edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Kuriger Barbara; Tisch LindsayWEDNESDAY 2 NOVEMBER 2016(continued on Thursday 3 November 2016)AGRICULTURAL COMPOUNDS AND VETERINARY MEDICINES AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a very short call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. It is a really important bill. We are in a country where we live with innovators and people who like to develop products that help our primary industries along and what this bill does effectively is extend the time that the data is kept private so that it gives them an opportunity to get a return on their investment. It is also for if they want to change the use—so if there is another use for that data they get more years to be able to hold on to it.I think it can only do good things for innovation in this country and also for others who are wanting to invest over here in that innovative space—because we are always looking for new ideas and ways to do better agriculture particularly as we move into the realms of climate change etc. It is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion—Todd Barclay: Mr Assistant Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No I am sorry. You are too late. I paused no one took the call and I am putting the question. You are too late I am sorry.
Children Young Persons and Their Families (Advocacy Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 14.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.
Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
11. Business Growth Agenda—Support for Small BusinessCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for Small BusinessBusiness Growth Agenda—Support for Small Business11. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What initiatives has the Government implemented through the Business Growth Agenda that assist small business?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Through the Business Growth Agenda this Government is working to create a competitive and productive economy to support small businesses. Initiatives include the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband and the Rural Broadband Initiative assisting small businesses by making it easier to pay provisional tax assisting small businesses in their engagement with the Government through the New Zealand Business Number and assisting small businesses to employ and keep staff through the 90-day trial. A recent survey from Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) showed that 63 percent of those businesses want to retain the 90-day trial for new employees. It is because of initiatives such as these that 57 percent of all small businesses say they are more likely to succeed under this Government. Chris Bishop: What other initiatives are contributing towards the ease of doing business?Hon CRAIG FOSS: Through initiatives such as the 23 small-business roadshows—including the roadshow in Pētone which that member attended—this Government is informing small businesses about the tools resources and support available to them for greater opportunities to assist in their businesses. The business.govt.nz website has numerous free online tools to assist small businesses such as the Employment Agreement Builder. The site also has valuable information to support 20 milestones that small businesses may face. This means less time working on contracts and Government compliance and more time working on their business. Chris Bishop: How are these initiatives contributing to increasing confidence from small businesses in the New Zealand economy?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The initiatives I have outlined contribute to an increase in confidence amongst small businesses across the New Zealand economy. That recent MYOB survey of more than 1000 small to medium business enterprises reveals that an increasing number of small and medium enterprises are experiencing improved trading conditions. Forty-two percent of business owners expect their revenue to increase in the next year on the back of a strong and growing economy. A strong and growing economy combined with the policies of this Government supports small businesses which is no doubt why 57 percent of them believe they will succeed more under this Government. Small businesses do not want higher taxes they want to keep the 90-day trial and they do not want new water taxes. This is no doubt contributing to why only 10 percent of small businesses believe they will succeed under Labour.
9. Building and Construction Industry—Building Activity and National Policy Statement on Urban DevelopmentJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister for Building and HousingBuilding and Construction Industry—Building Activity and National Policy Statement on Urban Development9. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Can he confirm the latest reports on building activity in Auckland show an increase from $5.3 billion to $7.2 billion over the last year or 36 percent?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes. This growth in building activity of 36 percent in 1 year is the fastest growth rate recorded by Statistics New Zealand in building activity in 30 years and nor has there been in Auckland 5 straight years of increased building activity. The $7.2 billion of building activity in Auckland per annum is also the highest ever and almost double that of the last peak in 2004. These statistics confirm that Auckland is experiencing the longest and strongest building boom ever.Jami-Lee Ross: What additional steps is the Government taking to address the long-term causes of insufficient supply of housing and the resulting high prices?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yesterday the Government adopted the National Policy Statement on Urban Development which puts a new legal requirement on councils to ensure they free up sufficient land to match growth. Its significance in respect of house prices is that all the substantive analysis shows that it is the price of the land that is at the core of housing unaffordability and that councils' policies to restrict land supply have severely impacted on housing costs while benefiting existing homeowners and providing massive gains to those owning land inside the artificially prescribed urban boundaries. The national policy statement has been developed in just 9 months as compared with every other national policy statement which has taken over 3 years. It comes into legal effect on 1 December.Jami-Lee Ross: Is the Minister concerned given the rapid growth in building activity about the quality of building work and materials; if so what steps is he taking to ensure New Zealand gets both quantity and quality?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions—the Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think quality is a challenge when we have got a sector that is growing so quickly. The first step the Government took was to require all building work associated with structural integrity or weathertightness to be done by a licensed building practitioner. Last year we introduced a requirement that all building work over $30000 had to have a written contract. This year I have announced 32 changes to the building code's acceptable solutions and verification methods. The latest of those come into effect in an announcement today in respect of reinforcing steel mesh.
