edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I will speak briefly on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. First of all I would like to congratulate my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar for her hard work. This is a very useful bill. Although it's a very small bill I say it's a very useful bill because it relates to many Aucklanders because the nine amenities are really related to the daily lives of Auckland City residents. The city itself is a very diverse city just like New Zealand. I want to emphasise that New Zealand - wide 25 percent of people were born overseas but in Auckland that's nearly 40 percent. [Speaker holds up the bill] What I'm saying is that actually these amenities represent the diversity of New Zealand and Auckland. That is why I'm saying this is important for us to support the bill.SPEAKER: And now we'll start talking about the bill not the amenities.Dr JIAN YANG: Yes. So the bill basically will make it easier for these amenities to do their financial reports. That is necessary because at the moment these amenities have to do their financial reporting according to what we call the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards which is an old standard actually and means that they have to do two sets of financial reports. But if we use another one which is recommended by this particular bill like in the Charities Act 2005 it means it will be easier for these amenities to do their financial reporting which would be more cost-effective.We believe it's important because we need to support these amenities and these amenities are doing this anyway. It's just not really in accordance with the Act itself—that is the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. So the purpose of the bill is to basically make sure these amenities could do what they believe to be easier for them to do and it would be more cost-effective for them to do and we believe it's important.If we look at this particular purpose of the bill and at the same time we may look at the purpose of the funding board itself the funding board is actually to encourage the diverse society of New Zealand. As we can see the funding board would fund activities related to arts culture—SPEAKER: OK. Second warning last warning: stick to the bill.Dr JIAN YANG: OK. So basically I would say that we support the bill because we believe this bill itself will be able to enable these amenities to do a better job in serving the community. I believe it's important because at this stage these amenities are using this Charities Act practice anyway so we are trying to make sure they are doing this legally with this amendment bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak in this first reading. It's fantastic to hear that there'll be support across both sides of the House. I'm quite familiar with the Auckland regional amenities group as a former councillor in Auckland and the reporting of the nine amenities on an annual basis and some of the to and fro that exists in allocation of funding as you might imagine—highly sought after and much-needed funding for these very big charitable organisations.I should start—and I've forgotten—by referring to the entity by its Māori terminology: Te Poari ā-Takiwā Tuku Pūtea Taonga Whakaahuru. I would like to point out what has happened since the I guess coming on or the live activation of the Charities Act 2005. What that's done is kick off a second set of accounting practices for these nine amenities. They've got a combination of requirements. It's specifically a dual reporting requirement and what this particular bill is doing is requiring one less requirement. When you look at the nature of charities in New Zealand—and certainly all nine of these—and the sometimes cumbersome paper workload they have it means that to ask them to do two things at once especially when it comes to finances and accounting practices is cumbersome. So we support this bill because we're looking for a practical way forward. I thank Dr Parmjeet Parmar a list MP based in Mt Roskill for her work on this and for sponsoring this bill. I as the MP for Maungakiekie also take in part of that same park and so does the Hon Paul Goldsmith from Epsom. So there are a number of MPs that have jurisdiction—Hon Member: You might be forgetting someone there.DENISE LEE: —in and around the Stardome Observatory. I'm referring to the MPs of my party and yes I will pay attention to David Seymour.The Stardome Observatory chief executive who has recently retired is the acting chair of the—may I use terminology and say ARAFA Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: You may as long as you can relate it to the bill which you're having a bit of—DENISE LEE: Well it's the acronym for Auckland Regional Amenities Funding—SPEAKER: Just saying the name doesn't make it relevant. Let's get on with it.DENISE LEE: —colloquially known as ARAFA—easier to say and less tongue-twisty. For Mr Houldsworth to be in the acting chair capacity for ARAFA I think deserves a mention. It's a bit of a tireless job that he's taken on especially as I mentioned earlier the to and fro between nine major charitable organisations and their dire need for funding.So when I look at this bill I would simply say thank you very much for what seems to be broad support across the House. This is a practical measure. We all know that charitable organisations need support wherever they can. Thank you Mr Speaker for the chance to bring these few words. We support this bill.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): As the member whose electorate spans most of Auckland I do want to stand and support this bill progressing in the House and I commend the member for the work that she's done.
Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I take not a long call but I do want to take a call because the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill has been advocated by these different amenities. Being an Auckland MP I know a number of them who have sought the advocacy of Parliament to ensure that the burden that they currently face in regards to the financial reporting systems in place would be changed. They do realise that they are in breach. Hence the reasons why they have sought the will of the House to ensure that there would be a change in law to enable them to be able to do that.Having previously been the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector one of the challenges with these amenities these current charities and other charities around the country is the burden that is often reflected at times for reporting both financially and in other forms of audit around accreditation. Hence the reasons why I believe that it's important that this bill would be supported across the House as a bill that is critically important to that. I'm not wanting to take too much longer but I just want to put it on the record and acknowledge the Auckland Regional Amenities Board and the role they play in particular. Other parts of the public may require to understand the funding responsibility that they have and it's really clear in their 10 years—this was established in 2008—that the board itself has a delegation where no more than 2 percent of the rates collected by the Auckland Council in the previous financial year are used and it's these funds that are often distributed out to those different organisations that are part of the role of the bill here before the House—to make that change.So what they're saying to us in regard to this bill is that the burden for them to have to hold both the role under the Auckland regional amenities legislation and then under their charities status as well becomes critically important for them. Hence the reason for the advocacy around this.Finally I want to acknowledge those organisations that have come to seek the support of this House: the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra New Zealand Opera the Auckland Theatre Company the Auckland Arts Festival Stardome Observatory and also there's Coastguard and Surf Lifesaving Northern Region—and I have personally seen the services these clubs offer to the communities up in Auckland—and the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust WaterSafe Auckland and Drowning Prevention Auckland. I name them—SPEAKER: And it's now getting repetitious.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Yes. In reflecting on this bill and the intent of the bill which is to remove the burden that exists over there I too want to commend this bill to the House. I want to thank those that have worked tirelessly towards this. I look forward to the committee stage as it progresses through the House and comes back to the Chamber.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm very happy to stand in support of this bill.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.Hon Alfred Ngaro: Are you still taking speeches Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: Well the member didn't call.Hon Alfred Ngaro: Sorry I was talking to the—SPEAKER: Well the member didn't call you know.Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the ordinary course of events the next call was a Labour call. Dr Liz Craig stood to take the call. She didn't call loudly but I think she did call.SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the member very quickly: did she call?Dr Liz Craig: I called quietly but you didn't hear me.SPEAKER: Right. Even with my hearing aids I did not hear the member. I have called a result and therefore we can only go backwards by way of—Dr Liz Craig: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I didn't complete my call when you spoke.SPEAKER: Sorry?Dr Liz Craig: I didn't complete my call when you spoke so I may not have completed the call at the point you spoke.SPEAKER: Well I did look and I thought waited for a call. I have put the question. The only way now to get us out of this pickle—and I do want to say to the member she's now been here for two years; she should know to call quickly and loudly and if members on the other side are not happy they need to call out too not just stand up. I think the only way of getting out of this pickle is for me to seek the leave of the House to go back a step and I want to say to members that I would very much appreciate it if leave was granted. So the question before the House is that we revert to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill at the point we were. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Thursday 17 October 2019 - Volume 741
12. Question No. 12—Civil DefenceRAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of Civil DefenceQuestion No. 12—Civil Defence12. RAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What actions has he recently taken to help educate Kiwis on preparing for a natural disaster?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Yesterday I announced the annual ShakeOut drill to remind our people of the right action to take during an earthquake and to practise their tsunami evacuation plan if they are living in a coastal area. I have just returned from Evans Bay Intermediate where I practised the Drop cover hold" drill and tsunami hīkoi with about 400 eager students. I'm delighted to say that we were joined by over 790000 participants from across New Zealand and my trouser did not split.Raymond Huo: Why is it so important that we practise these actions?Hon PEENI HENARE: All of New Zealand is at risk of earthquake and all of our coastline is at risk of tsunami. We can't predict when one will happen or where we will be but what we can do is protect ourselves and our whānau by practising these simple drills. Since 2016 we have had a number of events namely the Kaikōura earthquake and the tsunami that ensued and also the East Cape tsunami two months prior in September 2016. We've also learnt even more about seismic risks such as the Alpine Fault the Hikurangi Fault and the Kermadec Trench.Raymond Huo: What else can Kiwis do to be prepared for an emergency such as an earthquake?Hon PEENI HENARE: Aside from knowing the potentially lifesaving actions of "Drop cover hold" and "Long or strong get gone" the most important thing to do is to have a chat with your whānau and make a plan. Think about what you'll do if you're separated if you have no power or water and if you're stuck at home or have to evacuate who might need your help and who can help you."
