edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Oh look thank you Madam Speaker. It seems somewhat strange to be speaking for the second time tonight supporting a Government bill. I listened carefully to the speech of the Minister and also my very learned colleague Tim van de Molen who gave I thought a very good analysis of the situation. I've got the good fortune to represent the Coromandel electorate in this House which has one of the longest coastlines in the country actually—of any electorate in the country. We've got a thriving aquaculture sector in my part of the world and one that has potential to grow significantly.Hon David Parker: Mangroves.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well no that's a subject that my predecessor used to get very exercised about in this House but she's now the mayor of the Thames-Coromandel District Council so that falls well and truly into her sphere of influence Minister.So I didn't have the opportunity to sit on the select committee but I do understand the issues that are at play in this bill and that are trying to be resolved and they are as a previous speaker has said an opportunity in this legislation to remove some of the little roadblocks that are preventing the distribution of the aquacultural assets. That's probably a very good thing because if we can free up the distribution of those assets to enable those assets to be used for the creation of greater opportunity greater wealth greater initiative in the aquacultural sector then we on this side of the House are all for that. So I find myself twice in one evening having to support a Government bill. I know that the members on the other side will think that this is a rare and unusual rush of blood to the head but on this occasion I think it's probably deserved and I do support the bill.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to speak in support of this bill because it's returning settlement assets to iwi and it's putting those settlement assets into their hands to ensure that it can grow the aquaculture industry which is so important to our regions and to growing our food and export-led recovery.We know that the aquaculture industry as it grows Māori will grow with it because this is a prospective settlement. As it grows 20 percent of it whether it's through space or cash will be transferred to iwi. What we're doing here is we're just removing these little blockages which probably weren't contemplated at the time when it was originally crafted which will enable the trustee to be able to transfer those assets to those iwi that have been long waiting for those assets to be received. Likewise those that may not agree their assets will be preserved to a future time when they may be in a position to receive those assets.So this is all about ensuring those assets can flow through so that we can continue with the growth of this exciting aquaculture industry. Can I support the Minister David Parker the work of the select committee and all the submissions that were made on this bill. I commend it to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Over the last couple of years I've had quite a few people contacting my office and quite a lot of concerns about the chemicals and sprays going into the environment and not just in the context of the Mataura dross situation but a lot of them are concerned around the use of herbicides weedkillers and the tendency to spray them in our waterways or around our waterways or just along the kerbsides rather than manual weeding. I think that's why thinking about the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act it's really important to make sure that we know that chemicals are safe and they're used in a safe way.I think that's one of the main purposes of the Act to protect the environment and the health and safety of people and communities from the adverse effects of hazardous substances but the problem we've got at the moment is that reassessments and assessments of hazardous substances can take a long time take quite an in-depth process and so what happens is it may mean the delayed entry of new chemicals coming in which could actually replace more unsafe chemicals. That happens. Then basically the other issue is that some chemicals may continue to be used or the controls continue to be used when they really shouldn't and so it's really important that we do get more efficient in terms of the assessment process.So what this bill will do is allow the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to make better use of information from international regulators leading to more timely assessments and reassessments of chemicals. So basically for example the rapid assessment for importation and manufacture of hazardous substances that part of the Act—what it will now mean is the EPA potentially could approve a hazardous substance if the same substance has been authorised by an international regulator. There are a lot of other issues around that to be considered but what it will mean is that things can happen in a much more timely manner. So it's a small but very effective bill and I'm very happy to commend it to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. I have to say at the start of this debate the contributions were somewhat reasonable and then as we've got closer towards the end of the debate the only relevance I think from the other side of the House is that the contributions have been hazardous and of limited to little substance. I certainly hope that perhaps the speaker from the Opposition that will follow perhaps will rectify that record moving forward.As the Minister indicated this is a bill that will continue to protect the environment. It's actually quite discrete in nature because it will focus on an increase in the efficiencies particularly in that regulatory process but only relative to assessment or alternatively reassessment of hazardous substances. So it's very very defined in terms of the bill in front of us.However those efficiencies won't be at the expense of the integrity of the process. So I think we just need to remind ourselves that it is quite a discrete bill that we are talking about here and previous contributions I think have missed that point. So as a member of the Environment Committee I'm looking forward to getting my teeth into this alongside colleagues and on that basis I commend the bill to the House.