to this House by the National Government—a great piece of National legislation which the Government's still progressing many years into its first term and only term in Government—this the Privacy Bill.I just want to cover a couple of points in this legislation. I'd like to talk about cloud services which are not to be covered by the principles relating to overseas disclosure. It says in the commentary We consider that the obligations in clause 19 of the bill as introduced IPP 11(3) to (6) (which for reasons … we recommend renaming to IPP … should not apply to an agency transferring information to a cloud storage provider or other overseas processor." I was wondering if the Minister would like to give the committee some explanation as to why that has not been covered in those principles and that those principles do not apply to an agency transferring information to a cloud storage provider or other overseas processor.A big issue which is developing—cloud storage services are becoming more and more part of our lives and I think it would be helpful for the committee to be able to understand the issue that is at play here and the impact that it has on cloud storage services which New Zealanders use in their day-to-day lives. Thank you Madam Chair."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to have one more call—thank you.I'm just finally curious on the subject of what is described in the commentary as reported from the Justice Committee—that fine body—in relation to commissioners' decisions on access requests. And so what we've got is an understanding that the commissioner being the Privacy Commissioner would be able to make directions on complaints about access to information. And then if the person who'd made a complaint was not satisfied with the finding or perhaps someone being dissatisfied in having a finding made against them to be able to appeal that to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. So that's a deliberate policy decision that's been made. I make that observation on the basis that previously I think I'm right in saying the Human Rights Review Tribunal would have a prior involvement in the process. So if there's any particular thinking behind that that the Minister's able to share with us that would be useful to know. Thank you.Simeon Brown: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think the Minister's—do you want to respond to that or do you want a bit more time?Hon Andrew Little: If Mr Brown wants to take his call and I'll respond to both.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I think the reason for that if I could assist the honourable member is because the framework around inquiries is generally covered by the Inquiries Act. So an inquiry as we commonly understand it which is usually public is subject to a number of constraints and rules and regulations and so any privacy obligations and obligations to protect privacy are covered under that legislation. So it doesn't need to be replicated or duplicated under this the generic Privacy Bill.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair and again thanks to the Minister. I suppose I might just add if I may an observation on that area having had the benefit of a discussion at the select committee level. We thought that it would be helpful to provide as much clarity as possible—notwithstanding that it is a developing area of course—in the social media space. So with news entity" which the Minister rightly highlights as being a key aspect of that definition essentially—and therefore that exclusion—we talk about those who are or are employed by one who is subject to the oversight of the Broadcasting Standards Authority Media Council or other body prescribed as a regulatory body by regulations made under the relevant section of this Act. So I presume it would be within the purview of the Minister of Justice in whose name this bill comes before us effectively to be able to control that. In fact actually I should acknowledge I might be wrong in terms of the Minister who would be suggesting that those regulations be made. But in any case it would be within the ability of the Government of the day to make regulations to acknowledge updating circumstances in the media space as a bit of a compromise whereby we want to provide as much certainty as possible and not merely talk in general terms about what it is to be a publisher and so forth. So I think that's if I may say a helpful discussion that we've been able to have on both sides of the House and indeed following the select committee process that was also very constructive in that regard.I did have one other question in relation to the definition of "agency" and it was an invitation for the Minister to comment on the exclusion to do with inquiries. So for anyone following along at home or indeed the Minister himself in the "Interpretation" section—that's clause 6(1)(b)(x)—an inquiry is not included in the definition of an "agency" whereas some of the other exclusions are very worthy. For example members of Parliament in their official capacity are excluded which I have to say—albeit with a vested interest—I think is very right and proper. For an inquiry to not be subject to the principles and the prescriptions and the proscriptions of the Act seems to me perhaps surprising but there might be a good explanation for it. So any thoughts that the Minister may have and I appreciate I'm putting him on the spot somewhat in a relatively small aspect albeit important given the number of inquiries that are conducted. If the Minister has got any comments in relation to that I would be grateful to hear them."
