edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McAnulty KieranPart 7 Amendments to Rates Rebate Act 1973KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I feel compelled to stand and speak very briefly on this particular part just to acknowledge the contribution of the Hon Ruth Dyson in bringing this matter to the House. This particular change—and especially amending section 7A to the Rates Rebate Act—allows retirement village residents who are eligible to apply for a rates rebate and that is going to make a substantial difference to people's lives. I know that if Ruth wasn't busy with important business she would probably make a contribution herself. So on that basis here on this side of the Chamber we just wanted to acknowledge her contribution.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Just quickly if the Minister Nanaia Mahuta would help me out here I was wondering if the Minister would take the opportunity to provide a succinct explanation for the committee actually as to why we are not going to be supporting Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 199 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross. I think just speaking to the SOP firstly it seems to from my read both try to balance protecting how information is used while also providing greater rights for members of a local authority to access information. So based on that high-level purpose of the SOP I wondered if the Minister would make a contribution around whether or not that is deemed a big issue in the overall purpose of this bill that is going through in the House and whether or not the Minister feels that there is protection enough already as well as an ability to provide those greater rights or whether there is merit to even do that. Other than that I just picked up—I could be wrong; this is Part 5. Both the departmental disclosure statement and the regulatory impact statement I'm assuming—it feels that there is lesser risk or lesser substantial information-gathering that needs to happen in Part 5. That sends a signal to me and possibly would as an ordinary member of the public that the level of impact that these particular clauses in this part of the bill would have on the overall workings—and I don't want to say is minimal" in proportion to the amount of research and information gathering that is required—doesn't quite reach a threshold where that would be useful. Is that the Minister's understanding of why as far as I can see those parts weren't actually included in those overall disclosure statements and regulatory impact statements?But other than that it seems that Part 5 focuses quite a bit on public notifications the means of a notice and going on to extraordinary emergency meetings and how those will be called and publicly notified. It may have already been traversed—and I apologise if it has—but I was wondering because there was one small mention of whether we could clarify extraordinary meetings. I think that previously the Minister has spoken a little bit on that but I thought that I would note that for the Green Party's perspective in the House as well. Thank you."
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I apologise to the good member—just to address a couple of points made by the member Jamie Strange. Look I think the words speak for themselves: extraordinary" or "emergency"—"extraordinary" or "emergency". We can appreciate particularly in light of the Tasman fires that that's clearly an emergency where all practicable steps or reasonable steps are taken to ensure that public notifications are received and are sent out in a timely manner. We appreciate that in circumstances of emergency where time in particular is of the essence if you like—where emergencies happen as we've experienced here in Wellington when an earthquake hits—nobody can predict them. So therefore the term "emergency" I think has an expectation that every reasonable step can be taken to ensure that the notification of such emergencies actually takes place.In terms of "extraordinary": look I myself have been part of a number of organisations and been on boards where an extraordinary meeting or a special general meeting has been called. We appreciate that while readership of papers might be in decline I think—once again it mentions it there—that "reasonable in the circumstances" is the key phrase in there.The member mentioned on social media and on Facebook how sometimes many members of the public won't go on to the internet site of a council. I think you know as politicians across this entire House when we look at the way word spreads on Facebook and how messages are passed and promoted on Facebook or any other social media platform for that matter—one loses control of that. So I think if anything the role of the local authority in this particular instance is to do the best that they can in reasonable circumstances considering as we all know that outside of this House once the words pass your lips they no longer belong to you. That's of course just the general danger or general warning if I can about social media and that platform spreading messages or any other conversation that one wants to spread.So just to acknowledge the member for his questions I think they're valid. I did indicate to the officials here to my right: then who is accountable to make sure that at least reasonable effort has been made considering the circumstances of "emergency" or "extraordinary"? I have it at least that the local authority will be and I guess that particular responsibility or accountability falls upon the shoulders of the chief executive. If I am incorrect I would be more than happy to come back and correct that but that is my understanding. I thank the member for his questions."