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It is a pleasure to take a call tonight on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. On behalf of the bill it's been called dull and uninspiring tonight but actually I've got quite a pack of fascinating information that I'd encourage you all to read—including as members of the House have pointed out tonight the discussion document and the submissions that had come from the Environmental Protection Agency.I must just respond to the previous speaker Penny Simmonds because it is disappointing after a night of goodwill and camaraderie across the House in what I like to call silly hour" at the end of the night to see politicking around a bill that actually I think many of us around the House tonight believe will make a positive difference to our industries to our businesses and to those organisations that have to work with hazardous substances.So just coming back to the bill—because it took the previous speaker quite a long time to get to the bill tonight—as colleagues have pointed out including my neighbouring electorate MP Stuart Smith from Kaikōura this bill is actually incredibly important when you think about industry and the way it operates globally. As we recover from COVID and as we deal with some of the pressing issues of our time like climate change it is important that we reduce the unnecessary regulation and processes that we have. It is important that we do that to ensure that we can continue to trade we can continue to grow our economy and we can continue to assess the status of a chemical and how hazardous it is or isn't; that we can make that assessment quickly. What this bill specifically does is it ensures that we are referencing global information global best practice and using that information to enhance our processes here in New Zealand.On that note it has been a pleasure to take a short call on this bill tonight. I commend it to the House."
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a very short call to speak in support to select committee stage of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. Now we support it not just because it is dull but worthy as my colleagues have somewhat unkindly characterised it but mainly because it's such a shock that this Labour Government is promoting anything that might address and reduce time-consuming resource-intensive inefficient and cumbersome bureaucratic processes because quite frankly most of the bills they put up for us to deliberate on have exactly the opposite aim and effect.So following best-practice parenting skills we should catch them when they are good and give positive reinforcement in the hope that they might continue on in this vein. However my colleague Scott Simpson has ruined that completely for me by telling us in fact that it was initiated by the Environmental Protection Authority not the Government. So clearly we're not entering an era of new enlightened Government direction and my initial euphoria has evaporated.The bill however on the face of it makes sense. We should try and avoid duplication and over-complicating processes especially where they could have unintended consequences around the safety and environmental costs around delaying safer alternatives and the continuation of use of not fit for purpose chemicals. Of course we should be using relevant information from other international regulators instead of reinventing the wheel. Perhaps Pharmac might like to think about that also. We should be supporting an amendment that allows quicker and more efficient processing by the Environmental Protection Authority.So we are happy to support the bill to go through to the select committee stage to enable further scrutiny of it and public input. I commend the bill to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to rise for the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. Before I have a very quick contribution I'd just like to speak to the member who just resumed his seat Simon Court. The concerns that you've raised—this is exactly what this bill is going to be doing. It's going to speed things up it's going to make things a lot more sensible and a lot more practical. It is essentially going to make sure that we can use international knowledge and skills to speed up this process. So I think it does what it says on the tin and I think you'll be quite happy with the process.Look I am going to take a very short call but I do want to just raise new section 76E the international regulators. I think this is our key area that we need to be looking at at select committee. As a member of the Environment Committee I'm very much looking forward to this matter. So we need to look at what has similar operating standards as the Environmental Protection Authority internationally. We need to look at a legislative regime that is comparable. So we need to look at similar comparable legislative regimes across the world and we have to make sure that those decisions that are made are readily accessible. So we need to be able to easily find that information.Now that is going to speed up the process for us remarkably. This is a really important bill and I just have to say to the Minister I appreciate the work that has gone into this bill. It's a really important bill and many of us knew about the aluminium dross that happened recently and how upset we all were in this country about that situation. This bill goes to addressing those issues; I commend it to the House.