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I think from the outset the current Privacy Act was conceived on the basis—and it was a very debateable point at that time—that the news media were able to protect their sources. As a liberal social democracy we've long cherished the role that the fourth estate plays as part of our democracy not just calling politicians to account but calling private organisations and public organisations and individuals to account particularly those who wield power or exercise power and influence. So protecting the news media has always been a vital objective in the legal framework that we've got.In terms of defining what that is clause 6 which is the interpretation section is very clear in its definition of both news activity and news entity. So news activity involves gathering news gathering observation on news current affairs. Now somebody might say well somebody with a Twitter account is observing news sometimes very insightfully and sometimes not—in fact I'd say more often not insightfully. But I think where the rubber hits the road is in the definition of news entity and a news entity is one that is subject to oversight by the standards agency—so the Broadcasting Standards Authority the New Zealand Media Council or equivalent. So it's not anybody who rocks on up and says Right I'm a news outlet." We expect them to observe basic journalistic principles: the need for fairness and balance a commitment to accuracy. No one's perfect and people get it wrong but you want an institution that is committed to that. So I'm satisfied that the definitions in clause 6 of the bill provide the safeguards in relation to the protection afforded news media. We want them to have that protection but we don't want anybody just rolling around claiming that they're somehow a news entity and doing news activity when that isn't the case. I think there's a very clear definition here that protects those who are subject to the accountability of the real news media and it protects the news media in doing their job."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair and again grateful for the interaction on that one. My next line of questioning or perhaps exploration is in relation to the exemptions for news media.I note that the way that the bill is structured is that it is an agency" as defined in the legislation who has certain obligations for the treatment of private information. There are a number of exclusions one of which we might come to a bit later but initially I'm interested in the exclusion that an "agency" does not include a news entity in relation to its news activities. We see that a "news entity" means one that is essentially conducting news activity which in turn means among other things publishing news observations and current affairs and so on.So given that "publishing" in the bill can mean publishing on any medium just wondering if the Minister's got any views about how this may apply whether immediately or perhaps in due course to social media platforms. I appreciate that it's a vexed area more generally and outside the realm of privacy legislation as well and I do acknowledge that it's an evolving area so I don't think it'd be reasonable for anyone to expect the Minister would have a complete answer in that regard. But certainly any guidance he can give I think would be useful to sort of develop the thinking of this committee and no doubt for others who are interested in developing and indeed applying privacy law going forward."
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The jurisprudence on privacy in New Zealand has really been geared around the Privacy Act and it's what the Privacy Commissioner and what the Proceedings Commissioner has done in relation to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. In terms of private action or a piece of civil litigation in relation to privacy a litigant would have to demonstrate harm which is what they're effectively seeking either compensation for that or reparation for that or some sort of exemplary damages. But that area in New Zealand common law is not well developed so I'm not particularly fussed that the offence provisions here don't allow somebody who has suffered a civil wrong to launch litigation for that. This is the means by which people can enforce their privacy rights. They can do it through the Privacy Commissioner and they can do it through the Proceedings Commissioner who takes cases to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. So that's the important part of the privacy jurisprudence for New Zealand and will continue to be so.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to continue a little bit on the subject of penalties and I'm grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the level of penalties set by the bill but I wonder if he can provide any guidance on how he sees the operation of offences under the Act as compared with what might be available to a private litigant? So in a civil action under the tort of privacy it might be available for a person to sue for a breach and I'm wondering if the same action that falls within the ambit of this bill might also be available to a person to sue in respect of that in that civil realm.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I thank the member Chris Penk again for his question. I think the member can be assured that the level of penalties for offences in this bill are comparable to offences in for example the Human Rights Act and those that would also be considered by the Human Rights Review Tribunal. So we know that at that sort of civil level of penalty that $10000 mark for an individual is pretty much the top end. It is a pretty severe penalty for an individual who offends against the provision. But it's not at the $100000 or $500000 mark. You wouldn't expect that for this sort of thing. These penalties are greater than what appears in the current legislation but that is right not only because inflation will have eroded the value of those penalties but also because there is for good reason greater sensitivity in this day and age about privacy and about breaches of privacy that ought to attract a material enough penalty which I think these provisions do.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair and I'm grateful to the Minister for that answer. On this side of the committee I think we're in a very similar space at least as far as the ambit of the bill itself is concerned as I noted earlier.I'm interested also to just flesh out a little bit of the Minister's thinking around the operation of the new offences and penalties that are created by the bill. It's one of its key features. So for those who haven't had the benefit of reading it closely I'll note for the sake of the debate that the bill does create new criminal offences including misleading an agency to obtain access to someone else's information or destroying a document containing personal information with the context being that it was known that a request had been made. There are penalties of up to $10000 which is considerably higher than the fines under the current legislation. So no small matter but that's appropriate if we regard privacy as a serious matter of protection or indeed as a human right as I characterised it earlier.So my question for the Minister is how he views these penalties under the Privacy Bill—soon to be the new Privacy Act—in relation to the penalties that are available under the civil regime. So where the tort of privacy currently exists and it's available to a person to take a cause of action against another person for a breach of privacy I'd be interested to know from the Minister how he feels that these should interact—whether for example an offence allegedly committed under the Privacy Bill would preclude a civil action in a similar kind of space or in relation to the same action and vice versa bearing in mind of course the principle of double jeopardy at play. So I'd welcome any comments that the Minister has on that.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the member for his question. This bill the member might well know goes back some years. In fact it started under the previous Government and it's no criticism that it has taken this long to get to this point. A very important area of human endeavour—particularly in this day and age—is to ensure that we have a good legal framework to protect privacy. So these privacy principles were well canvassed and well thrashed out in the original legislation. They were well reviewed and well considered in the review of the legislation and in putting together this bill. Even though the bill started life in 2011 I think and has been reconsidered since—and certainly on the change of Government there was a further reconsideration about whether it met the mark. There were some changes made to bring it up to spec particularly with the European data requirements. But these principles have proved to be enduring and with some minor changes and tweaks I think generally members on both sides of the House have got to the position that actually they serve the purpose well. They're a good high-level indicator of what is expected and the extent of protection that ought to be in place and a basis on which the rest of the legal framework can fall. So I stand by the principles as they are. They've been well considered and they've been proven to work in practice.