Faafoi Kris; Tisch LindsayKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to speak to the second reading of this Charities Amendment Bill in the dying moments of the evening. There was just an interesting telling of history about the formation of this bill and it has been mentioned by two colleagues of mine the Hon Ruth Dyson and Poto Williams. The fact is that this is a piece of legislation that came about from the Statutes Amendment Bill. There has been quite a bit of debate during this sitting session around the Statutes Amendment Bill—and I will get on to luggage at some point. That piece of legislation the Statutes Amendment Bill is designed for non-controversial non - policy-changing pieces of tidying-up which are put into a statutes amendment bill and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of the Charities Amendment Bill in its second reading. It is unfortunate though that here we are in the second reading and already we are seeing attempts to revise history in the description of what happened or did not happen in the select committee process. Our chair Ruth Dyson—who I will acknowledge is normally a very solid very collegial and very consensus-driven chair—has made claims about what she saw removed from the Statutes Amendment Bill for further consideration as a separate item by the Government Administration Committee.I am a permanent member on that committee and I acknowledge these things: there was a statutes amendment bill in front of the committee; there was not unanimous agreement that all the provisions of that bill should be in a statutes amendment bill; and the provisions that were thought not to warrant that were around the Charities Act 2005. It was agreed that all of the provisions related to the Charities Act 2005 would be pulled out and made into a separate child bill that all of those provisions would be open to greater public submission—particularly from the submitters who had commented on those areas in the parent bill—and that we would do it as a separate process and work through it.So the question of whether or not there was a drafting error in respect of the words or the chief executive" was always a part of the consideration of the child bill. It absolutely was looked at by the select committee and any inference that it was not is completely not as I recall those proceedings. I commend the bill to the House."
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on this the Charities Amendment Bill and can I just acknowledge the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector for bringing what is a very good piece of legislation to the House. Can I acknowledge the previous speaker Ruth Dyson as the chair of the Government Administration Committee. I think using the term war" when we are referring to the Charities Amendment Bill might be taking it just a little bit too far but I do want to just support the comments that the Minister made about the fact that the bill makes three small but important technical changes that will improve the coherence of the Charities Act 2005 which is actually very important as we heard through the select committee process. The bill seeks to improve the public's trust and confidence in charities by further clarifying the legislation and it seeks to make compliance easier and faster for both charities and the regulator by removing unnecessary processes whilst maintaining the principles of natural justice. This is very important. It is in line with some commitments that this National-led Government made around reducing red tape and compliance costs. These are small but important changes that provide greater clarity and also processes that will be familiar to all charities. It will provide greater clarity around the registration application process and contribute to public trust and confidence in charities by strengthening protections against the risk of financial mismanagement. Like I said it is a very good bill. Can I commend the Minister and commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata. In addressing this Charities Amendment Bill I will use slightly fewer words and somewhat less time in this House than the member Poto Williams who just resumed her seat because it is a very simple and brief piece of legislation. The bill does three simple things: it provides that a person cannot be an officer of a charitable entity if they have been convicted of tax evasion or a similar offence. I think this is a very sensible measure to prevent corruption in the charity sector. It also provides that an application for registration as a charitable entity will be treated as withdrawn if the applicant does not respond to requests for information within 18 months—again a very pragmatic sensible measure that is designed to stop the cluttering up of the registration process. But unfortunately the bill does not address a 2012 drafting error as was originally intended which removes the words chief executive" from section 61(1)(a) of the Charities Act 2005. This is unfortunate. This bill started life as part of the Statutes Amendment Bill introduced by my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges in his role as Associate Minister of Justice and because it is the child bill of a Statutes Amendment