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. It's appropriate that I start this with an acknowledgment of a kaumātua who passed away last week from Tauranga Moana. His name is Dr Kihi Ngātai and he was a well-respected person. His legacy lives on through his descendants. Last week he lay in state at Whareroa Marae. It was a very important occasion and I want to acknowledge his passing. And also connected to the bill that we're talking about the people at Whareroa Marae have real concerns about some of the chemicals that are floating around in the air around down at the port of Tauranga. They have real concerns about the quality of the air around them. They have real concerns about the industrial estate that's popped up around them that has very hazardous substances and chemicals that give them great cause for concern.So I want to stand and with the other side of the House—all sides of the House it seems—give my widespread support for this which is something that's been brought forward as said by a previous speaker by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) who are the regulators of those hazardous substances that we have here in New Zealand. We understand that their job is to assess and to reassess those chemicals in our environment that are dangerous to us but if managed correctly actually don't pose the imminent threat that they could do if they didn't have that level of management around them. We also acknowledge that the Environmental Protection Authority have noted that it's a very timely process a time-consuming resource-intensive process to be able to go through assessments and reassessments as well. So this bill should give New Zealanders some level of comfort that we have a watchdog that is out there that is monitoring the chemicals in our environment that is reassessing whether or not chemicals are dangerous to our health. And it should absolutely give some certainty to the whānau that live around Whareroa Marae that we have a watchdog in place. It is the EPA and they've brought this bill before the House. I look forward as part of the Environment Committee to ushering this bill through but also to hearing some of those submissions whether in support or against so that we can better understand how this legislation really does and is going to affect New Zealanders into the future. So I commend this bill to the House.
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Brooking. Yes thank you Madam Speaker. I am sitting next to the other Rachel B and she might take a call in a minute but thank you Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to be able to make a short contribution on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill that is—Hon Scott Simpson: Say it again with meaning!RACHEL BROOKING: Ha ha! Very excited about this HSNO amendment bill. So as the Minister has said it's a piece of work to really add to the efficiencies of the system and great to hear from the previous speaker Scott Simpson that we can agree that this is a good even if dull but worthy piece of legislation.The Minister in his speech touched on the consultation process as did the previous speaker with where it's been initiated from. Happy to talk briefly about how it was initiated with a compliance systems report done by some experts and then both the Ministry for the Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) went out for consultation in August and September in 2019. That discussion document mentioned this trusted regulator a lot of times through it and that's really this idea of having an international regulator that the Minister spoke about. Then the submissions were summarised and reported on at the end of 2019. So now we have this dull but worthy bill.So not only—Hon Scott Simpson: Ah it's a concession. RACHEL BROOKING: Ha ha! But I'm still excited by it. Not only does it improve the efficiencies but it also requires the EPA to develop a publicly available work plan and this is for hazardous substances reassessments. So this will be very useful for HSNO users to know when they can expect reassessments. So it's in clause 4 of the bill which will be the new section 20C and this work plan is to list the chemicals or substances to be reassessed and give indicative time frames for the start of that work by the authority and then it's to be publicised on the internet. So I look forward to the submissions to the Environment Committee and working across the House on this bill. Thank you.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): This bill is about refocusing the Family Court on the children at its heart and focusing lawyers for children on children but it has tonight become an opportunity to relitigate the frankly disastrous Collins reforms of 2014 which so incredibly lengthened the times taken by Family Court cases for the very children that the other side claim to be able to protect. I am delighted to stand up and support this bill not just as a member of the Justice Committee but also as a lawyer of some 25 years in the Family Court—not only that but as someone who just before she was elected was in the process of completing a study on whether Family Court lawyers add or take away from Family Court resolutions for children. I can tell you having spent the 18 months prior to my election doing that work the international research and the New Zealand research is in fact conclusive: lawyers shorten disputes not lengthen them and that is what the disastrous experiment of the Collins reforms proved. I am delighted to recommend this bill to the House.