7. Question No. 7—CustomsPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of CustomsQuestion No. 7—Customs7. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Customs: What work is the New Zealand Customs Service doing to keep our borders safe?Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): This year the New Zealand Customs Service has seized a record amount of drugs at our border. In the year to 31 August Customs has busted nearly a tonne and a half of methamphetamine at our border as well as working offshore with our international partners. This includes the largest ever single meth bust for Customs of 469 kilograms found hidden inside a shipment of electric motors from Thailand in August. National waste-water testing results suggest that that drug bust equates to around six months' worth of meth consumption by New Zealand users. I'm proud of Customs having stopped that much from getting to our streets.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How much social harm has been prevented?Hon JENNY SALESA: This Government is committed to breaking the cycle of addiction through healthcare as well as coming down hard on the suppliers of these illegal drugs. Customs has an important role to play in stopping this supply. These meth busts mean that in the first eight months of this year $1.85 billion worth of damaging social harm has been prevented to our communities. This means significantly less harm to those addicted and significantly less harm to our families our whānau and our communities.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is keeping the border safe slowing down legitimate travel and trade?Hon JENNY SALESA: Absolutely not. In 2018-19 Customs handled a record of 16.7 million trade transactions and in June signed an agreement with the country of Canada as well as Singapore to secure more exports. They've also opened up the use of e-gates with passengers from Japan and processed a record of 7 million arriving in Aotearoa New Zealand. Our New Zealand Customs Service should be commended for the tireless work at our border to keep drugs out and to let legitimate trade and travellers in.
4. Question No. 4—DefenceJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of DefenceQuestion No. 4—Defence4. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What actions if any has he taken to ensure the continued operation of defence force aircraft at Whenuapai Airbase?Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): On Monday I signed a certificate exempting activity of engine testing at Whenuapai Air Base from the Resource Management Act 1991 for the purposes of national security. This will mean the recent Environment Court ruling on noise restrictions in favour of an Auckland property developer Neil Construction will not affect engine testing at Whenuapai and this will ensure all aircraft operations can continue to be conducted safely. I make no apology for this decision and I advise anyone who is thinking of purchasing land or a home near Whenuapai that you are moving into an area where a military base was established prior to World War II. If you do not like that don't buy there. Jenny Marcroft: What reactions has he seen from the public to this decision? Hon RON MARK: From feedback I've seen over the preceding weeks including a strongly supported petition of over 17000 signatures most residents and the wider public do not support restrictions being placed on the defence force operations. On the decision itself comments I have seen from the public have been overwhelmingly positive and have repeatedly included the words common sense". As an example one member of the public—Mr Mike Hosking—had this to say on Newstalk ZB yesterday: "I mean Ron Mark yesterday on Whenuapai I thought made a good common-sense decision and yes you want to build houses but you know when you've got an air force base you've got an air force base for God's sakes." Jenny Marcroft: When has this power under the Resource Management Act been used previously? Hon RON MARK: The advice I have received says the only other times a Minister of Defence has issued a national security certificate specifically under the Resource Management Act was in 1994 for the Devonport naval base and in 1997 for the Kauri Point armament depot. Interestingly on Newstalk ZB yesterday I heard a person say "I absolutely would have done the same thing and when I was defence Minister I had exactly the same issue with protecting the flight path and I did exactly the same thing as Ron."—a statement which is completely at odds with the facts Mr Mark Mitchell."