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wish to speak very briefly to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 199 in which there is proposed to be a new clause 29A relating to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. I just note that it is our very strongly held view that any changes made by way of an SOP do not have or do not allow for the participation of the general public in debating the matter that is contained in that SOP. So were this or any other SOP brought in at this late stage of the debate it would be in our view entirely inappropriate to introduce a subject matter which may well be the subject of a member's bill but in any event has not had the opportunity of any public debate and wouldn't have the opportunity for any public debate should this SOP be accepted. So I just wanted to add those few words. Thank you Mr Chair.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Madam Chair thank you very much. As I was sitting there listening to my colleague Willow-Jean Prime talk about this particular part something caught my attention so I've just got a wee question for the Minister in the chair the Hon Peeni Henare. Hopefully he might be able to clarify something because I haven't really paid too much attention to this bill. It hasn't come up in front of a select committee that I've been involved in. And so here we are. I happen to be on whip duty and I thought I'd get the bill out and have a look. In particular I'm talking about Part 5 and clause 29 amending section 2. In clause 29(3) we're talking about In section 2(1) definition of working day replace paragraph (b) with: (b) the day observed in the appropriate area as the anniversary of the province of which the area forms a part;". It was the particular wording that caught my attention and I would like the Minister in the chair to hopefully clarify some things because I note that anniversary days—you know for example Wellington Anniversary Day at the start of January it's actually not just Wellington that falls within it. And so if the wording says that "the province of which the area forms a part;" Manawatū Wanganui—and you could argue Wairarapa to some extent but certainly Manawatū and Wanganui—don't fall within the Wellington region and therefore with the current wording "forms a part of" you could argue that they don't fall within that. The same can be said for Auckland Anniversary Day. You've got Coromandel and the East Coast and areas along the top of the Eastern Bay of Plenty there. Under the current wording I'd just like to know that those areas do actually fall within this because I know that that's clearly the intention of the bill but as it's worded I thought it posed a question that was worthy of asking."
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill and particularly Part 5. I just wanted to elaborate on and extend the comments made by my colleague MP Paul Eagle particularly around the definition for working day". One of the proposals is to amend the definition of "working day" within the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. The reason for that is to make it consistent not only with what is being recommended in terms of the Local Government Act 2002 but also with definitions included in for example the Building Act 2004. The advice is that it's really important when people are interacting with local government that as far as practicable we remove any anomalies or confusion and make it as easy as possible for people to understand that. So when we look at what's being proposed in the new wording—if I can just take you to it on page 10—clause 29(3) amends section 2(1) by inserting the new definition for "working day" by replacing paragraph (b) with it to actually capture the situations where there are provincial anniversary days being observed in the time between 20 December and 10 January. And so the recommended text that has been included in there hopes to ensure that the definition will be consistent with what is being proposed under Part 4 of the bill for the Local Government Act which we have already just passed and also the Building Act. So I think that in speaking to that it's really important that those anomalies are removed from other legislation and clarification is given for people who are interacting with their local authorities. Kia ora."
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Chair. It's my pleasure just to refer to Part 5 of the amendment bill and I want to just focus on just some of the positives that are in this particular part—in the clauses that make up the part. One of them is section 2 amended in clause 29(1) where it talks about the internet and really what that's saying is that that local body will now have to publicise those Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act requests on to their internet site. And I think that's beneficial. We see a host of third parties who have taken on that role and what it will now mean is that they'll be able to see who's been asking for what on the entity's website. Some do it. I don't know the names of the various local authorities who do that but I do know that in terms of the way that we interact if you wanted to do one and thought Hey look let's have a look at something." or "Let's ask." you will now be able to see that on their website and go "Hey look it's already being done." Maybe the request can simply be to ask for that information that's already gone through that process rather than waiting another 20 days or thereof to get the information you need. And that really goes there in section 2(1) also where it doesn't take away what's happening or what's in place at the moment; it really adds to that. It just does some refining of some definitions there around the working day.Clause 30 amending section 46 again just reinforces that practical part of a council's business where sometimes they can't fully abide by the current Act and so therefore they will now be able to call for an extraordinary or emergency meeting without the current process where some of them want to do the meeting but can't because they need to then advertise in a certain way of that meeting and that makes it a whole lot easier—and that's what's important. Kia ora."