Bill it does require unanimity not simply majority support. We certainly listened very carefully and very intently to what the submitters said. There were seven submitters we heard from in person out of the 33 who offered submissions including submissions from Hui E! Community Aotearoa and others and from a notable lawyer in the charity sector. I listened—and I know the National Party members on the committee listened—very very closely to what they were submitting. We had a difference of opinion. We did not agree with everything they were saying.The advice that we—certainly that I—accept from the department was that section 61 of the Charities Act 2005 does not convey any right of appeal in any case. We accepted that advice on our side of the select committee but unfortunately that piece of the legislation will not proceed because it has not achieved unanimity. I think that is unfortunate because in my view it was a drafting error and we were just correcting that small error. I would also like to commend the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector the Hon Jo Goodhew who is working hard to tidy up some of the flaws that exist in the current legislation. The bill despite losing the section around the chief executive and appeal rights reform with that tweak there still has some useful sections dealing with tax evasion and also with the withdrawal of an application if it has not been progressed within 18 months. So it is still a sensible bill. It is just a shame it did not go that little bit further."
Macindoe TimTIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Before I begin could I just acknowledge the announcement today from the Hon David Cunliffe that he will be retiring at the election and acknowledge that he has been a long-serving member of this House. He has filled a number of important roles and I wish him all the very best for the future. At the heart of this Government's philosophy has been its real determination to lift standards to lift aspirations and to lift the means of support for those who are most vulnerable in our society. In many respects it is encapsulated in the social investment approach. It is something that I am incredibly proud of because we all know that if we can help those who are most at risk in our society then we have a real opportunity not only to change their lives for all time but also to improve the quality of our society overall.Whether it has been tackling our alcohol laws our drug laws raising achievement and putting more resources into schools particularly for those in low-decile areas—and I commend the incredible work of the Hon Hekia Parata in that respect—or the outstanding work that the Hon Anne Tolley is doing at the moment to ensure that our vulnerable children are protected that we raise the age of State care not just to 18 as the previous speaker was mentioning but where necessary to 21 maybe even to 25 these are all great things as is the outstanding work that the Minister of Justice is doing with the number of initiatives that the Hon Amy Adams is putting forward. All of these in totality add up to a really significant package of reforms. I believe that they will make an enormous difference. I am fully in support of this bill. I thank all members who have contributed to a thoughtful debate and I really look forward to seeing these initiatives in action.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Advocacy Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Bill in this its second reading. The bill will extend the State's responsibility for the care and protection of young people. It follows on from and is in fact the Government's response to the Modernising Child Youth and Family Expert Panel's final report released on 7 April. It is important to note that this represents the first steps in the actions the Government will take to reform a system and set of services that are in much need of reform—a system that currently does not place the child and the child's needs at the centre of what it does and how it goes about doing the things it is set to do. What the bill will do is it will extend State responsibility for the care and protection of vulnerable young people until they reach their 18th birthday. Importantly it will ensure that those vulnerable young people are able to express their views and to have those views considered as part of decision making not only in their individual cases but also in the development of departmental services and of policy. It will establish a youth advocacy service and it will permit a broader range of professionals to carry out functions under the Act. The reason this as a set of first steps comes about is that the review and the report have shown that the system we have had for some years fails in that it has we believe the wrong focus. It does not have those vulnerable children at the heart of the perspectives it takes the decisions it makes and the actions that flow from that. It simply does not meet the needs of vulnerable children as they move into adulthood. It is fragmented it lacks clear accountability and it is not organised around that common purpose of the child at the centre. This represents a set of first steps to change that. I commend this bill to the House.