2. Question No. 2—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 2—Education2. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action if any is the Government taking to ease pressure on early childhood education services that have been hit by qualified teacher shortages?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last month I authorised funding for up to 300 overseas teachers to be brought into New Zealand for the early childhood education sector. These teachers will also be supported with relocation expenses. Early childhood education teaching has also been added to the skills shortage list. I've authorised funding to support a specific marketing campaign to attract more people to train to become early childhood teachers or to return to the profession and I've authorised a temporary increase in the number of teaching hours where teacher-led centre-based services can have a non-certified reliever without their funding being cut. These are three of the changes that we're making amongst many to ensure that we deal with the issues that are affecting the early childhood sector as a result of teacher shortages.Jan Tinetti: Is the Government considering other measures to ease teacher supply pressures in the short term; if so what are they?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. I've asked the Ministry of Education to consult on proposals aimed at easing pressure on teacher-led early childhood centres. Centres need to have at least one person responsible for every 50 children in attendance in early childhood education centres. That is the person primarily responsible for the day-to-day education and care of the children and currently only teachers with a recognised early childhood education qualification can be a person responsible in early childhood education centres. I've asked the ministry to seek feedback on whether a primary-trained teacher should be allowed to be a person responsible for all or part of the time and consultation is closing on that on Sunday 20 October.Jan Tinetti: Why are services currently facing teacher shortages?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a range of factors but perhaps the most important and underlying one is that between 2009 and 2017 the number of domestic students enrolling in initial teacher education for an early childhood education qualification fell by 59 percent. That is thousands and thousands of additional early childhood education teachers over that period of time that were not trained. This has had a significant impact on teacher supply in early childhood education and it is going to take us some time to address that legacy.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill which is at its second reading. The National Party will be supporting this piece of legislation. This legislation builds on the good work that Chris Bishop did in a member's bill last parliamentary term and it is about continuing to ensure that New Zealand raises the number of people who are donating their organs. As has been alluded to by previous speakers there is more work to be doing in that area to ensure that those on the waiting lists have the organs available and that they don't have to wait too long as unfortunately some pass away prior to being able to actually access the organs that they desperately need to be able to continue to live. So what this bill does as has been talked about is the areas around compensation—and I do just want to acknowledge a submitter from my electorate from Macleans College a group of students actually who spoke about that as an important part of increasing the number of organ donations. I want to just acknowledge Justin Hu Grace Park Anna Schwerzel and Nida Khan for the work that they did in pushing for that to be part of this bill. I just also just want to touch on the part of this which introduces a new national organ donation agency within the existing Crown entity of the New Zealand Blood Service which will really raise the profile of this issue in New Zealand support clinical governance co-ordinate donation and transplant processes and provide advice and information.I think all of those things are going to make a real difference in New Zealand as we continue to try as a Parliament to address this issue. So without any further ado I commend this bill to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. As has been mentioned by all the previous speakers the Statutes Amendment Bill is a non-controversial bill and it gives a vehicle where minor adjustments can be made to different laws so that they can be implemented in a better way and it is an improvisation. I would like to acknowledge the Minister and the Governance and Administration Committee for their contribution. The Minister explained very well some of the amendments he's proposing in this bill.I would like to touch upon one particular clause in Part 19 which is clause 64 amending section 172 of the Immigration Act 2009 which provides that the Minister may cancel or suspend liability for deportation. I think the present Minister is using this section quite frequently and it is very important for the Minister's use to amend this clause. With these words I would like to commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity of speaking on this bill. Now people often think that statutes amendment bills are not overly exciting or enthralling pieces of legislation but in fact while they're not that exciting they're incredibly important to make sure that we keep our legislation tidy and functioning and they serve a really important role to enable Parliament to make technical short and most importantly non-controversial changes—to make sure that if there are any inaccuracies or things that aren't quite in line we can tidy up a whole range of bills with one piece of legislation such as this. They allow changes also to be made that wouldn't normally be sufficient or big enough really in one piece of legislation. So it brings together a whole range of small changes.I should also acknowledge that this is only done with the full