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to take a call on Part 1 of this Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill which deals with the Dog Control Act 1996. The amendment to the Dog Control Act will replace the definition of the disability assist dog align the notification requirement of local authorities with those in the Local Government Act 2002 and clarify the organisations authorised to certify the dog as a disability assist dog.It is important because we want to make sure that those organisations which are able to identify the disability dogs can help people with the disability and it will be easy for them to get this. So it will be a collection of another regulation and will help the disabled people. I commend this.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Part 3 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross to clause 26 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.Part 4 agreed to.
Dean JacquiPart 1 Amendments to Dog Control Act 1996Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Chair. National supports this Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. I have to say that as I was getting my notes ready for this afternoon there were several local government bills and I had to look very carefully to make sure I was addressing the correct one because there are a number of bills which are not particularly notable. But here we are.We support this bill because it's our bill essentially. It's good. It's pragmatic. It absolutely does what a regulatory system bill should do. [Interruption] It clarifies and brings up to date. Sorry Mr McAnulty what was that?Kieran McAnulty: I was just saying speak to the part. It was a funny joke but the moment's gone. Carry on.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yeah OK. It was a joke and it wasn't funny. Is that what I heard? No I think that's what I heard.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think actually that's my role. He does get that confused. That's my role.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you so much. So Kieran McAnulty does get confused and has been reminded by the Chair that it's her role so another great contribution from Labour.Hon Members: Ohh!Hon JACQUI DEAN: I know.There are a number of Acts which are being amended through this. I have to say that of the variety of Acts—so Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act yep; Local Government (Rating) Act; Rates Rebate Act—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Actually could I just remind the member we are on Part 1. It would be really nice if the member could mention dogs because we are on the Dog Control Act.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Good—good. OK—right. My chance to mention dogs—that's wonderful.What this provision in the bill allows for is for disability assist dogs to now be noted against a schedule. So if there is a new organisation who provide services around disability assist dogs then instead of having to come back to Parliament to get an amendment to the Dog Control Act they now will have the ability to have their organisation—say it's the new disability dog assist organisation or something like that—just apply by Order in Council to have that new organisation registered as a disability assist dog organisation.So that is Part 1 of the bill. Thank you Madam Chair.
McAnulty Kieran; Tolley AnneLOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATORY SYSTEMS AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There is.
Yule LawrenceQuestion No. 10 to MinisterLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I seek leave to table two documents. One is the expression of interest notice to respondents on 27 April 2018—SPEAKER: Can I ask: was that published on any ministry website?LAWRENCE YULE: No this is a letter I received from the respondent so I've received it. Both letters are from a private source.SPEAKER: And they don't include—the basis of them is not material that's on a website?LAWRENCE YULE: No that's correct.SPEAKER: Right. The first document the expression of interest—any objection to that being tabled. There appears to be none. It may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.SPEAKER: The second document?LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): The second document is a letter from the CEO of Corrections thanking a company for his expression of interest and advising that he's been unsuccessful.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Yule LawrenceQuestion No.10 to MinisterLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise. I rise to speak to a point of order. SPEAKER: Sorry?LAWRENCE YULE: I wish to raise a point of order. I wish to table documents that I should have done at the end of my question.SPEAKER: Can I ask the member—the normal practice is either to do it with the question or at the end of question time. So we will wait until Dr Reti's had his question then we'll come back to it.
Thursday 8 November 2018 - Volume 734
12. Question No. 12—Social DevelopmentHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 12—Social Development12. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Why is the percentage of working-age people on the jobseeker benefit rising according to MSD when the unemployment rate according to Statistics New Zealand is falling?Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. These are two different measurement systems that capture different things. The household labour force survey is a survey that is a measure of the broader labour market. Ministry of Social Development (MSD) figures capture the actual number of people in receipt of the jobseeker benefit.Hon Louise Upston: If according to Statistics New Zealand the NEETS rate is falling why are there 10 percent more young people aged 18 to 24 now receiving a jobseeker benefit?Hon PEENI HENARE: This side of the House and this Government as mentioned by the Hon Willie Jackson are here to support our young people. According to the statistics I have in front of me the actual NEETS rates are down and we are quite proud of that fact. We are working with our young people to make sure they're able to transition into work and give them the support that they need.Hon Louise Upston: Is the difference explained by the 2012 data-matching study by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment that some people say one thing to Statistics New Zealand and another thing to MSD; if not why not?Hon PEENI HENARE: I haven't seen such a report from 2012. I can't answer that question I'm sorry.Hon Louise Upston: Best you read it then.SPEAKER: Order! Louise Upston will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Louise Upston: I withdraw and apologise.