Pugh Maureen; Tisch LindsayMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is with pleasure that I stand to support the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Advocacy Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Bill in its second reading here tonight. This bill is a first step in the reform of services for responding to the needs of vulnerable children young people and their families. This is a new system and it will deliver a more child-centred system through a range of new initiatives including extending the State's responsibility for the care and protection of vulnerable young people until they turn 18. Vulnerable children and young people will have their voices heard when decisions are being made about issues that affect them. There will be an independent advocacy service established and there will be a broader range of professionals enabled to deliver core functions and powers. This bill is a significant shift from the status quo and it is necessary because we know that children and young people who have been in care are far more likely to die at a young age to leave school with fewer qualifications to receive a benefit to be convicted for criminal offending and possibly to have children themselves who need care and protection support. This is an important first step. We are going to do better. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Peeni Henare—5 minutes. Tēnā koe.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. It is an important and a significant bill in that it is bringing in some very important and timely changes to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. When the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act was brought into being in 1989 it was a groundbreaking and world-renowned piece of legislation. People from all around the world looked at what we were doing in New Zealand and thought there were some initiatives taken at that time that were really significant. Of course we cannot just sort of sit back and look at what was done then and say That's enough." and so over the course of time there have been 14 different reviews of the Child Youth and Family service and the various names it has been called over those years. But up until now there have not been as a result of any of the Governments that have been in place since 1989 any actual steps finally taken to increase the level of age and so that is what we are doing here primarily this evening. When we were on the Social Services Committee we had some presentations from some young people from the Dingwall Trust and that has been mentioned already by a number of speakers this evening. But I particularly again just want to acknowledge those young people who were brave enough to talk to us to share their stories. I think in particular of one young woman who talked about turning 17 part-way through her NCEA level 2 exams at the end of year 12 and the fact that she was going to be leaving Child Youth and Family's care and it was then beholden on her to have to try to negotiate with her caregivers what the ongoing living arrangements care relationship and boarding relationship would be going forward. I think as we all sat and watched that we all thought that actually that was not an acceptable thing to be expecting of a 17-year-old—to be facing exams and having to negotiate their own living arrangements with the family they have been living with. So it is timely and it is appropriate that we actually move forward and we lift the age. I also welcome announcements from the Minister that this is in fact only the first step and that potentially going forward we are going to have other legislation that will see the possibility for the level of care being extended beyond the age of 18 as well. But this is a very important first step. There are other factors in this bill that have been discussed already and I take great pleasure in endorsing it to the House."
Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill — Second Reading
Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): An earlier speaker in this debate indicated that this was challenging and confronting legislation and they were absolutely right. This is challenging and confronting legislation because here we have a modernisation and an updating of a 50-year-old piece of principal legislation to try to take account of circumstances that exist today for people who are really ill—people who have lost their own capacity to make good judgments about their health and their well-being and whether or not they receive voluntary treatment for their addictions. This is a challenging area because it puts us as parliamentarians into the realm of making decisions in a legislative manner that is contrary to an individual's wishes. What is more challenging for us as parliamentarians is that we are putting these people into an institution essentially taking away their liberty for periods of up to 8 weeks. We heard evidence from professionals in this area who advised us at the select committee that sometimes 8 weeks was needed in order to ensure that people were completely removed from the addictive substances that had produced the situation that meant that they were no longer capable of making good judgment decisions themselves about their own health and well-being. So this is a piece of legislation that I think as nicely and as carefully as we can balances that judgment call between protecting people's rights to make their own decisions about how they live their lives but also at a point where the State actually has to intervene on their behalf to protect their best interests. I think we have got the balance about right. It was a good select committee process. I am looking forward to the debate that we will have in the Committee of the whole House and to the third reading debate. I commend the bill to the House at its second reading.