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): It's a pleasure to speak on this bill the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill which I very much support but I'd like to take a short opportunity to discuss some of the amendments here which have been made by a very hard-working Justice Committee. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the House from the ACT Party from the National Party who also participated in what has been despite all appearances of fire and brimstone in this debate a very collegial process one of finding consensus around very complex points of law where we have relied on the lawyers' expertise in the room and those presenters to us.I will commend the committee on what has been as far as my observation of select committee goes an unusually proactive approach to the development of policy. And may I just highlight the opportunities for children to participate in decisions affecting them being one of those nitty-gritty issues which everyone in the committee room even those members who ultimately opposed it has gotten into in a very detailed and complex way and I commend everyone's work on that and the Office of the Clerk who has ably assisted us in calling experts and discussing these issues with the experts in the room. So thank you to all of the members and I commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of this bill. I was actually an employment lawyer but I was married to a senior family lawyer who did exactly this kind of work. I often actually was pleased to be doing something that meant just slightly less to people than their families and their children. I was absolutely admiring of the work done by counsel for children in the time that I saw them working. They were extremely selfless. They were sensitive and they were not egotistical. They didn't actually make themselves the most important person in the room. They often made the children that and that was one of the things that will be very important to fulfilling that role.In 2014 the National Government got rid of a whole lot of support that people had in the most terrible crisis of their lives. They lost their buddy. They lost their lawyer. So I don't agree with Mr Bridges when he talks about lawyers in the way he does because there are different kinds of lawyers and these lawyers that are supported in this legislation are going to do an excellent job supporting our children and their whānau and they will look to conciliation and they will be an asset to this country. Thank you. I support the bill.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Speaker. Good on the ACT Party. We may not agree on many things but for the second time in a week they have demonstrated that they've been able to apply some principles and despite some misgivings they can vote for a bill because on the balance of things actually they can see the sense of it.What a shame the National Party can't do the same. Here we are in the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill and the root of the need for this bill comes from the 2014 reforms that the National Party brought in under Judith Collins the Hon Judith Collins who was justice Minister at the time forcing us to bring in an independent panel to look into it. And they say What we have heard seen read and researched has convinced us that the elements of the 2014 reforms must be changed." And here they are with an opportunity to admit to the country that they tried something it didn't work let's go back to what it was and actually make some improvements. They can't do that because they cannot admit that they were wrong and they cannot admit that their leader was wrong and I think that's a shame."
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to mihi to the work and the kaupapa of my colleague who has just resumed her seat Vanushi Walters in the space of children's rights because we have worked in that space together. I also hoped to raise some issues that might educate the member who resumed his seat before her Chris Penk.The genesis of this bill might in fact go further back than any report that took place in Aotearoa New Zealand and our broken system of justice when it comes in particular to treating children and young people right back to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—one of the most binding universally accepted consensus-based pieces of international human rights law which New Zealand has ratified. In fact the views of the child must be taken into account as a matter of law in order to uphold their welfare and their wellbeing in all decisions that impact them. So this bill is ensuring that New Zealand's justice system is more compliant with law that we've already acceded to in the international space. It is already domestic law that we were breaching when we abolished the lawyer for child under the last National Party - led Government. In that way it will mean that our justice system is more effective more compassionate and more consistent with what we know as being the absolute bottom-line rights of all children and young people. It's not about expediency of decision making; it's about those decisions being right and this bill moves us toward that.Lawyers for child were some of the most highly trained specialised effective members of the