edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. As we have heard from other speakers in the third reading debate on this bill the main purpose of the principal Act is to protect our environment and the health and safety of our people and communities by preventing and managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.This is very important because of the speed of the industry—we don't know what we don't know and it is really important in the kōrero and the mahi of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that they are kept up to speed and that is true of WorkSafe as well. As we have heard the bill is to amend the original Act and more to the point to improve the assessment and reassessment of hazardous substances and specifically to enable better use of information from international regulators. We are reliant in Aotearoa on that information and the comparative analysis by our international partners but also to make those improvements to the reassessment process around the technicality of those amendments. The improvements will enable the efficiency by enabling better use of that information and where possible increasing transparency.This amendment bill will enable stronger decision-making about whether the controls do need to be updated and whether the substances that are currently used should no longer be used and it will ensure we have the technical information that is appropriate.At the moment as we know the current system can be time-consuming resource-intensive and lengthy which has a cost in the long run. In terms of chemicals we need to understand that the Government needs to have safer alternatives to existing chemicals so we are reliant on the information that is enforced by the EPA. Delayed reassessments could mean that safety in the controls are not kept up to speed and may be unsafe for our citizens and can no longer be used. So it's really important that the information is clear and concise and is evidenced-based as per the international regulators. Therefore we need the bill to be passed and I thank members across the House for their support to improve processes for assessing and reassessing particular hazardous substances. I want to acknowledge the Minister the select committee members submitters and officials from the various agencies. I commend this bill to the House.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a short call on this third reading. For those of us who live in rural communities this is a really important piece of legislation because we not only live in a beautiful part of the world—wherever we are in rural New Zealand—but we're very aware that we live in a working environment. We've heard from across this House that recognising this bill enables more nimble and responsive decisions to be made not just about better protections for hazardous substances but also for new technology to be recognised and brought into play to assist us to make a just transition and make our primary industries more sustainable in the long term.We have some significant legacy pollution sites around the country that this Government has committed to cleaning up. Ideally this bill will help to minimise those legacy sites from appearing in the future. So I commend this bill to the House.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It's always an honour and a privilege to make a contribution in this House. Today it is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill so I'm happy to make a contribution. What we've heard in the overview of this bill is that there are three amendments in this bill that it covers: one it is about enabling the better use of information from international regulators; two there are other improvements to the reassessment process; and three there are technical amendments. Earlier this year as the Minister has alerted us to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment noted that our rules around chemicals shouldn't be static and that we needed to adopt new information as it comes to light. So the regulator the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)—this will make it easier for them. If there is a new hazardous drug that overseas regulators have deemed to be dangerous then what the regulators here can do—the EPA—is actually makes changes in their assessment process so that dangerous hazardous substances are not used in New Zealand. So these amendments will modernise and make the Act agile enough for technology—new information—to be adopted by the EPA in approving hazardous substances or chemicals. In that name I just want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister and the chair of the Environment Committee. This has been an example of where we can all come together and agree on something that's useful and valuable for the country. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you. I'm really pleased to be standing and taking a short call on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill—a long name but a really good useful little bill that does some really practical things.I want to congratulate the Minister the Hon David Parker for bringing this legislation to us and I also want to thank our submitters; the select committee who were very unanimously in support of this bill; our officials including the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the Ministry for the Environment the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. These things take time to pull together but it's a really good little bill that will do some real real useful changes.So it basically amends our primary legislation and it enables better information from similar international regulators and that's really important because it doesn't duplicate the assessments already undertaken by those comparable international regulators. But it doesn't say that we can just take any rules; it just says they have to be a comparable regulatory framework and the information needs to be readily accessible. That's really important because we want it to be really transparent as to what assessments have been used. There's also a strict liability offence for $50000 for a natural person or $100000 for a company and it also enables the EPA to temporarily restrict certain uses of hazardous substances and this where there's actual or likely danger to human health safety or to the environment.So there are really practical useful changes. It's going to mean that the EPA are going to be able to get through their work a lot faster. We know there's a backlog and they're working at pace but this helps. I commend this bill to the House.