Dean Jacqui; Tisch LindsayJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): This bill is based on a large body of work undertaken by the Law Commission that was finished in 2010 and it will when it is enacted be quite a significant step forward in the management of people with severe and serious addiction to alcohol or other drugs. It replaces the 1966 Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act and essentially—although there are a number of clauses and given that we still have a number of stages to go through the Parliament including the Committee stage there will be a number of opportunities for members to rehearse the various provisions in the bill. I will go through a few in this second reading of the bill. I think the first task for the Health Committee was to truly understand what a severe substance addiction amounts to in terms of this bill. It was—and this has been mentioned before by previous members—enlightening for the Health Committee to learn the extent of addiction of some members in our society which causes them to come under the provision of this bill in terms of compulsory treatment. The bill enables people with a severe substance addiction and therefore with a severely impaired capacity to decide on what is best for their lives and what is best for them in terms of treatment for that addiction to receive compulsory assessment and treatment and that is to protect them. It is to protect them from harm to protect them from further harm and to enable some stabilisation of their health. That was a point in the submission period of our consideration: the compulsory nature of this bill allows for people's conditions to be stabilised and that is not only addressing their mental health and their addiction issue but also addresses and improves their physical well-being which then becomes a platform for perhaps better decision-making in the future. It is also about protecting their dignity—and I think that is an important aspect already mentioned this evening—to help restore their capacity to make more informed decisions about further treatment for themselves and to address the issues around their substance use. The bill helpfully and rightfully sets out the meaning of severe substance addiction". Of course the condition manifests itself in the compulsive use of a substance and what that means is set out: neuro-adaptation to the substance craving for the substance unsuccessful efforts to control use of the substance and use of the substance despite harmful consequences. There are a number of protections built into this compulsion aspect of this bill—the compulsory assessment and treatment—and no doubt those will be canvassed by other members. With this short intervention I commend the bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. David Clendon—5 minutes."
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill in its second reading today. I want to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne who is the sponsor of the bill and also the person who was forward thinking in terms of putting together the Drug Harm Index that we heard about before. I went to that presentation. The previous speaker Louisa Wall talked about the social costs of drug harm being huge. We all know—we hear a lot of anecdotal stuff out in society and it is really great that we are starting to measure it.The bill will enable people with severe substance addiction and severely impaired capacity to decide on treatment and it is really important to note that it is for the most serious cases. There was a lot of conversation driven through the Health Committee and we really appreciate the submitters who came in—particularly the oral submitters because a lot of them were people who work in this space. They live it inside out every day when dealing with these people. This bill must also be as it passes a relief for the families the parents the partners the children and the people who live with this every day—for those members of their family who have severe addiction issues who feel helpless and who are wondering where on earth they are going to go.This bill is going to replace the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act and we have heard that it was put in place in 1966. We have heard from the Associate Minister how ineffective it was and we got a sense of that as we were listening to the submissions. It is very clear that most people who abuse alcohol or drugs do not need compulsory treatment. They can do well and they can choose to engage in treatment programmes. However some people really are so unwell that they are just not able to make those decisions for themselves and this is where this bill cuts in.I think it is really important too—we have heard about safeguards today. It is not as though we want to go around detaining people all over the place. There are special safeguards to make sure we restrict people as little as possible and that the interference with the rights of those patients is kept to a minimum. The bill allows any person who is older than 18 and who believes that another person has severe substance addiction to apply to the area director to have that person assessed. I believe there is a lot of work that has gone into this bill as it has sat before the Health Committee. That was another good select committee submission process and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Third Readings (Bills divided from Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill)
Urgent Debates Declined — Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd—Sale of Mines
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise to take a very short call in support of the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill in its third reading. In response to the previous contribution by Jenny Salesa I want to say that this bill is focused on police efforts. It is about delivering Better Public Services because what we are doing is we are increasing the Police budget and putting a focus on front-line measures.We are expecting police to carry out their investigations and their prosecutions and not have to focus on that backroom administration those ancillary functions. They are important but—let us put it plainly—it is backroom staff who are undertaking those roles and therefore there needs to be cost recovery as part of that to cover those costs to enable the benefits to be reaped by individuals and organisations as they make sure that the people whom they are employing to undertake work to be in positions in their organisations are fit for purpose. So it is only proper that the cost of that vetting is recovered and that the police use their resources to focus on core services and front-line work.This is a Government that has supported the Police and is strong on law and order and justice. That has resulted in new thinking and modernisation in the way policing is done—for example giving them things like iPhones to free up hours to make sure that they can carry on as this bill does to focus on front-line duties and not those backroom roles such as vetting. This bill seeks to make sure that the Police can recover the costs of vetting—and they will do so when this bill is passed—and that is appropriate to make sure that those administration costs are recovered. So with that I support this bill.