agreement of all parties and all members within this House and so it is good to recognise that—that these sorts of bills which enable a regular tidy-up of legislation to happen are not held up or impeded and we're able to put those through without any objection. So I acknowledge all members for their support in that space.This bill was actually introduced under the previous Government back in May 2017 before the House rose and it didn't receive its first reading. It received its first reading subsequently under this 52nd Parliament and it came to the Governance and Administration Committee which I am deputy chair of and we received just one submission on this bill. As a result of that there were no changes that were recommended by officials to be made as a result of that submission. But on saying that there have been a number of changes recommended by officials and so there are two Supplementary Order Papers from the Ministry for Primary Industries and from Customs that will be considered further at the committee stage and further details will come to those.So really there's a summary of I think it's 43 different small changes right throughout and I'm not going to go through those—members will be really pleased about that—but it's important to note that all the areas that are amended enable pieces of legislation that might've been outdated or have become out of line with other legislative changes to be now brought into order. Without further discussion I commend this bill to the House.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): In the past few years I've seen quite a few statutes amendment bills going through this Chamber. Such bills are important vehicles for us to update existing Acts. These bills are not supposed to make policy changes but to somehow improve existing bills. These statutes amendment bills provide a legislative vehicle for minor technical and non-controversial amendments to existing Acts.Now this particular bill amends about 42 Acts which are related to a number of agencies. These amendments serve different purposes. Some amendments would update some sections because over the years some sections in various Acts may become outdated redundant they may no longer serve certain purposes and therefore need to be abolished or removed from these Acts. Some sections may still be relevant however need to be updated. So to update existing Acts is one particular purpose of such a bill. Also some amendments would redefine some concepts. Again over the years some concepts may change and therefore we need to somehow redefine those concepts. Also some amendments would reword some sections to make the section more clear to clarify those sections. So these are also minor changes but still are quite important.Some amendments are simply changes which are the result of changes in some other sections. So these are related. Some amendments would simply simplify the process for the Government to do business. I'll give you some examples here like Part 3 Building Act 2004" and Part 5 "Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act 2002" and also Part 31 "Registered Architects Act 2005". In all these parts there are amendments which would enable the Minister to appoint members—instead of the Governor-General—simply because there's no need for the Governor-General to be involved in appointing members to various organisations or boards or councils. Therefore I would say this bill itself will improve a number of Acts and therefore I support the bill. Thanks."
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamSTATUTES AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I move That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a third time.By their very nature statutes amendment bills do not address significant policy matters. The amendments proposed must be technical short and non-controversial. Therefore I don't intend to make a long speech on this. I'm just going to summarise a few things.The statutes amendment bills are an important part of the Government's legislation programme as they allow us to keep the law up to date and accurate. Many of the amendments in the bills are designed to correct drafting errors omissions and incorrect references. Some amendments make improvements on how some Acts work in practice. Other amendments make technical changes to facilitate functions of governance. When we introduced the bill the amendments were 42 Acts and following consideration by the Governance and Administration Committee the bill as reported back amended 46 Acts. I've introduced three additional amendments tabled as Supplementary Order Papers to the committee of the whole House and this brings the final total to 72 Acts.The committee voted to include the three Supplementary Order Papers that I tabled in the bill and these Supplementary Order Papers make minor but urgent changes. For example Supplementary Order Paper 386 simplifies the process for the New Zealand Film Commission to enter into indemnity contracts and brings the commission into line with other Crown entities in the cultural sector better enabling it to fulfil its core function. The three Supplementary Order Papers are suitable for inclusion in the Statutes Amendment Bill. All parliamentary parties were consulted on the Supplementary Order Papers and supported their inclusion into the bill.So I just want to state again that the Statutes Amendment Bill is a key way that the Government ensures that legislation keeps up with changes and remains fit for purpose. I want to acknowledge members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their time and effort and for your contribution in improving the bill. I also want to thank all members of Parliament because as it is with the process anyone can raise their hand and disagree and that brings the process to a stop. I do want to acknowledge the individual member Jami-Lee Ross for his effort as well as David Seymour. Thank you for your engagement with my office in processing this through the House. Then finally I just want to say I commend this bill to the House.
Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Readings
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thanks Mr Speaker. I'm the twelfth man on these particular bills. I'll keep my remarks brief but I do want to do justice to the fact that regulatory systems amendments bills are omnibus pieces of legislation. They make technical or minor regulatory fixes but they are important and I do want to make sure that the House acknowledges the fact that every piece of legislation that goes through this House is important. It might not be sexy but it is tidying up things that are anomalies that can have flow-on effects that disadvantage people or that are just out of date. This particular omnibus legislation amends 14 pieces of legislation and it's about essentially maintaining the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory systems. You could describe that as enacting tweaks. I want to refer particularly to the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) which contains amendments to the Holidays Act 2003 the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 with one consequential amendment to the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and my colleague Marja Lubeck referred to the main change around parental leave contained in that particular bill in these cognate bills. I want to mention just briefly the other changes contained in that bill. There were four submissions. I think we heard one submitter. Like I said though they're minor changes in I guess the bigger picture but they still need to be acknowledged. So there are amendments contained to the powers of labour inspectors to clarify that they may use their investigative powers to ascertain whether workers are employees to ensure that labour inspectors can seek access to sufficient information to form a view on workers' employment and to provide a power to investigate whether any place is a workplace. Those may sound like minor things but I guess given that this Government is intent on building up the stock of labour inspectors around the country to ensure that we are investigating irregularities and to stop exploitation—particularly of low-paid workers and migrant workers—clarifying the powers of labour inspectors is important. Marja Lubeck talked about the parental leave clarifications. That part of this legislation going through the House is important. It's minor but important and I commend it to the House. Bills read a second time.Name of Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill changed to Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2).
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Speaker. A brief contribution I suspect from me on the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill. In this the third and final reading the matters have not only been well traversed in the House but in a relatively concentrated period of time so I think that it's all pretty fresh in the memory of members of the House and no doubt members of the public such that I don't need to take up too much time or indeed expend too much energy on the detail. I think it's worth just by way of closing remarks I suppose—seeing as I'm at twelfth man—I was going to say batting at twelfth man" but of course I wouldn't be batting if one were twelfth man. SPEAKER: No you're the eleventh person. CHRIS PENK: Am I the eleventh? Oh there we go—I'm coming at No. 11. Well I do get to bat—I do get to bat. Well that's probably even—SPEAKER: He's not the nightwatchman—he doesn't need to keep going. CHRIS PENK: Mr Speaker your surname is a synonym for duck so I probably—SPEAKER: That's right. CHRIS PENK: —should avoid making any inappropriate comments in that regard. In fact I'll simply just move on to the objectives of the legislation being to improve regulatory systems by—and I quote—"clarifying and updating statutory provisions [etc.] addressing regulatory duplication"—which is ironic seeing as I'm somewhat duplicating the remarks of others in this debate—"keeping the regulatory system up to date and relevant"—and those are epithets which I like to think apply to myself rather—and "removing unnecessary compliance costs and costs of doing business." So for all the reasons already discussed by other members in recent times the legislation from our perspective does tick those boxes and hence it has been worthy of our support."