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker for this opportunity to speak on this bill amending the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—the HASNO Act. The primary legislation the HASNO Act has an environmental purpose to it and that at section 4 is to protect the environment and the health and safety of people in communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.What this amendment bill—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill—does is it just deals with that part of hazardous substances; it's not dealing with new organisms at all. And it is as the previous speaker Barbara Kuriger just said to improve those processes—the regulatory processes—that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) administers. So they have approval processes for hazardous substances and that is what this bill addresses.I was on the select committee and I am on the select committee that addressed this bill. We did hear submissions on the bill about a year ago so I'm very thankful for those people who took the time to make submissions and to our advisers and to the rest of the select committee that made a unanimous report. There were no differing views or anything like that.So what the bill does is it enables the EPA to rely on international regulators. Those regulators have to meet some criteria that are spelt out in the bill and it improves the reassessment process. And there are some technical improvements as well.So I'm very happy to commend this bill to the House. It improves and it does some maintenance to an important piece of environmental legislation. Thank you.
McAnulty KieranHAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND NEW ORGANISMS (HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSESSMENTS) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I present a legislative statement on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can found be found on the Parliament website.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I move That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.This bill improves the way chemicals are assessed or reassessed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The bill will improve efficiency for example by enabling better use of information from international regulators and it will increase transparency such as by requiring the EPA to publish a work plan for reassessments. We rely on thousands of chemicals and industrial processes in agriculture and many other aspects of modern life. It is important that the EPA is able to effectively and efficiently manage these chemicals so that their benefits are realised while not compromising the health and welfare of our citizens or the environment. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment noted earlier this year in a report about chemicals' management in New Zealand the rules about how the chemical can be used shouldn't be static. We need to be able to adapt as new information comes to light. This bill will help the EPA to speed up both assessments and reassessments for example by making it easier for the EPA to make use of information from international regulators. The bill has had broad cross-party support at all stages including through the select committee process and during the committee of the whole House. On behalf of the Minister I again thank the chair of the Environment Committee the Hon Eugenie Sage and all members of the committee and of this House who have made thoughtful contributions to the consideration of this bill. I also thank the members of the public who took the time to make helpful submissions to the Environment Committee. I also want to acknowledge the advice of the Ministry for the Environment and the EPA the advice from the Office of the Clerk and the work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office.To conclude this bill will improve the efficiency and speed of assessments and reassessments of hazardous substances. This is important so we can quickly get safer and more environmentally friendly chemicals in use in this country and better control the use of older less safe substances. The bill will also improve transparency in particular by requiring the EPA to publish a work plan for reassessments. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Dean JacquiHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): There was one comment that the Minister made in his previous contribution that I wholeheartedly agree with and that is that mandatory union deals will not be taking place. But we might have a different reason for agreeing with that statement and that is because this bill will be thrown out at its first opportunity by the incoming National-led Government because it's not fair. It's not fair to workers. It's certainly not fair to the 80 percent of small businesses that make up our productive economy. And it's not fair to be wasting this House's time with a very complicated piece of legislation.It's in the commencement of that that I wonder if the Minister could explain the complex correlation between the three commencement dates. I've looked—so the power to make regulations and approve forms comes into existence on the day after Royal assent. The rest of the bill comes in in a month's time with the exception of sections 32A(3) and (4) which comes into effect seven months after the date of Royal assent. But part of those sections expires six months after the bill becomes law. So it kind of almost extinguishes itself at the time that it comes into being. So I wonder if the Minister could explain to the committee what the logic is behind the staggered commencement dates and in particular clauses 32A(3) and (4)?
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Just with the topic that's going on at the moment it would be appropriate to bring my Supplementary Order Paper into the mix. While I agree entirely with Simon Watts' contribution I won't even attempt to be as verbose and just go through it. Fair pay agreements—they aren't fair pay agreements. Fair" is such a subjective term and it denies all of the fantastic work going on at the moment with most—most by far—businesses. Pay—it's not about pay. It's not just about pay; there are all of those other conditions. To call it "fair pay" is just a cynical use of words and it brings out the emotion of people who are criticising it. If you disagree with it you obviously disagree with fair pay which is just a load of nonsense. "Agreement"—they aren't agreements if one party can decide what the outcome is. It's not an agreement.So my amendment would replace "fair pay agreements" with "industrial awards" because that's what they are. Thank you."