Obituaries — Reginald George Boorman
Barclay ToddTODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): Before I start making a few remarks just clarifying some of the statements that the previous Labour and Green members have made I just want to make a comment that I think what is actually quite concerning is the lack of understanding by the Opposition of what this piece of legislation actually seeks to achieve. This is about police vetting and recovering costs from a number of services whereby increased demand is taking up a more disproportionate amount of police time. The Opposition members are insinuating or scaremongering that police services core activities of police front-line services have the potential of being charged under this legislation. That is absolutely incorrect. That is categorically wrong.The functions performed by the police around police vetting are performed by back-office staff not front-line sworn officers of which there are almost 9000 out on the streets. It is simply incorrect to insinuate that the Police is going to be establishing itself as some form of money-hungry organisation. What this seeks to achieve actually is to give greater certainty to all those organisations that require police vetting as part of their core activities—there were over 500000 police-vets undertaken last year—given the increased prevalence and increased need for greater scrutiny of people operating in the presence of vulnerable children and vulnerable New Zealanders in order to give more people certainty of getting those vettings undertaken in a comprehensive nature and at a speedy pace in order to deliver for those organisations so they can undertake their core business.Actually one of the other things that have been left out of these discussions today so far by the Opposition is the fact that our police is one of the only forces in States in the OECD that we compare ourselves with that does not have some form of cost recovery service. If you look at New South Wales police the Queensland police or any of the others their cost recovery services are at a disproportionately higher rate than what we are proposing. Our $8.50 per police-vet fee which Cabinet agreed to—under the regulations; not the legislation which is the role of the select committee—is far less than what the States that we compare ourselves with are undertaking. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. We obviously support it and we support the police in their efforts across the country.
Dean Jacqui; Mallard TrevorJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill seems to have attracted a little bit of controversy this afternoon in its third reading and yet what I see from this bill is that it changes a piece of legislation that previously under the 2000 legislation did not explicitly enable police to charge users for any of their services. This bill corrects that. It amends the Policing Act with an intention of providing police with the ability to recover the cost of providing certain policing services such as police vetting.I do know that my colleague Jonathan Young answered a Labour member who seemed unaware of what was in the bill—which was a bit disturbing given that he was sitting on the Law and Order Committee—very well. But the point I think is worth resaying which is that a number of recent national and international developments have put increasing pressure on police-vetting services and this includes the introduction of mandatory checks for the children's workforce which is required by National's Vulnerable Children Act 2014. Can one argue that that is a worthy advancement in legislation? Police vetting is becoming increasingly common and increasingly necessary and part of employment.The point was made also by the Labour member that schools and charities would be required to fund police vetting. However I do see that the select committee has done its job very well and Cabinet has now agreed that the regulations will provide for a range of fee waivers including for agencies or schools making 20 vetting requests or fewer per year. They will not be required to pay nor will registered charities—they will also be exempt from the fee. It is a shame that the Labour member who raised it had perhaps not read what was in the papers but there you are. The fees may also be waived for agencies facing extreme hardship and in cases where there are exceptional circumstances.This is a good bill. I am pleased to see it at its third reading. I am very pleased to make a small contribution and I do commend it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Jan Logie.Jacqui Dean: Be nice.