bar. They don't need extra training. They were made redundant by a Government that didn't believe in human rights or children's rights or respect the expertise that already existed at the bar and we are restoring that. This is an evidence-based piece of law because we know that decisions that impact the wellbeing and welfare of children the rights of children will only ever be effective if their views are taken into account appropriately both culturally and in terms of their age. The lawyers for child have that training. That's what makes this effective.More than that if members opposite are concerned about the exposure of children and young people to the justice system being harmful they are right. I suspect that this would then mean that they would agree with us that the age of criminal responsibility should never have been lowered to 10 years old that 17-year-olds should never have been left in the criminal justice system. They don't agree with that so that isn't their concern. What we're seeing with this bill is a return to a human rights - based child rights system in our criminal justice system. We have a long way to go but this is a step in the right direction and so I do commend the bill to the House.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I do feel sorry for the member Mr Bridges who I suspect may receive a call from the Children's Commissioner at some stage this week in relation to that partial quote of his submission. I'd recommend to those interested at home that they review the Children's Commissioner's full submission many of whose recommendations were picked up in this final version of the bill.As my colleague has mentioned this bill takes its genesis from the findings of the Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau report—the report of the 2014 National Government reforms of the justice system. And the nub of that report essentially said that the system at the time reinforced that decisions be made about children not that decisions be made involving children and that is the nub of the problem. That is the nub of what we're trying to resolve with this bill. What the situation was then was not a smoother better quicker system. We base our changes based on evidence. We base our changes based on the recommendations of the experts who produced that very thorough report. I commend this bill to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity but I am quite concerned that the previous speaker the Hon Simon Bridges was in fact in fairyland and I think we need to put it straight. We need to bring this room out of fairyland and into reality. So one point I'd like to make is the only thing I got out of that tirade of fairy dust was that this bill evidently provides more lawyers. Now if we take a short trip back in history the exact problem was brought in back in 2014 under the previous National Government which actually took away the rights of people in the Family Court to have lawyers which caused a huge backlog of cases. Madam Speaker I would like to put it to you that justice delayed is justice denied and the delay in the resolution of issues—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I would prefer to be left out of this debate.GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry Madam Speaker. Delay in resolution of issues in court is widespread and these are the findings of the report that came back in 2019 on those changes: It is a significant factor in undermining [the] confidence in the Family Court and can contribute to [the] deepening [of] parent … [family] whānau conflict." So what this bill does in fact is it restores the child at the centre of the case it enables legal representation and furthermore it puts a lens of family violence across the court that previously was lacking. So there are some excellent changes that will make our Family Court far more responsive to young people and far more equipped to resolve issues instead of making them wait and wait and wait as we've seen in the past. I would like to commend this bill to the House."
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I just want to thank Todd McClay the previous speaker for the six minutes and 30 seconds of his contribution to this House. That's almost as much as he contributed to this piece of legislation in the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. We appreciate that. I am here to support the Fair Trading Amendment Bill as the final speaker of the Government and I'm proud to stand up and say that this Government is committed to protecting New Zealand businesses to protecting consumers and all our practices. This bill is here to address to support and ensure that we have fair trading and a fair trade in our businesses and our consumers. I also want to mention living in the beautiful electorate of New Plymouth—yes New Plymouth. Talking about press statements and—as the previous speaker said—KiwiBuild well 18 months ago there was a press release around KiwiBuild in New Plymouth: 68 houses. The sod was turned about a year ago and I have to say that 68 families are living in their KiwiBuild homes in Marfell in New Plymouth. So I'm really proud of this Government's progress and what they're doing. I commend this bill to the House.
van de Molen Tim; Dean JacquiTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order Madam Speaker. I just wanted to make sure that we were following the speaking order appropriately but I believe we are. So I will let you carry on. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well I'll just deal with this point of order and I would advise Mr van de Molen that that is not a point of order so I'm looking forward to the next call.
