edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's with pleasure and pride that I rise to speak on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill this afternoon. As you may be aware midwives have a lot of experience in supporting their clients to become smoke-free or to support them in working towards it. The reason why that's so important is that one in 10 pregnant women in New Zealand still smoke in pregnancy and this figure is higher in wāhine Māori and it's higher in people living in poverty. The effects of smoking during pregnancy are undeniable. Smoking in pregnancy leads often to smaller babies which is not a good thing. I've had clients talk to me in the past about it being a desirable thing but when I explain the reason why they soon change their minds as I explain that this is due to a chronic lack of oxygen reaching the baby and it not being able to grow properly. It also leads to early babies—babies who are born prematurely—again because the placenta simply can't cope with the inability to give sufficient oxygen levels to the developing fetus. After birth those babies have a higher level of sudden unexpected death in infancy. Eliminating these consequences is I would imagine something we could all get behind.Every single person I've ever worked with wants to do the very best for their unborn fetus. They want to do the very best but nicotine is highly addictive. The fact that we're standing here this evening doing all we can to support everybody in New Zealand to become smoke-free is something I think we should be extremely proud of and we shouldn't be afraid to be the first to do it. Being the first to do something to eliminate a source of harm for our communities is not a bad thing. It's never a bad thing and New Zealand has never been afraid of being the first. We were the first after all to give women the vote and I think that's a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) (remote): Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. I just want to make a comment on Brooke van Velden's speech there she opened up by saying that this bill is terrible at all angles. Well what's terrible is smokers having high risks of lung cancer heart disease emphysema chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a lot of respiratory conditions that are a direct result of smoking. And what would you rather do; should we do nothing at all? I really disagree with that previous member's comments and speech. Just to say that this is about the health and wellbeing of our people; of our community and therefore whānau as well. Because as we know there's not only the smokers that we're thinking of it's the passive smoking that our whānau and our community experience as well. I myself have one lung I've got kids around and there are other family members who may be smoking around us and that has an effect on those who have other issues medical conditions that get with worse with passive smoking.I support this bill because it is doing a job—that we need to fix the environment that we live in. So we look at the bill and one bit of it is about looking at the amount of retailers that are selling or looking at approved retailers. I know that many of my medical colleagues what they faced in South Auckland—it is really hard to try to put people on nicotine replacement therapy or other measures for smoking cessation when the environment that they live in is of access to smoking. It just undoes the work that we're trying to do as clinicians. So that is just one thing. And also the reduction in nicotine in these products. You know when we were looking at replacement therapy I always loved to hear that we can use a smaller amount of nicotine when we're trying to do therapy because we know that higher levels of nicotine is higher levels of addictiveness. So that's why I support this bill with its different measures to target smoking. And it's all about our whānau it's all about the health and wellbeing of our people and that's why I support this bill to the House. Fa'afetai.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Simon Watts.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to take a short call and speak in support of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. To start with I would like to quite sincerely thank and quite sincerely commend Minister Verrall for not only her insight but her foresight in bringing this piece of work to this House. This bill is inspirational it's aspirational and as my colleague Mr Doocey who's just resumed his seat said there's aspects of this bill that are being implemented for the first time anywhere in New Zealand so there is a little bit of the unknown. It's certainly not experimental. What is experimental is decades and decades of tobacco use when the outcomes and the deadly outcomes of that were not known.This work is also brave not that it's not exactly the right thing to do but it emphatically draws a line a really obvious line for a future generation the smoke-free generation. And as someone who has spent far too many years of my life feeling quite helplessly enslaved by the addictive properties of tobacco I feel quite proud of the fact that this Government is prioritising a piece of legislation and we owe it to the next generation the smoke-free generation to prioritise their health and wellbeing.So there's a choice before us today and a decision that we can make throughout this process of which this is stage one where we are amending a piece of legislation and we are saying by doing that we're not going to compromise the next generation the smoke-free generation which I think is a really exciting step. And we are saying that we're not going to prioritise what is a deadly and a completely unnecessary product over their wellbeing. So as a member of the Health Committee I look forward to hearing the submissions and to progressing this bill further in the House and I commend it.