10. Question No. 10—EmploymentJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EmploymentQuestion No. 10—Employment10. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What recent reports has he seen regarding the state of employment in New Zealand?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I've got great news to share with the House. Yesterday we saw the latest household labour force survey (HLFS) which showed a record employment rate of 68.3 percent matched by the lowest unemployment rate in over a decade of 3.9 percent. This is the highest rate of employment in New Zealand for over 30 years.Jo Luxton: What else does the household labour force survey released yesterday indicate about the state of employment? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for the question. Every single indicator released yesterday as part of the survey tells us several things—far too many to list but I'll highlight a few to the House. It was incredibly pleasing to see that the employment increase wasn't just limited to Auckland and Wellington. We also saw strong employment growth in Waikato Otago Gisborne and Hawke's Bay and I'm particularly pleased to see that 4300 more people are now in employment in Jonathan Young's Taranaki.Jo Luxton: What did the household labour force survey indicate about the state of unemployment for Māori?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for the question. Yesterday the HLFS release shows that unemployment for Māori has reached 10-year lows at 8.5 percent. I'm on record as saying we need to do more to bring the rates of Māori employment closer to those enjoyed by the general population. While I'm thrilled to see the results from yesterday the work does not stop there. I'll continue to ensure that all New Zealanders have equal access to real jobs with real incomes. Programmes such as Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi are vital to achieving this goal.Jo Luxton: Why was yesterday's household labour force survey significant?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What is significant about yesterday's announcement is that across the board we have seen really positive indicators with more than 29000 New Zealanders now in employment. There are over 2.66 million people in paid employment. We're focusing on increasing the participation rates in employment for Māori Pasifika women and people with disabilities and we're making great headway in all of those areas. But significantly in our drive to lift children out of poverty employment is a key factor to that success and yesterday's survey release is a really positive start.
8. Question No. 8—PoliceGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 8—Police8. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: How is the Government tracking towards its commitment to strive towards adding 1800 new police officers?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Off the back of the single-biggest investment ever in our police service through Budget 2018 I'm pleased to report that 862 constables have graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College since we took office. Next week we are expecting an additional 80 recruits to graduate. That takes our total number to 942 new constables. This is the most ever achieved by New Zealand Police. This Government has achieved a 325 full-time equivalent growth in the last year of a service that was underfunded and under-resourced. For the first time in our nation's history there are now over 9000 sworn officers out there keeping our community safe and preventing crime. Greg O'Connor: What is the Minister doing to address any concerns about the standard and diversity of recruits? Hon STUART NASH: In the last year and based on the current rate of application the police would have received around 6000 applications. The process to get into the Royal New Zealand Police College is vigorous and the training is challenging so not all of these applicants will meet the threshold but the standard is not dropping. During 2017-18 231 women graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College making up 36 percent of all graduates. This was the best year of female recruitment in both numbers and proportion that police have ever achieved and the representation of Māori Pasifika and Asian ethnicities in the constabulary workforce is continuing to grow and better reflect New Zealand communities. Greg O'Connor: What innovative recruitment methods is the Government supporting to help add 1800 new police officers? Hon STUART NASH: I congratulate the police on their ongoing effort to find innovative ways to attract more people into the New Zealand Police service. For example they have been trialling an NCEA police studies programme in Rotorua high schools and are holding a Māori-focused recruitment drive at Tūrangawaewae Marae in a few months' time. Statistics from the latest recruitment video show that the video has been viewed in excess of a million times but if you add other media outlets police estimate it to be 2 million worldwide. Also in just under two weeks over 1300 people started the application process to become an officer in the New Zealand Police service.