Dean JacquiCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I take the next call I'll just reply to the member—I did say I'd get back to the member who raised a point of order with regards to Speakers' ruling 122/2. I find that the contribution of the member was entirely within the scope of the bill.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member Simon Watts for a truly profound contribution to this committee stage debate about the Fair Pay Agreements Bill! If I can paraphrase a well-known quote from the early 2000s pop cultural phenomenon film Mean Girls and I think there might be about three members on the opposite benches who will be familiar with this: stop trying to make mandatory union deals happen—it's not going to happen. Despite the Hon Paul Goldsmith using that phrase with repetitive monotony about 794 times during the course of this debate the only people who have been using it are members on that side of the Chamber. This is a piece of legislation which is founded on basic principles of fairness. It is about the recognition that people who do enormously important work in our society deserve fair recognition for that through fair terms and conditions and a cessation of the race to the bottom which has meant that people like cleaners security guards supermarket workers orderlies aged-care workers and others who we all rely on for the functioning of our economy and our society don't have to live on poverty wages with insecure terms and conditions. So I think the title of the bill is a very accurate and appropriate one.
McAnulty Kieran; Dean JacquiHon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): Point of order. I was wondering if you could please explain or outline to the committee whether you believe that contribution was consistent with Speaker's ruling 122/2.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. I'll have a look at that. In the meantime we will carry on and I'll come back to the member.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Happy to answer some of the member's questions here. The first point that might just be useful by way of clarification is that clause 234C is dealing with a slightly different area in respect of personal information. It covers information that is provided to the bargaining side. That is not about the contact details of employees which is primarily where our focus of our discussion around these issues has been previously. So for example it could be that bargaining sides request from each other details about—I don't know—salary levels across that particular sector or that kind of thing but it's not dealing with contact details of individual employees which is primarily what we've been focused on in this area. Important to note that when it does come to employee contact details which is captured in clause 234B that as is the case right across the system there's an opt-out provision. So employees who do not want their details passed on can through a simple mechanism choose for that to be the case. So in respect of Mr Watts' concern that some might be captured who don't want to be there will be a clear choice for people if they don't want their contact details included there.There are then obligations that are built in in respect of how unions do manage that information and Mr Watts points to one of those obligations which is the obligation to store those details separately to other information. That is important. Unions will likely have databases of information that they send information out to their members and other interested workers about a range of different things that the union does. These provisions require the information is stored separately so that it can only be used for the purposes relating to fair pay agreements. So yes it will be up to the union exactly how they do that but they will have to store that information in a separable way so that it is only used in relation to fair pay agreements. I think that's important.The member raises a concern and a question about whether there's a higher standard that's been put in place there in respect of people who might have concerns about privacy and use of personal information. I can confirm for the member if we go to clause 234C(2) that in the first instance Nothing in this Act limits the rights of an individual under the Privacy Act". So individuals continue to have recourse to the Privacy Act in the way that they would in any other area of law. What we're talking about in respect of clause 234B(3) which is the intentional or reckless tests is potentially an additional penalty that could be applied to a union over and above remedies that will be available through the Privacy Act if they meet that test and do breach the requirements of the bill. So it's not softening the test or the requirements on the union; it's adding in effectively another test which can open up to another penalty if they're not in compliance."
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm not wanting to drag this out but I just do want to explore the issue in terms of my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) a little bit more with the Minister in the chair Michael Wood. As I heard him say the Government can't support the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member is addressing an SOP which should have been debated as part of Part 1.JAN LOGIE: Sorry Madam Chair—so SOP 272 which is part of Schedule 1?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yep yep—Schedule 1 was debated as part of Part 1.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Responding to the member's comments and proposed Supplementary Order Paper (SOP): as has been outlined earlier parts of the bill do partly address this issue about the possibility of misclassification as a contractor and as the member points out the Government has a broader work programme under way which I do expect us to make progress on in the coming months. The reason why the Government won't be agreeing to the SOP put forward by the member—it's the same reason that I have not agreed to other changes that have been proposed at various changes of the bill's passage—is I think it would be a mistake to look to address the employee contractor classification issue specifically within the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. This is quite a fundamental issue about how workers are classified across our economy. It's a very significant and technical issue that needs to be worked through carefully and when we get to a conclusion on that I think it needs to be applied consistently across the employment relations system. I think it would be an odd outcome for us to end up with particular provisions in the fair pay agreement legislation that might change the landscape for classification for people who are covered by fair pay agreements but not change things for other workers who are not covered by fair pay agreements. So my view is that we need to get the fundamental questions around classification right across the whole employment relations system and that will then flow through to all workers regardless of whether they are covered by fair pay agreements or not.