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mauri Mr Speaker. Can I firstly sir acknowledge your announcement today of your retirement at the next general election I'm sure we will have plenty of opportunity further down the line to talk more about that but as your parliamentary neighbour can I just acknowledge that since I have the opportunity to do so this afternoon.Can I also acknowledge my colleague and friend the Minister who has brought this bill to the House: the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall. We all heard her own experiences as a doctor as a clinician. If we all reflect actually I think we will all have our own stories about the impact that smoking in our community has had not just in our own communities but also in our own whānau and families. So I want to acknowledge Dr Verrall for bringing to the House a bill that will make a significant and substantial change for future generations in this country. That is no easy feat because it has been on the radar for quite some time but knowing that this will make a real difference to our Māori our Pasifika and our non-Māori and non-Pasifika communities is something that I think we should be applauding and supporting.This legislative change comes within the suite of changes that have already been enacted. When we talk about the regulation of vaping products when we look at the enactment of legislation that ceases or stops vaping and smoking in cars and motor vehicles for those who are under 18 years of age this is the next natural step in terms of wanting to tackle the issue and do something about it. Protecting future generations is a positive thing for any Parliament in particular the Parliament that we are all a member of.Dr Reti has referred to the select committee process. I note that Minister Ayesha Verrall has nominated that Health Committee a hard-working committee of the Parliament I know. There is no doubt in my mind that we will hear from small-business owners and dairy owners like the folk who met with me in my own electorate of Palmerston North last week. We will hear from community providers we will hear form public health advocates like others who have been speaking with members in the lead up to this particular bill. We will also I hope hear of the personal experiences of community members of whānau members for whom even though this decision may be too late it is an investment in the future.I am delighted to be able to again congratulate the Minister on bringing this bill to the House. I look forward to progressing it through select committee. I commend it to fellow colleagues.
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to take a call on this bill. Something that I care deeply deeply about is our public broadcasting.Just to keep on with the theme of the previous National member Michael Woodhouse who contributed to this debate—if he's going to label our generations then I am a proud millennial standing in this House. I do consume a lot of media on online platforms and podcasts. My lifesaving grace at this moment whether it's on our long journeys flying down to Wellington or whether it's in car rides—podcasts are probably one of the primary ways of me getting my information. I think most of my millennial friends would agree with me as well and share that lifestyle. Then the second way would probably be through YouTube and YouTube videos which are very informative most of the time. But I think this goes to show the importance of funding our public media sector in the right way. I still remember standing on the courts of Aotea Square making sure that our country kept our Radio New Zealand Concert FM and the importance that young people actually held in terms of having that classical music station in our country. I still remember speaking about how that was my very first time becoming a recorded artist—our orchestra and our choirs recorded by Radio New Zealand Concert FM and being able to have my works played and broadcasted on that platform. That goes to show how important it is that this Government actually supports our public media entities. The fact is that right now the Radio New Zealand - TVNZ legislation is not working any more—it wasn't set up for the modern day context that we have at this moment. The fact that our next generation our young people are calling out for better-funded public media and for more quality platforms and content all at the same time is a show that this piece of legislation is great legislation. My hats off to the previous Minister Minister Faafoi as well as the current Minister Minister Willie Jackson for shepherding this bill to the House. I look forward to seeing it in select committee. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. It did give me an opportunity to hear the previous member Michael Woodhouse's speech.I'd like to acknowledge the work that the Hon Willie Jackson has done on this piece of legislation the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill. The reality is as we have heard from speakers on this side the way that we consume public media is changing. The public media landscape is changing as society changes and it's important that as a Government we are responsive to these changes. That's what the Minister is doing and if the House does decide to send this bill to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee we will certainly welcome it. We're a very hard-working select committee I might add and I hear support from other members behind me.What this bill does is strengthen the delivery of public media services by providing a modernised—and that's an important word modernised"—flexible legislative framework for Aotearoa New Zealand public media to operate under. The reality is that with the emergence of the internet with broadband being rolled out effectively right across New Zealand now the way people consume content has changed. I remember coming home from school and we might be lucky maybe to get half an hour of a kids' TV show and then the news would come on and that would be it—and I would sometimes argue that that is possibly a good thing as well! However the way we consume content now is very much more online right across all age groups right across all demographics.So simply what this bill is doing is responding to a change in New Zealand society and New Zealand culture. I think it's an excellent piece of legislation. I look forward to it going through the select committee process and seeing what we hear from the public on it. I commend it to the House."
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. Now I have eight very beautiful children between the ages of nine and 18. What I've seen with my children is that they don't actually watch the TV; they stream. They stream most of their media online. It's a real fight in our home living room in order to be able to take the remote and say to my kids Can you just stop streaming that? I want to watch the news." It's that problem that this bill is grappling with and was part of the submission process that it went through.We have a great public media in New Zealand but things are changing. We want our children to be able to continue to access that great public media. We also need strong independent journalism but you can't have that if all that your children are watching is YouTube—because that's just the way of this world. Again my children are primary school age intermediate age college age and at university; right throughout that spectrum they are streaming online.So this bill creates a futureproofed model; it creates an ability for New Zealand to have strong independent journalism; and it provides an ability for our children in the future to have access to great public media. On that note I commend this bill to the House."