Lubeck MarjaREGULATORY SYSTEMS (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) AMENDMENT (NO 2) BILLREGULATORY SYSTEMS (WORKFORCE) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)REGULATORY SYSTEMS (HOUSING) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)Second ReadingsDebate resumed from 16 October. MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare and thank you for the third opportunity this week to talk about these regulatory systems amendment bills. I think that because it's my third time to speak on this legislation I might keep it a little bit short because I think most of what I needed to say has probably been said. But it's good to acknowledge again as I mentioned in my previous contributions that these are bills about tidying up and ensuring that provisions are clarified where that is necessary and making sure that any unintended consequences that may have arisen from the way the wording was put into legislation are tidied up. I did start to talk about a specific example last night before I was interrupted at 10 p.m. and that was with regards to the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) where there's a small fix needed to make sure that—as the intent of the parental leave scheme was—we make sure that primary carers are not treated any differently from spouses or partners who are in similar situations. So the way the legislation is drafted at the moment means that for biological parents eligibility to parental leave payments usually comes from the mother's eligibility and in the example where the biological mother passes away currently the spouse—the working spouse or partner—would not be entitled to then receive the parental leave payments. Now there was a recent example of that and obviously that is unfair. This bill fixes that anomaly which is not in line with the intent of the original legislation and that is one example of the tidy-ups that this legislation is making. So again it's about streamlining updating and clarifying several pieces of legislation—14 in fact—and therefore I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I move That the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c). This instruction to the committee has been subject to discussion with the National Party and I'd like to thank Dr Shane Reti for agreeing to it. It's essential that the bill should be enacted by the end of this year so that students going to university for the 2020 academic year and their parents can be sure that the measures in the bill will be in place by that time. The general agreement around the bill means that the select committee will be able to hear the submissions and scrutinise the bill within the shorter time period which the House lays down through this instruction. Motion agreed to.
Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Can I start by acknowledging Mason; also his family—incredibly tough time for them at the moment. What's been really nice today for a change is to see all members of the House in agreement. For Mason his death hasn't gone in vain. Mason was in Christchurch attending tertiary education to have the time of his life to make lifelong friends and just reading through this bill it's actually brought back a lot of memories for me. I wasn't in a student hall but I did see certain things that weren't right. Looking back on it now I saw friends that spent weeks in their rooms without coming out—a sign of depression. I didn't pick that up at the time. I saw friends that went off the rails with alcohol problems and drug problems. I had friends that had parents pass away at the time. They had huge problems. So hopefully this bill beefing up the bill that was originally passed by Steven Joyce a number of years ago—hopefully it's going to make change for the positive. What this bill is about—it's about giving not minimum standards but certain provisions to ensure that when we do send students away from home often for the first time to different cities different environments and in a lot of different circumstances they're in a safe environment. We owe it to Mason to ensure we have a robust select committee process to ensure we do get this right because it's too important not to. During the select committee process I would like to see some more analysis done by the Government and I will follow this process closely. With that I commend it to the House.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare and thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill. I commend the Minister first of all for bringing this bill to the House after the recent tragic event highlighted that there is obviously a lack of minimum standards for domestic students in tertiary accommodation. As a result the family and friends of Mason Pendrous suffered a terrible loss. It's good to see that we can act quickly in these cases to make sure that we can change the law and improve the welfare of and the support for our domestic tertiary students. As the mother of an 18-year-old year 13 who may well end up in the very near future in such tertiary accommodation I want to be assured that the welfare of these young people is looked at. Especially—my friend and colleague Jan Tinetti mentioned this already—for young people leaving home for the very first time very vulnerable we need to make sure that at least we have these minimum standards in place. As many others have expressed I too was surprised to find out that we don't actually have these minimum standards and in fact that there is an exemption for this tertiary accommodation in the Residential Tenancies Act. I was absolutely surprised to hear that. As a result we saw this regulatory gap in the welfare and pastoral care of the domestic tertiary students and we need to make sure that we tidy that up because while there is a voluntary code as we heard which was created in 2004 there is no consistency maintained across the board. Some places are doing this well and some places aren't and that really is not good enough because you know parents of the domestic students have every right to expect that their sons and daughters are being looked after in the way they should be. At the same time students should be assured that when they choose to live in a hall or a hostel in tertiary accommodation there are minimum standards of safety for them and there is the support that they need to assure their wellbeing.So I don't believe it's too much burden to ensure that we have these minimum standards in place and I am looking forward for this piece of legislation to come to our Education and Workforce Committee. Many of us who are on that committee are here in the House and have spoken today and I'm sure that we will be able to do all that's needed to ensure that we have a mandatory permanent code to come into effect by 2021 to ensure that our young people are kept safe and that the parents of those young people can be assured that all the care and support is needed when they let their young people go out in the world. Thank you Mr Speaker and I commend this bill to the House.