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill and I thank the previous member Kris Faafoi very much for the questions that he has asked. Can I just bring some clarity to his questions. The figures that we have are that in the 2014-15 year there were 512048 police-vet checks and that was an increase of around about 7 percent. He does ask the question about who shall pay for this and the member mentioned schools and charities. Cabinet has now agreed to regulations that provide a range of fee waivers and this was a subject of great discussion in the Law and Order Committee as we looked at this bill. Agencies or schools making up to 20 vetting requests per year will not be required to pay. Registered charities will be exempt from the fee. Fees may also be waived for agencies facing extreme hardship or in cases where there are exceptional circumstances. So can I say to the member's concerns that all of those concerns have been considered by Cabinet and it has released regulations around that which is what we wanted as a committee—to understand that. Can I also say that when we discussed this in the committee I cannot actually ever recall a $5 amount being discussed. Maybe I missed that meeting but it was always around about $7.92—that is the figure that comes to my mind. However you may correct me on that in terms of your own research. However $8.50 represents an actual and reasonable cost for a police-vetting fee. Can I say that this has all come about because of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 which Labour supported. In fact this whole House with the exception of the Greens and the Mana party at that particular time supported that bill. It required police vetting especially for those who were working with vulnerable situations and children. Jacinda Ardern: Did it say they'd have to pay for it? Did it say they'd have to pay for it? Did it say that?JONATHAN YOUNG: No that bill did not say that but what this House agreed to with the exception of the Green Party—and I understand that Ms Logie spoke on that bill at that point in time and was unhappy that there was not a greater element addressing family violence in the bill. She must be thrilled with what the Hon Amy Adams is doing with the reforms that she is bringing to this Parliament.Kris Faafoi: Talk about this bill.JONATHAN YOUNG: What happened in this bill—it was not just the decision of this Parliament but it was the pressure and the expectations of this nation that we address this issue when it came to child abuse and violence in our communities. This Parliament passed that bill. What this bill does is it enables the agency that is going to vet those people working with vulnerable people and children to be able to recover its costs up to around about $3 million—resources that in spending on this process not only can be reallocated to building a very complete and sustainable and efficient vetting process but can enable the existing resources of the Police to be better dedicated to the frontline work that it does. I am very happy to stand and speak in support of this bill. Thank you.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to take this last call on the legislation arising from the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. This legislation recognises the increasing skills and changing range of skills in the health workforce. I think enacting this legislation will do several things. First of all I do believe that it will improve the efficiency of the health system. It will also advance the career pathways of many and I believe it will improve job satisfaction as well.There are several Acts that this legislation changes and I have looked at what the key change is in my mind that is enacted within each of these Acts. The Accident Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) changes the terminology from medical practitioner" to "health practitioner" which is the core function of this legislation. In the Burial and Cremation Amendment Bill a certificate of cause of death may be undertaken by a nurse practitioner who attended the last illness and has this role in their scope of practice. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2) will enable suitably qualified health practitioners to undertake and manage medical examinations of children and young persons. The Holidays Amendment Bill (No 2) will enable a health practitioner to complete a sick note and I think this part of the legislation will probably touch more New Zealanders than maybe some of the others. I see this as a real efficiency in my clinical hands and I think this is a really good piece of legislation. The Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill will require engagement with a primary healthcare provider. The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) clarifies the use of controlled drugs as it relates to import export and prescribing.I think that widening the scope of practice for health practitioners overall will not increase the risk of harm to the public. I know this was a concern from the Medical Council of New Zealand and the Medical Association. I think that the concern of risk to the public is addressed by two prime mechanisms. First of all appropriate scopes of practice are determined by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. I think this is very important to reassure the public and to reassure the profession. Secondly as I think has already been commented on there is oversight by regulatory bodies such as the Nursing Council of New Zealand and the Medical Council of New Zealand.It has taken a long time to get these bills here to their final readings but it is with great pleasure that I commend them to the House.Bills read a third time."
Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I would like to join with others in supporting this legislation in their third readings. I had the privilege and pleasure of sitting on the Health Committee as we considered the original bill and it is a very good practical piece of legislation which clearly has the support of the entire House as far as I can see.Much has changed over the years since the original legislation that created a special role for medical practitioners—essentially GPs—that allowed them to do certain things in our health system that only they could do. As the Hon Ruth Dyson has indicated in her speech much has changed in the roles of medical practitioners: the way they cope the way they work and the way they attend to people who are ill in our communities today. So this piece of legislation does some really good work in a pragmatic sensible way in expanding the range of people who are going to be able to do work that was previously done by general practitioners.It is electorates like mine and the electorate of my friend and colleague Jacqui Dean—large rural provincial electorates—where the benefits of this legislation will be felt most positively because these days modern medicine focuses on caring for people in their own homes as much as possible and on not institutionalising them and that means that our medical people have to go to people's homes. That is a very good thing. There are many good reasons for that to occur.So by passing this piece of legislation it is going to mean that the current 14000 or thereabouts people who have medical practising certificates as GPs and doctors some of the 50000 registered nurses the 200 practice nurses the 4500 physiotherapists the 3700 pharmacists and some of the over 2000 occupational therapists—not all but some—will be able to take over those duties and roles and help people to get good reliable and professionally trained medical support and assistance often in their own homes. This is a good piece of legislation. It is well-thought-out. It is timely. I commend the Minister of Health who I think is doing an exceptionally good job for introducing it to the House and bringing it to the House and I support it and commend it.
Dean Jacqui; Borrows ChesterJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is good to get to this final reading of the legislation arising from the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. If I think about the health needs of my large diverse constituency it is becoming very apparent that the way we deliver health services in New Zealand needs to rapidly change and is rapidly changing. If we are not to leave smaller rural communities behind in terms of healthcare then we do need to change the way that health is delivered. At the same time the scope of practice of many medical staff—whether they are doctors nurses or other clinicians—is widening and strengthening. So those factors are now coming together in the provisions around this legislation which is a cognate bill to deal with eight different pieces of law. We have had a number of readings for this so I do not propose to go into those eight pieces of legislation but in amending these eight statutes we do enable a wider range of suitably qualified health practitioners—and I will pause just there to also say that those practitioners will be suitably qualified. This legislation will not pose an increased risk of harm to the public with the scope of practice widening because those scopes of practice are set with the relevant responsible authority and the professional accountability of each of those practitioners is to the responsible authority which is established under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. So it is good news that the scope of practice is being strengthened and broadened but we do have that assurance that there will be no increased risk of harm to the public. I was delivering a lecture to some final-year nursing students in Christchurch a little while ago and I was excited to see how much they are looking forward to this new environment upon the passage of this legislation and also the other provisions and the focus on health and primary care that this Government has brought to health in New Zealand. There was excitement from those students to move into employment with those increased responsibilities but increased opportunities. So it benefits patients in all corners of New Zealand and benefits health practitioners. With those words I commend the legislation to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jan Logie—5-minute call.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDSolid Energy—Sale of MinesMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the announcement that mines owned by Solid Energy have been sold. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Last year I considered an application for an urgent debate when Solid Energy was placed into voluntary administration. At that time the longer-term outcome was not known. The outcome is now known. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. It requires the matter to be of such importance that it justifies the House spending a substantial part of the sitting in debating it. I am not convinced that the matter has such an element of urgency that it must take precedence over other business of the House. I note that the annual report of Solid Energy was presented to the House today. There will be an opportunity to examine its performance and the current developments during the Commerce Committee's annual review and the subsequent debate. The application is therefore declined.