6. Question No. 6—Housing and Urban DevelopmentANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Housing and Urban Development6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Can he confirm that a purchaser of a KiwiBuild house can sell that same house within three years and keep 70 percent of any capital profit that may arise?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): No.Andrew Bayly: Why do documents on the KiwiBuild website say you will need to sign a deed enforceable by the Crown which states that you [shall] undertake to pay the Crown 30 percent of: any capital gain if you sell your KiwiBuild [property] within three years of signing the sales and purchase agreement without KiwiBuild's prior consent"?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because that's what the rule says.Andrew Bayly: OK. What Government objectives are achieved by selling houses through a ballot and allowing the winners to sell them shortly thereafter and keep a good chunk of the profit?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Government objective that's being pursued here is supplying a generation of young Kiwi families with the opportunity to own their own home. We're also balancing the community's rightful expectation that KiwiBuild homes will go to those people who need them: young families who 10 years ago would have been able to buy their own home. But life's complicated and sometimes people have a change of circumstances—a marriage might break up people might have to go and care for an elderly parent. So we understand that there needs to be flexibility built into the system and that's why we require people to live in that home for three years unless they have the express permission of the KiwiBuild unit to do otherwise.Kieran McAnulty: Has he seen any reports of any other affordable homeownership schemes stopping the new owners from selling homes?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have seen a programme whereby modest starter homes were built. First-home buyers entered into a ballot the homes were sold at a fixed price and buyers agreed to live in the home for two years—with no requirement to pay capital gains. That's the previous Government's Axis Series affordable housing programme. The main difference between that programme and ours: they built dozens of houses; we're building thousands.Andrew Bayly: Why is it not a subsidy if KiwiBuild agrees to sell a house to a purchaser and that purchaser subsequently on-sells that house and receives an immediate profit?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The house is not subsidised because it's sold by the Crown through KiwiBuild to the first-home buyer at the market price for that house."
5. Question No. 5—Housing and Urban DevelopmentPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Housing and Urban Development5. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress if any has been made towards tackling the national housing crisis?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): There's still a lot of work to do to build our way out of the national housing crisis but we're getting on with it. Over the last week the Prime Minister announced $1.5 billion to build 2900 new State houses and up to 2000 affordable KiwiBuild and market homes in Porirua—the first KiwiBuild homes announced in the Wellington region. I released the latest quarterly update on public housing which shows that there are now more than 1300 additional families in public housing than there were a year ago.Paul Eagle: What reports has he seen on the Porirua announcement?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Porirua regeneration announcement was welcomed by many including Mayor Mike Tana who said This is a sea-change moment for our city." and Ngāti Toa chairperson Dr Taku Pārai who said "As tangata whenua of this rohe we look forward to participating in the revitalisation [of] the wider Porirua community."Paul Eagle: What other announcements has he seen that will help tackle the national housing crisis?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The KiwiBuild unit have made two announcements in Auckland over the last week—a city badly affected by the national housing crisis. They announced that they have opened the ballot for five two-storey terraced houses at McLennan and opened the ballot for 10 two-bedroom apartments in Ōtāhuhu. KiwiBuild is giving thousands of young families who have been locked out of homeownership in Auckland and across the country a chance to buy their own affordable starter home."