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Through this bill we've learnt a lot about the values of this House. Let it be known and let it be for ever remembered that we as the Labour Party are the party that supports small businesses. We are the party that supports tradespeople we are the party that supports the underdog and we are the party that will protect consumers every single day no matter where that trade is happening. Whether it's on their front doorstep or whether it's in their homes we will be there to protect them and this is what this bill will do. It will make sure that people who are vulnerable feel safe in their own houses.But also this bill will protect our economy going stronger which I'm always still surprised about. The Opposition keeps telling us that New Zealand is built upon small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs)—and I completely agree. So here is a bill that will protect SMEs and so therefore there is no hesitancy on this side of the House to support it. This is also a bill that has shown us that a Labour chair does very well. Thank you to Mr Jamie Strange who has actually shepherded through almost every single bill that we've got in this term unlike this one which was done through the last term. So with that recognition to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee I commend this bill to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): One of the reasons I like this bill is a very simple provision in here which says that persons engaging in an uninvited direct sale must leave or not enter a consumer's property as soon as possible after being directed. So if there is a sticker on your door that says Do not knock" once this bill passes that will actually mean anything. I'm thinking about my late grandmother who was a bit vulnerable. If someone—despite her having a sticker—came to her door she'd probably feel obliged to listen and then we'd probably end up with a vacuum cleaner. I say that because my good mate Damien O'Connor in a previous life was a very very successful door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman. I don't know if the House knows that but that is why he is such a good communicator because he could sell ice to the Eskimos. But he would've appreciated this law because it sifts the cowboys from the gentlemen. He is a gentleman he supports the bill with real life experience and I support it with him."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of this bill and it's in its third reading now. During those discussions that we've had in previous readings we've talked about the reason why unconscionable conduct is simply not defined. That's because there's criteria set out in that bill so if you apply the criteria then actually it is possible to predict whether the actions are unconscionable. But when you've got people who actually are creative in the way that they are basically holding people—or being sneaky then you need something that's more flexible and this bill does that. It also extends the protections to unfair contract terms and consumer contracts for small-business contracts. That's an area that's needed a fix for a very long time and I'm very proud that we're fixing it in this legislation. Thank you.
Menéndez March RicardoFAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 3 August.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to finally give our call on the Fair Trading Amendment Bill's third reading. It's been a long time coming so I am glad we're finally going through the motions of the House. Look this bill will go some way towards ensuring that consumers have a better deal when engaging with businesses. It also ensures that smaller businesses have better access to trade contacts. I think to me the thing that stands out around this bill is the protections around ensuring that uninvited sellers are now warned against by the introductions that this bill puts in. So for example the Do not knock" stickers provided by Consumer New Zealand now will have far more weight and I think this is quite important as I think of some industries like electricity retailers and often the aggressive tactics that have been employed to poach consumers. In the last debate I spoke about my own really brief experience of doing almost a one-off gig with one of these retailers. I think of just the predatory nature of these tactics against low-income communities and migrant communities and I want to acknowledge the lengthy commentary that the member to my left Naisi Chen has given around the vulnerabilities of households where maybe English for example is not their first language and how they're at far more risk. So this bill will introduce some good protections. I think plenty of debate has been held around the definition of unconscionable conduct. I don't think the Greens want to further extend our legislative session on this bill any more than it already has been and I would encourage viewers to look at previous contributions for an enriching debate on this definition. So we commend this bill to the House."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. I rise to commend this bill to the House. I'm the last speaker so I just want to really focus on wood for trees here. This is actually a bill which modernises the structures that are in place around a system and it is very cognisant of the rest of that system. So we're going to have a board instead of a single person and that board will have responsibilities. And the people on that board it is true are not prescribed in the kind of person they are. As pointed out by Hon Julie Anne Genter earlier that actually allows for a kind of great latitude because what you want on that board is people with different skills and different experiences and those people all contribute to the whole and so does the governor who will also be on that board. That board will be linked it will work together with the Council of Financial Regulators. Those are things like the Commerce Commission and those are really important institutions and they will work together. So this bill is all about working together and I commend it to the House.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This bill is the result of extensive consultation and stakeholder engagement. Critical to the modernising of this bill has been to ensure we protect the Reserve Bank's operational independence and its governance and accountability and those have been two of the most critical things in setting up for this bill here today. I have really enjoyed being part of this process and seeing this through. When the finance Minister said that he was in the seventh form in 1989 when this bill first came in I can say that I was in the seventh form too and what a long way we've gone. I commend this bill to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare te Whare e tū nei e mihi ana ki a koutou i tēnei pō. [Greetings Madam Speaker and greetings to all of you in House this evening.]It's my honour to rise to take a short call this evening on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill. This bill has been developed as part of phase two of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act review. The significance of this bill is that in 2017 the Government announced it would undertake a review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 and this review is the first review of the Act since it came into force.So what this bill does is: it's an important bill that adds an overarching financial stability objective to complement the recently updated monetary policy objectives. It's in its third reading and it's really good to hear this evening much more of a passive approach from my colleagues across the way. We're all in this together. We've got work to do and we are committed to doing it.So without further ado it's the third reading and I'd like to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koe.