Dean JacquiPart 11 Miscellaneous provisions and Schedule 4CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come now to Part 11. Part 11 is the debate on clauses 229 to 244 Miscellaneous provisions" and Schedule 4 "Consequential amendments". The question is that Part 11 stand part."
Watts Simon; Wood MichaelSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It's great to be back here this morning at 9 o'clock on what is a fantastic opportunity for us to go through this piece of legislation and I think we're doing reasonably well to get into the detail.Minister Wood thank you very much for your contribution to date. I want to get into detail around clause 228BF Notification requirements: employers". It links back to a conversation and a point we were raising last evening in terms of the fact that a significant increase in the volume of businesses that will be captured by this legislation is driving a significant amount of demand on those individuals. And this point relates to the notification requirements. My question to the Minister quite simply is: what does that notification protocol and process look like? This clause specifically refers to the fact that an employer must provide that notification to each of the employer's employees so every single one of them is covered by the proposed renewal.That sounds all nice when it's written down but what's the practicality of that and I guess the assurance process to ensure that that notification actually has occurred and has been received particularly in businesses—and I'm not talking about the large-scale businesses which have very clear and concise protocols around contact information for their employees. I'm thinking about the dairy owners. I'm thinking about the small businesses across the country and in rural New Zealand where some of this may be a little bit more difficult. So that's the aspect of information where I'd appreciate some clarity from the Minister and then we'll pick up another clause after that. Thank you.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Mr Watts for your question. Many of the provisions in Part 10A are effectively repeat provisions from earlier on in the bill. This part as members are well acquainted with in particular deals with arrangements around backstops so it repeats many of the provisions from earlier on and those arrangements are in place and this relates to a proposed replacement of a fair pay agreement. I think the answer is relatively simple. The way that notification works is that it is the responsibility of the union who is either initiating or renewing to provide notification through to employers. Employers then need to provide that to employees. Most commonly I would imagine that will happen through employees being emailed a relatively simple thing to do. In a very small workplace—for example a small business that's a dairy has been used several times in this debate—it could be emailed directly to that employee or it could simply be shown to the employee. I don't think it's going to be a particularly burdensome or difficult process."
Dean JacquiTUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2022(continued on Wednesday 26 October 2022)FAIR PAY AGREEMENTS BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 10A Determinations in absence of bargaining side (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Good morning members. The committee has resumed for further consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. When we were debating this bill only last evening we were considering Part 10A which is the debate on clauses 228BA to 228Q Determinations in absence of bargaining side". The question is that Part 10A stand part."
Thursday 29 September 2022 - Volume 763
Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 104New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10; Sharma.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Oral Questions — Question to Member
1. Question No. 1—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) BillHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) BillQUESTIONS TO MEMBERSQuestion No. 1—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill1. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill: Did he support the extension of the report-back date for the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill from 6 October 2022 to 28 February 2023; if so why?TĀMATI COFFEY (Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill ): Yes and that was to allow more time to consider the issues that were raised by submitters and the Attorney-General and to further engage with the council following the local elections period.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Attorney-General who said the bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by giving extra voting rights to one group of New Zealanders and if so why is he still supporting it?Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. The member in charge of the bill has no responsibility for the Attorney-General's advice.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the— SPEAKER: You asked for his opinion? Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yeah—did he agree with it; that's all. TĀMATI COFFEY: I don't feel as though as the sponsor of the bill it's my position to give a position on whether or not I agree with an Attorney-General report.
12. Question No. 12—EducationPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 12—Education12. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: What actions has Te Pūkenga taken that have resulted in its forecast 2022 operating deficit being revised down from $110 million to $63 million and is he satisfied with the actions Te Pūkenga is taking to meet its financial objectives?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): As I've previously advised the House Te Pūkenga has implemented several initiatives to help reduce the deficit including a recruitment freeze and prudent cost control measures. The improved forecast also reflects higher than expected revenue through Te Pūkenga Work Based Learning Limited which is due to higher learner numbers. I'm satisfied with the actions taken by Te Pūkenga to improve its financial position in the short term. However further work is needed to ensure that Te Pūkenga is financially sustainable in the long term and that work is under way.Penny Simmonds: Is Te Pūkenga intending to account for one-off revenue derived from land sales as operating income to artificially reduce their forecast deficit and if so does he consider this to be normal accounting practice? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There will be a range of one-off revenue and one-off expenditure that is included in that figure because when you're undertaking a significant restructuring exercise there's often one-off expenditure which can also contribute to a deficit.Penny Simmonds: Isn't it the case that Te Pūkenga has been such a failure they are now booking land sales as operating income to hide their financial woes?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.Penny Simmonds: Was there any connection between the chief financial officer (CFO) of Te Pūkenga resigning after less than three months in the job and Te Pūkenga's accounting practices?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that's a relatively serious allegation that the member is making and if she has any evidence for it I suggest that she present it.Penny Simmonds: Isn't Te Pūkenga's latest CFO's resignation after less than three months in the job and its unorthodox accounting practices symptomatic of an institution that hasn't got a clue how to sort out its financial situation driven by a Minister that has even less idea how to deal with financial issues in a Government obsessed with an ideology of centralisation?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject all of assertions in that question.
11. Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)11. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): 谢谢 Mr Speaker. How are the Government supporting mental health and the wellbeing in schools and kura?Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): This Government is committed to improving the mental health and wellbeing of our young people. To this end Minister Davis and I launched two new high-quality resources to support wellbeing and the teaching and learning of mental health education in schools and kura.Ibrahim Omer: Why has the Government launched these resources?Hon JAN TINETTI: We know that our kids and young people learn best when they are happy and healthy. This Government wants to ensure the very best learning environments for our kids. These resources will help ensure that students have their identity valued and feel safe and confident in themselves and in their school.Ibrahim Omer: Have resources been provided for kura kaupapa and in te reo Māori?Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes we have. Te Oranga Mauri is a te reo Māori resource grounded in mātauranga Māori and kōrero tuku iho. I tautoko the kupu of my colleague the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education) Kelvin Davis. The resource affirms existing successful practice in kura offering a new way of aligning with regenerating ancestral practice by increasing awareness of your own mauri the mauri of others and its impacts.Ibrahim Omer: What are other examples of Government support of mental health and wellbeing for young people?Hon JAN TINETTI: In addition to the practical guides and resources we've rolled out thanks to the investment made by this Labour Government 24000 additional young people now have access to counselling support at school. We also have expanded the Mana Ake mental health and wellbeing programme across six regions now.Ibrahim Omer: How is the Government supporting teachers to teach mental health?Hon JAN TINETTI: The resources that we launched yesterday are specifically targeted at supporting teachers leaders and school boards. Mental health education is primarily about learning rather than about solving mental health or public health problems. When students learn the skills to support their mental health and that of others they have the building blocks to boost their own resilience and experience enhanced wellbeing.
10. Question No. 10—ChildrenHARETE HIPANGO (National) to the Minister for ChildrenQuestion No. 10—Children10. HARETE HIPANGO (National) to the Minister for Children: Does he stand by his statement that criticism of the Government's Oranga Tamariki policies are noise" and does he consider the views of State care survivors are noise?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I accept that there are criticisms of Oranga Tamariki's policies in that State care survivors will have views on Oranga Tamariki. I have every intention of engaging with discussions around policies and a big part of setting the new direction for Oranga Tamariki was listening to those who have experienced the system.Harete Hipango: Why did the Minister dismiss those with lived experience of the State care and protection system and the concerns they raised questioning the Government's Oranga Tamariki reforms as "a bunch of grizzlers" and nothing but "noise"?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That criticism was at submitters who were submitting outside of the scope of that particular bill.Harete Hipango: Why does the Minister in Government continue refusing to listen—refusing to listen—and act upon the advice of the most vulnerable people those with lived experience of the very system meant to protect them? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I reject that. I think the member is asking me questions on a bill that I was not responsible for.Harete Hipango: Point of order. The Minister is of the view that he "thinks". I make a statement of fact that the Minister has continued to refuse to listen to the public; not what the Minister thinks. There's a difference.SPEAKER: That's not really a point of order. The Minister addressed the question that was asked. Have you got further questions?Harete Hipango: Does the Minister know better than all those learned and experienced persons practitioners and advocates who all disagree with the Government's reforms—those at the coalface and interface: the child welfare specialists and advocates social workers health and legal practitioners psychologists doctors nurses former police officers lawyers judges academics public policy experts community agencies and Māori leaders to name but a few?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I've never made that claim.SPEAKER: Question No. 11 Ibrahim Omer—oh sorry have you got a further supplementary? Harete Hipango: Thank you. Finally does he agree that the Children's Commissioner has been the most vocal visible experienced and credible public advocate for children in this country and if so why did the Government ignore the New Zealand public's and Children's Commissioner's plea to retain and properly resource the integrity and function of her office and role?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I respect the role played by the Children's Commissioner."