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Madam Assistant Speaker I just want to start by thanking the previous member who spoke Paul Eagle for coming down to Gore yesterday with the Governance and Administration Committee and Ginny over there. You did yourselves proud—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Use the member's full name thanks.HAMISH WALKER: Sorry Ginny Andersen.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.HAMISH WALKER: I just thank them for coming down trekking all the way down to Gore to hear from the local submitters. They really appreciated it and they saw firsthand the hard work that you both do as local members of Parliament.He also mentioned the comprehensive package of reforms here and the great thing about this is the politics have been taken out of it because most of this work was started under the previous housing Minister the Hon Nick Smith. He did a fantastic job. He did put a stake in the ground and he did say We're going to insulate every possible State house that we possibly can." So I just want to thank the previous Minister for his work.I just want to talk about some problems that often appear in rental tenancies. Often actually when the tenant moves out there's a problem with either damage or contamination with the property. When the tenant moves out there's an end-of-tenancy checklist that the tenant and the landlord go through. Often there may be some not quite agreement on who caused the damage and this could simply be solved by at the start of the tenancy both parties going through and taking a few photos—there's wonderful technology available now that can take every photo or a video of the entire house that both parties can look at. In worst case scenarios these sometimes go to the Tenancy Tribunal which takes months. It costs a lot of money and ultimately if the landlord doesn't get the money back he or she has to charge higher rents going forward to get the money back.So the three practical changes to the Residential Tenancies Act are to help ensure our tenancy laws better manage properties contaminated by P or other drugs liability for careless damage and the tenancy of unsuitable properties. Anything that makes renting easier for tenants and helps beef up protection for responsible tenants and landlords is a good thing and I commend this bill to the House."
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It is just so wonderful to hear members of the Government—Labour and Greens—celebrating this National Party bill. So look thank you to the Government for continuing—as they have done actually with quite a bit of legislation—National Party work and its agenda. So thank you guys. Very much appreciated.Look it's obviously a very good bill. The area that is constantly being referred to is around the meth testing. I echo Brett Hudson's advice if you will—particularly to the Green Party—that impugning those who were involved with setting up the standards through the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) is incorrect and inappropriate. To then continue on as the Green Party member did to speak about the Drug Foundation as some easy evidence-based reliable—they are not. They do important work but simply their approach is one that I disagree with which is basically to say that all drugs are fine and should be available. Yes they will put caveats around that but it's not a surprise that the Greens pick up on that and say that there should be no testing because fundamentally there's a belief that actually the drugs are around there they'll be used and we just have to accept it. I don't and this side of the House does not agree with that.So actually having tests is important. Where the conundrum is going to come for the Government and the Minister is that ESR toxicologists and others did set a standard and then after that a report by the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor contradicted that and came up with a whole new level of standard. What we have here for better or worse—and I think it is for worse—is contradicting evidence. I think it's going to take the experts including those from industry time to work it through so that we do have an appropriate standard.So I won't add much further but again I do want to highlight that there are contradictions in the evidence. There are agendas particularly when it comes to drugs between those who obviously want them banned completely through to those—some mentioned like the Drug Foundation—who are very happy for them to be here. We have to navigate our way through that. But in terms of tenancies—agreeing actually with the member who just sat down—there is benefit in trying to balance the rights of landlords and tenants. As a National Party member for this National Party bill I'm pleased to support it.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to stand in support of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill originally as mentioned was introduced by the Hon Nick Smith and it makes some amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act.The bill was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee where we had 35 submissions in total out of which 15 were heard in Wellington and Auckland. Some amendments were proposed by the select committee. I would like to refer to one of those; it was a very important one. It was where the insurance issue was raised by many submitters. It was mentioned that tenants will be liable for the cost of landlords' insurance excess up to the maximum of four weeks of rent for each incident of damage caused by carelessness.It was also recommended that tenants remain fully liable where the damage is deliberate or results from a criminal act and that the landlord be liable for fair wear and tear and damage beyond the control of the tenant like natural disasters. Madam Assistant Speaker—there has been a change from Mr Speaker to Madam Assistant Speaker—it's really good to see you in the Chair. I would like to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Mark RonHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): It's one of those occasions where again it seems to be a continuum this afternoon where there is a high degree of unanimity in the House and it is comforting to know that in this particular instance when we're talking about residential tenancies—and I know that in the past there's been quite a difference of opinion between the National Party now in Opposition and other parties in the House as to what the responsibilities of a good landlord