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise in support of the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill and I do so in the shadow of the tragic circumstances of the death of Mason Pendrous. I want to acknowledge his family and friends today. What happened to their son should never have happened and there must be accountability for what happened. That is not what we're dealing with today in this House. Accountability will be left to others but our job is to take the steps that we reasonably can to prevent an event like this ever happening again. I think it's important to acknowledge that as a Parliament we are working together on this bill. Certainly National has acknowledged that we wish to work with the Minister to ensure that this bill is effective and that it is reasonable and via Shane Reti our spokesperson we acknowledged that the Minister has extended the period that the select committee will sit to examine this bill to maximise our chances that we will get this right. Working together we hope to enable a bill that will allow the development of a code of practice that will ensure that students and university hostels have experiences that support their wellbeing and achievement that there are the right processes in place and that reasonable steps will be taken to protect them. Twenty years ago I was a 17-year-old starting my first university hostel at Weir House and when I reflect on that time in my life I remember days and weeks not simply for me but for my friends and those I went to university with that were tough that were dark weeks. The research tells us that this is the case at that time in people's lives—that it is a time of transition and change of growing independence away from the security attachments and relationships of home and in circumstances which can be stressful and challenging. It is a vulnerable and precarious time and that is why so many families make the choice to spend the extra money to support their children to be in a hostel because they know that that vulnerability is there and they want their children to have the best possible experience to have the support that they need to make new friendships. I think it is appropriate that we take extra steps because I know that it's not being done perfectly right now and that's very clear to us with the case of Mason Pendrous. Right now there are 3400 students at hostels at Victoria University here in Wellington alone and I hope this bill will improve the experience for many of them. It is important I do want to note that we get this right. We don't want to take this to such extremes that we take away some of the freedom and liberty that is part and parcel of the university hostel experience. We have to get the balance right. We don't want to take this to extremes in which we add undue cost and processes that get in the way and limit people from being able to have that university hostel experience. So we will have the select committee process. We will be very careful about that. But as others have said the most important thing here is that what happened to Mason Pendrous may never happen again. Thank you.
Lee Denise; Rurawhe AdrianDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Mr Speaker. Like others I too would like to start by acknowledging the Pendrous family and the tragic passing of Mason. I'd like to hope and to think that his death will not be in vain given that we are here asking the right questions the questions that we need to ask around how such a tragedy could occur. It's going to be hard for me not to inject my own personal experience into this given that it was just a few short weeks ago that my daughter and I sat down and filled out her applications for university hostels. So not just me alone—I'm sure there are other parents around New Zealand doing exactly what I'm doing and that's asking further more interrogative questions around what it is that my daughter is signing up to and to whose care she goes into and how I as a parent can navigate that world safely with her beside her when I can't be with her all of the time. So what we've had here tragically is exposure by all of us to the self-regulating approach that tertiary student wellbeing has largely had up until this point in our New Zealand history. This is the right way to look at things: to unpack legislatively what we can do to get tertiary providers to take better care to look at the deeper questions around how they address student wellbeing and potential gaps in student wellbeing. What will evolve of course is an interim code in time for 2020. And while we very much are behind that and applaud that we still need to get the balance right. I think that the select committee that will take on this particular bill has had a very good indicative steer from Treasury in regards to the speed of the bill. We need to make sure we get this right. Defining the nature and the size of the problem—we need to get that right as well making sure that the bill isn't overly weighted towards students who are away from home for the first time; there are other types of students too. We need to make sure that we canvass lots of means for addressing wellbeing and the possibility of looking at a contract between providers and parents and students. That's one avenue. And then of course we've mentioned—and it's legitimate—the scale and the nature of the costs of any changes because ultimately you may imagine that parents may bear some of that cost. So all of these are issues that we can unpack that we can look at in a very unified and in-depth way. We support this bill and we look forward to the conversation that many of us me included need to have on behalf of our children.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Jo Luxton—five minutes.