8. Question No. 8—JusticeCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 8—Justice8. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement in the House on 23 August 2022 in relation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission that I think that there have been a couple of referrals" when asked whether a case had been referred to a senior court; if not why not?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Since the commission began accepting applications in July 2020 commission staff have received 325 cases. Of those 94 cases have been closed while 18 cases have been referred internally for a section 25 investigation. I'm advised that the first onward referral to a senior court is expected to be considered by the commissioners in the next six to eight weeks. Two further cases are nearing the final stages of the internal investigation and will likely be considered early next year. As this work is critical to upholding confidence in the justice system careful consideration is needed and progress is dependent on the complexity of the case and the provision of key documents and information from applicants and both investigative and prosecutorial authorities.Chris Penk: If as the Minister has confirmed there have still been zero referrals to courts after more than two years of its operation how can the Minister be certain of the timing of a particular referral unless the outcome of that matter has been predetermined?Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister can't be absolutely certain but the advice that the commission has given to the Minister's office in advance of this question is as I outlined in the primary answer.Chris Penk: In relation to any upcoming referrals have victims of the crimes for which a conviction has previously been made been notified that the matters are being reopened or potentially reopened and if so what support is being given to them?Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm not able to answer that in respect of an individual case but I am sure that the commission is taking into account the interests of victims.Chris Penk: Is the Minister aware of any of the full-time staff employed with the Criminal Cases Review Commission having prior criminal convictions and if so does this seem an appropriate way to arrange its affairs given the need for public confidence in the system?Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister I'm not aware of whether or not that is the case. Obviously it would depend on the nature and age of the conviction."
1. Question No. 1—Prime MinisterNICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister1. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister yes. From time to time statements may be made that should not have been. In those instances such as yesterday with the Minister for Children's comments in this House the right thing to do is apologise and that is what he has done.Nicole McKee: Does she think that it's ever acceptable for her Ministers to answer questions with personal attacks on someone's identity when they're doing their job such as children's Minister Kelvin Davis' comments to Karen Chhour that she is looking at the world [through] a vanilla lens."?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister no.Nicole McKee: Has she or anyone in her office demanded children's Minister Kelvin Davis today apologise for his statements that Karen Chhour is living in a Pākehā world and "it's no good looking at the world [through] a vanilla lens." and if not why not?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Davis advised the office that he would apologise and the Prime Minister agreed with that.Nicole McKee: Why did Kelvin Davis make his comments towards my colleague Karen Chhour in the House and then double down on them when he was speaking with media yesterday and how will she ensure nobody in her Government attacks anyone trying to do their job on the grounds of identity?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many things get said in this House and this Chamber and members reflect on that and make a later decision to apologise. That is exactly what the Minister for Children has done.Nicole McKee: Does she believe I'm asking this question through a vanilla lens or have I crossed the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi and does the Government have a policy to decide when someone is culturally inappropriate?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister in answer to the first part of the question no."