should be.I know that in the past the National Party and others have been concerned about the impact on landlords and their willingness to stay in what can be quite a vexed market given some of the things that happen to properties. Of course as shown in the bill one of the issues that the bill deals with is the question of methamphetamine contamination. That became obviously a massive issue and there was a degree of I think justifiable panic in the communities when people found that houses that they were renting or houses that they had rented out were contaminated with P. And I guess it's the fact that there were no clear regulatory lines or known standards that gave people a benchmark as to what was dangerous and what was not which only added to the problem. I know over time it's cost not only the Crown but individual landlords and mum and dad investors a lot of money and it would now appear unnecessarily so.I would just like to compliment the committee led by Brett Hudson as the chair for coming to the position that they have on this piece of legislation; the fact that they made constructive and useful changes that the Minister has accepted and which have now been incorporated into the bill. The fact that on an issue where we can so often be at loggerheads—where one party would seek to err in favour of landlords in protecting their business investments whilst others would seek to err in favour of tenants and take a more social view of the tenant's rights—and that here in this piece of legislation the select committee has found common ground and found unanimity I think gives me confidence that we have hit the right place.Again this is about the safety and security of people—people who rent houses and landlords themselves. So I commend the bill. I commend Minister for bringing legislation through. I thank the committee for their diligence and the constructive way in which they went about processing this bill through the committee and for the very good amendments that they made along the way.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you. I'm happy to speak in support of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) at its second reading and just note that there are three aspects to this bill. First of all tenants being liable for the cost of their landlord's insurance excess up to a maximum of four weeks if there is intentional damage to a rental property but also on the other side of that ledger there is a requirement for landlords to include within their tenancy agreement a written statement as to whether or not the premises are insured. That's a very fair positon to land at. It strengthens the law around prosecuting landlords who tenant unsuitable properties. Garages are seldom suitable properties for housing tenants of any nature.Most of all though I want to spend a wee bit of time—not too much—on the issue of meth contamination and to say that when National were the Government meth contamination was largely an unknown threat far more so than it is now and the Government of the day made decisions on the best advice that was available to them. And if you think about the Crown having to make decisions it's always got to be on the best advice available to them. They then consider that advice and make their decision but when it is scientific-based advice it leaves the Crown very little room to ignore that advice particularly when the Minister making those sorts of decisions is not an expert in things like methamphetamine danger to public health.So I do commend the Minister for continuing with this bill. It is a good bill and we do support it in its second reading.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): As the rain falls outside we are reminded of the importance of water. The fact is that on our planet we have a certain amount of water and that as the population grows on this planet it becomes more and more difficult to ensure that there's equal and fair access to drinking water. But also I'd just like to acknowledge that yesterday for the first time in the history of the Parliament a select committee held a meeting in Gore and that was a local—Hon Members: Gorre".JAMIE STRANGE: "Gorre"—"Gorre". SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now the member's had a reasonable period of time to do introductory comments so I'm now going to require him to speak to the bill. JAMIE STRANGE: The select committee meeting was about water Mr Speaker. The bill stems from the Havelock North inquiry which began in 2016. Previous speakers have spoken about it. As we know 5000 people fell ill following the presence of E. coli in the water and so the findings of that report have led to this piece of legislation. Now this legislation is in line with the World Health Organization which says that safe and readily available water is important for public health whether it's used for drinking domestic use food production or recreational purposes. In 2010 the UN General Assembly explicitly recognised the human right to water and sanitation and this bill ensures that that right is in place. It will help give effect to some of the recommendations from the Government inquiry into the Havelock North outbreak. The amendments to the Health Act included in this bill are mainly of a technical nature. They represent interim steps and will be followed in due course by further reforms as part of the wider and much larger Three Waters Review and I'd like to acknowledge the Ministers who are involved in that review. The main change is removing the requirement to have specified periods of consultation for three years and to have an advance notice published in the Gazette for two years prior to making any changes to the drinking-water standards which will allow for amendments to these standards to progress more quickly where this is appropriate. This will allow for example improved recognition of new technologies. It's important for the public to see that the Government builds on what other Governments have done. The previous Government undertook the inquiry and this Government is taking action on that. This is an important piece of legislation as I've outlined before—the importance of healthy water to our society—and we need to make sure that the accessibility is there. Minister David Clark has done an excellent job on this bill. I commend this bill to the House and I'm very pleased that we've got support right across the House for this important aspect of our society. Thank you Mr Speaker. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Health Committee."