Dean JacquiASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. When the House rose for the dinner break we were under consideration with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill's third reading. National have the next call.
Edmonds Barbara; Dean JacquiBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to add a contribution that when we looked at 1989 the Berlin Wall collapsed and there was the crackdown in Tiananmen Square. As the Minister of Finance said he was in college. As Dr Deborah Russell has said she was at university—oh actually no sorry. She was auditing at the time and I was eight and at primary school. So this Act is far from overdue to be updated. The fact that we have an Act that is over 30 years old is probably not a good starting point. When you look at Schedule 4 of the bill—and it is 15 pages—Schedule 4 covers the amendments to other legislation. That's how much other legislation needs to be changed just for the title of this bill. Therefore I commend this bill to the House and I thank Madam Speaker for the call. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break and the House will resume at 7 o'clock this evening. Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I was quite surprised. I thought that member Michael Woodhouse with his passion about this bill would have gone on to at least take his full time.However this is a bill—its time has come. There was a time when central bankers were people who sat in back rooms and were not particularly relevant. They certainly weren't well known. Come 2008 all of a sudden the world looked to them and said Save us because we're going down the tubes very quickly." So names like Mario Draghi and Janet Yellen became household names. They central bankers all of a sudden were elevated to a place in the financial system that gave them extreme power. Any hint of an interest rate rise or drop would see markets spiralling upwards and downwards. So we exist in that world; our legislation is part of that. It's essential that we have good legislation with which to background that sort of power that sort of movement and this legislation will do it. I recommend it to the House."
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you Madam Speaker. The Minister of Finance began his speech by mentioning that when the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was first established back in 1989 he was in seventh form. At that time I was in my second year out from university working as an auditor and in fact auditing the Reserve Bank. It was a grey and dusty institution but the 1989 Act did actually substantially change it and modernise it but that was 30 years ago in a different world. In the world we are facing today we actually need to change the way the Reserve Bank operates to give it greater scope to act but also to give the Minister of Finance greater capacity to work with the Reserve Bank in terms of managing the New Zealand economy for the betterment of us all and that is precisely what this bill does. I commend this bill to the House.
Waititi RawiriRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak to this motion approval of orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. Aotearoa has had one of the best national responses to the COVID pandemic of any country in the world. Te Paati Māori has acknowledged and continues to acknowledge the Government alongside our people for collectively achieving that. However the Crown have let complacency set in. We've been lucky in recent months. Systems failings have opened us up to the risk of further outbreaks and new and stronger variants. And on at least a few occasions it appears that we've been saved thanks to luck and good fortune. That is not good enough. Last year whānau hapū iwi and our urban Māori and Whānau Ora organisations demonstrated exemplary leadership and stepped up to provide the Māori response as the Crown had nothing in place and simply could not reach the places we could. It becomes clearer every day especially given there is still no public body response plan from the Crown that this will remain the case. We sadly cannot rely on the system in place at a national level. The Government continues to systemically exclude Māori from the pandemic decision-making and coordination. We are being treated like mushrooms and kept in the dark and fed bull tiko. We do not accept that there is one source of truth. That type of kōrero is dangerous. It is an approach that is having the opposite effect of what's intended. It is eroding public trust especially in Māori communities in the Government's response. This is evident in the low vaccination uptake among Māori under the age of 65. Our people need to be at the table. We need access to real-time information we need constant communication and we need to be trusted as the community leaders that we are. This House has also been prevented from doing its job of holding the Government to account and ensuring there is robust and constant scrutiny of all the real-time decisions that need to be made as part of responding to a global pandemic. Today I call again on the Government to do what is right and agree to the re-establishment of the Epidemic Response Committee. This is not about opposition for opposition's sake or even necessarily opposing at all. We are dealing with a once-in-a-generation crisis and we need to use all the tools at our disposal to keep each other accountable to the people we are here to represent. Let's take the politics out of this and do what's best for Aotearoa. Tangata whenua know what happens when pandemics are not managed properly. It is our people who bear the brunt of the virus. Throughout this pandemic our people have been leading their own responses. We exercised our mana motuhake to lead our own solutions to protect our whakapapa for generations to come. Mā te iwi Māori anō hoki te iwi Māori e kōrero. Mā te iwi Māori anō hoki te iwi Māori e rangatira. Kia ora tātou.