O'Connor GregDEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 18 October 2022. Thank you all staff and members for your efforts this sitting block.The House adjourned at 4.57 p.m.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on this Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill. I join colleagues around the House in supporting this bill.I was also not a member of the deliberations of the Justice Committee on this particular bill but I do sometimes attend the Justice Committee when a permanent member is not available. I know from my experience the careful work that they usually put into their work when I am present and it also appears from comments in the House that this is what has occurred in this case.This bill comes against a background of a 2015 report of the Law Commission and also the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch terror attacks—so really important pieces of work that form the background of this work. It addresses a tension which is the importance of an availability of information when you have civil and criminal trials but also the importance of national security information.The aim of this bill really is to produce a clear regime to allow both of these important matters to be considered and to be treated as sensitively and fairly as possible. It does it in a few ways. I agree with the comments that other speakers have made in relation to the Law Commission recommendations. I just want to note a few aspects of it before I conclude.The bill will address both civil and criminal matters and they have slightly different ways that both of these are addressed through—civil matters having a ministerial certificate regime and also a standard closed court procedure and in the criminal matter pre-trial closed court procedure with special advocates and also pre-trial admissibility hearings. There is also provision within the bill for administrative decisions. So in short I commend this bill to the House.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. I think this is the first time I have been able to take a call under your particular watch so again I congratulate Mr Speaker on his promotion.But the other reason why I bring you into this debate Mr Speaker is that today is Thursday 29 September and it's Police Remembrance Day. A number of us in the House are wearing the blue huia pin in reflection of Police Remembrance Day. It's also the feast day of archangel Michael who's the patron saint of police. So I acknowledge all the police in New Zealand Australia and the Pacific who have been killed in criminal acts while performing their official duties and those members of the police who have passed in the last 12 months. The reason why I bring you into this debate Mr Speaker is because you yourself having been a previous police officer—even the member who has just spoken the Hon Judith Collins who was a former Minister of Justice and Minister of Police and myself having worked for a period in the police portfolio—we all probably have very personal accounts of classified information very sensitive classified information depending on what our classification is. But our understanding of how important this information is needs to be balanced again against the fundamental rights for the public in relation to trials. I wasn't a member of this select committee but I've really enjoyed listening to the debates in the House today. So I want to be able to acknowledge not just the security services but also police who are subject to information of national security. As the Minister said today this bill touches on those important constitutional matters and it's about balancing that. It's about balancing the protection of information for our national security but also providing a fair trial people's ability to open justice the respective roles of the judiciary and the executive and to protect again our national security interests. I agree with the words of the Minister in his speech on behalf of the Minister of Justice I agree again with the words that were given by the chair of the Justice Committee who led the analysis of the bill and I would like to commend this bill to the House.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): A very short call from me. One point that I would like to make is in response to the idea from the Green member that we haven't struck the right balance here. I come back to the idea that she introduced around the importance of the rule of law when we consider the balancing act that Parliament has to make in these security decisions. I think the starting point for me and one that I considered with my fellow members of the Justice Committee—who you've heard today did an excellent job in hearing those submissions and discussing these ideas—was that the first principle of the rule of law is that it is open and accountable that the Government tells people what the rules are and then they are able to follow them. That wasn't the case before this legislation was introduced.The bill provides a framework for dealing with national security information in civil and criminal proceedings which did not exist before where Crown disclosure was up to the Crown. It's important that we put rules around when the Crown must make disclosures and the balance here is fair. Particularly the committee honed in on clause 12 to make sure that principles within the Evidence Act in New Zealand might apply in some situations with disclosure to special advocates whereby evidence that was obtained overseas about something would be introduced in a New Zealand court with the same sort of rigour about evidence gathered here.I think this bill is a good one—and I thank my Justice Committee colleagues; the chair Ginny Andersen; and also the Opposition members particularly the ACT member for her vibrant contributions to these discussions—and I commend it to the House.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): 你好 Mr Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to take a call. Many people say that security is the first obligation of the State. That may well be true but it's certainly not a simple one. It presents a perennial task of assessing security risks but also the task of continuing to ask ourselves whether we have a fair balance in the law. Other speakers have referred to the 2015 Law Commission recommendations from which this bill makes proposals. The Law Commission itself recognised this challenge when they said in their report: There is no doubt that in some situations the need to protect national security means that information cannot be dealt with in open courts. However the protection of the rights to natural justice and open justice must be preserved as far as possible as these are values that lie at the heart of our democratic framework and way of life." This was certainly a feature of our discussion at the Justice Committee.I am going to extend a hand over to congratulate colleagues on the Opposition benches as well. I do think we had an extremely collegial approach to this bill—in particular to Joseph Mooney Chris Penk and Nicole McKee who had a number of conversations with us over the breaks because we were really determined to ensure that where we fell was on a fair balance. One of the issues we discussed was in relation to clause 12(1) and (2) which required the Crown to provide information to the authorised court but also to the special adviser who was there to represent the interests of the accused. What we discussed was clause 12(3) which created a new power to potentially withhold some of that information. The discussion we got into was whether a new power or a new threshold was being created by the insertion of clause 12(3). So the recommendation that came out from select committee was to be clear that clause 12(3) was only reaffirming the measures or the standards that are already in place in terms of the Evidence Act.I won't speak to the other aspects of the bill other than to say this is a great example of where we can have a really robust collegial conversation about something that is of critical importance to New Zealand's security. I commend this bill to the House."
Special Debates — Inquiry into Migrant Exploitation—Report of the Education and Workforce Committee