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you sir. Few things can be more important to any community than having access to a safe and potable water supply. My parents-in-law have lived in Havelock North for many many years. My wife and I were married there and we still regularly visit that town. So we followed the distressing experience of that beautiful town's residents in 2016 with heightened concern and real interest. In fact everybody who has a connection with Havelock North knows people who suffered considerably during that period.I was staggered by the findings of the independent inquiry following that outbreak of gastroenteritis in 2016 which included an estimate that up to 100000 New Zealanders were getting sick from their drinking-water supply every year. I literally couldn't believe it when I heard that. Water-borne diseases are a very serious matter for those who contract them and obviously a very significant public health challenge given that statistic. So it is important for politicians to ensure that we respond promptly and appropriately and I welcome the bipartisan support for this bill that has been evident during this first reading debate. I think we've had very intelligent contributions from members on all sides of the House—Hon Ruth Dyson: Including this speech.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you to the senior whip. I appreciate that.I'm not a member of the Health Committee—I am a member of the National Party's health caucus and I won't therefore be on the select committee—but I do wish all of my colleagues who are on that committee wisdom and an equally collegial approach to their work as they sit on that committee and hear the submissions and do further work on this bill and I sincerely hope that their success will ensure that the bill's main purposes and aims are successful.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take just a very short call on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. This is a short but important bill which in essence allows substantial changes recommended by the Government inquiry into the Havelock North drinking water to be set in motion. It makes some small but technical amendments to the Health Act to improve the efficiency of our drinking-water safety regime.The bill primarily removes the requirement for the Ministry of Health to consult and notify five years prior to making any changes to drinking-water standards. This will allow the inquiry's proposed changes to improve drinking-water safety to be implemented efficiently while ensuring that adequate consultation by the Minister is still required when making any changes to drinking-water standards. The bill also clarifies and simplifies the processes for water safety plans which drinking-water suppliers are required to prepare being developed and drinking-water assessors being appointed.The work of the Government inquiry and the wider Three Waters Review is critically important in developing higher safety standards to prevent any repeats of the Havelock North contamination and ensure New Zealanders can access safe drinking water. This is a serious and important bill and we are very pleased to support it. I commend it to the House.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It's a privilege to stand here in order to contribute to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a split call—five minutes.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: Five minutes yes. In New Zealand we take it for granted that we turn the tap on and we expect water to flow and we drink it—and we are also very privileged to even flush that drinking water. I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister. We've heard from the Minister the Hon David Clark that this bill was as a result of following the Government's inquiry. With any inquiry there will always be changes and can I just seek the patience of the House while I read some of the provisions of this bill.So really the amendment is proposing—as a result of the inquiry as alluded to by the Minister and all the other speakers before me—minor improvements to Part 2A of the Act. And if I can read out those provisions in this bill what it means is that it will remove requirements for the Ministry of Health to consult for 3 years and gazette changes for 2 years prior to making any changes to the drinking-water standards:". It clarifies that "water safety plans must include timetables to implement measures that mitigate risks to drinking water:". It "streamlines processes for the appointment of drinking-water assessors:" and it removes "unnecessary references to designated ports and airports."I did some brief research as I sat here and most of us human beings can last for four days at most without water. So what this bill really is is significant to all our lives. It has significance to all New Zealanders and when Māori refer to water as a taonga it reminds me of what people on the other side from Havelock North—the people of Taranaki—say when they speak and acknowledge themselves. They refer to this whakataukī: E rere kau mai te awa nui nei mai i te kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa ko au te awa ko te awa ko au.[The river flows from the mountains to the sea I am the river and the river is me.]In English it refers to the river flowing from the mountains to the sea—I am the river and the river is me. What it's saying is that in terms of indigenous knowledge and indigenous caring for the land we are all connected; everything from the top of the mountain to the water to the land—we're all connected—and those of us who live on it. So I want to ask all New Zealanders to contribute in terms of submissions to the select committee. It's a pity I'm no longer on the Health Committee but I want to urge all New Zealanders to make a submission to the select committee because it is important. I commend this bill to the House. Malo."