[Māori themselves will speak for Māori. Māori themselves will ennoble Māori. Thank you.]Motion agreed to.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Government's motions on the COVID-19 response but I do have a couple of points that ACT would like to make. We think that it's really quite important because we keep monthly having these COVID-19 motions that are being sought for approval—and we do approve of course—but we're also seeing the ability for the Government to be able to implement some powers that are not being used. Where we have confirmed support in other COVID-19 responses such as for example getting our port workers vaccinated we're not actually seeing that occur. So what we would like is for the Government when placing these orders in front of us for approval to actually start using them and using them appropriately to make sure that New Zealand is and New Zealanders are kept safe. When we are looking at these things such as the vaccination of port workers it's crucial at times such as this where we have Taranaki Tauranga and possibly Napier all on the verge of experiencing what could possibly be quite a big COVID outbreak and of course we don't want to get into that position at all. So in order to facilitate supporting the Government on the COVID response orders we also need to make sure that what we do support goes through and is actually being actioned. That also aligns with testing and we'd like to ensure that the Government is thoughtful for the COVID-19 orders and motions that they put forward and that they look to implement ways that they could make testing easier and rapid for those that are at the ports and for our front-line workers. I mean after all they were meant to be vaccinated back in April and it's now September. One of the points about supporting the COVID orders is to be able to assist the Government to function in a way that keeps our communities safe so it becomes not meaningless but almost pointless at times when we do support some of the COVID motions and find that they're not actually being actioned. I think it's actually important that we see some of these COVID orders coming through in a way that would help New Zealanders respond quicker and better to the Delta variant and of course we've got another variant out there as well—the Lambda variant—that may also need some work. So in order for us to keep on supporting COVID-19 orders we need a Government that's actually going to action them. In saying that we hope that on Thursday when there is an announcement that it's not an announcement about further announcements but rather an announcement on what's going to happen in the COVID space that's going to allow that fast tracking of testing and make sure that all of our border workers are in fact vaccinated in order to relieve some of the anxiety that New Zealanders are facing both at our ports at our borders and at homes in our communities. So in that respect the ACT Party do support the Government's motions and we hope that it also opens doorways for the Government to exercise the ability to be able to make some further orders that will benefit our communities. Thank you.
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATESElectricity Supply—Power OutagesSPEAKER: I have also received letters from Simon Court and Barbara Kuriger seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the widespread power outages on the evening of 9 August. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Confidence in the electricity supply is a significant matter and there is no other reasonably foreseeable opportunity to debate it. I must consider whether the subject of the urgent debate warrants setting aside the business of the House today. In light of the time taken on the special debate today the ministerial statement and the Olympics motion I've decided that I will consider the applications tomorrow in the context of business before the House at that time.
Urgent Debates Declined — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—Release of Report
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—Release of ReportSPEAKER: Members going back to the matter I referred to before questions I have received a letter from Teanau Tuiono seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the release of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government to account for action for which it is responsible—Speakers' ruling 201/6. The application was not accompanied by any authentication which indicated that Government had announced any action in relation to the report. The application is therefore declined.
Special Debates — Dawn Raids