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a simple question to the Minister: how long will it take to approve an application for a licence and how long will he wait to receive more than one application for a certain area?
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I want the Minister to give me an example of how network planning will improve the quality of existing services in an area where there are to be no more services set up; so in an area where there is currently one centre—let's take Ruakākā; somewhere where there's only one centre—and it is operating at minimum standards barely acceptable. How will network planning improve the quality of that centre when there is no more room for a second centre to come into the market under his legislation?Secondly the Minister didn't answer my earlier question around my Supplementary Order Paper 182 which is to ensure that the consent of the applicant is gained when the Minister makes any changes. He hasn't answered the question of whether or not it is the case that the officials were right that this will be driven by changes made by the applicant and he hasn't answered the question around my argument around how this is so important in this case because there is no guarantee that you will get your licence—that a licence will be able to be gained compared to now. So if he could answer those questions that would be very useful.
SpeechANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Part 1 of this bill is a substantive part of the bill. There are a number of members' amendments; there is also one tabled amendment so I will keep the debate going. There are members seeking the call.
Pugh Maureen; Hipkins ChrisMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I would just like to go back and ask the Minister—and I've made an assumption here that the Minister has had fulsome discussions with the Minister of Police. As he's alluded to something coming maybe he could elucidate a bit more about that because I think it would give comfort in this particular issue around police vetting and if the Minister has got further information that he would like to share in the committee of the whole House I think that might prove to be very reassuring. And if the Minister could please help us out by sharing the fulsome conversation that he has had with the Minister of Police that would be great. Thank you.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just briefly no I'm not in a position to go into that in greater detail. What I can say is that the Minister of Police is in conversations with the Police about how the Police-vetting process can be streamlined. It is an issue that's been raised with the Minister of Education by early childhood services and others including schools—you know all those covered by the vulnerable children's legislation where police vetting is required. I have raised this as an issue and in fact Police have raised this as an issue because of the resource impost that it has for Police. I do think that there is a potential there to streamline some of those processes to make them quicker potentially but also less cumbersome for everybody involved.So I'm not in a position to go into greater detail on that at the moment other than to say that it's certainly on the work programme it's being worked on and the concerns around time frames and around the process are absolutely acknowledged.
Simmonds Penny; Hipkins ChrisPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): I do want to give the Minister the exact clause that he told me I was so wrong about and he may want to reconsider that assertion. It is new clause 5B inserting new section 17A(2): The Minister may at any time—(a) impose new conditions on the approval; or (b) amend or revoke any existing conditions." Now that is the uncertainty that we are talking about. Anyone running any business but particularly an early childhood centre that may have new conditions imposed or amendments or revoking any existing conditions—surely the Minister can see how this uncertainty would make banks lending to an early childhood provider very nervous and therefore make it more difficult for early childhood centres to be able to extend or try and gain additional loan facilities. So that is the exact clause I was referring to.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Madam Chair the member is wrong. She continues to assert that these provisions apply to existing early childhood education services. They do not."
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister could give some clarification for those that have got existing licences as to what might trigger the Minister to make whatever changes he wants whenever he wants on their conditions of the licence given that this is something that will make their security at real risk and therefore their ability to be able to borrow more money—to be able to know as directors of that centre what they might be able to do in future in terms of greater size taking on more students. So can the Minister give some indication of what might trigger him to change conditions so that centres at least have some kind of security around knowing what they might or might not be able to do to give themselves better security given the wide-ranging powers he is giving himself in this area?
Stanford Erica; Hipkins ChrisERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): The point of my question Madam Chair was to find out what those milestones were going to be what he's thinking they would likely be and at what points they would likely be. If he'd care to elaborate on that it would be very useful for the developers.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): They have not yet been finalised.
Stanford Erica; Hipkins ChrisERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I am speaking to the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 162. The background to part of this is that we approached the Minister to advise him that the two-year period between the two licences that the early childhood education (ECE) centres would need to apply for was never going to be enough. It currently stands at around about 15 months if you're lucky to get a resource consent and building consent for a project and then at least another year at least of spades in the ground and actually building.Now we had this discussion at the Education and Workforce Committee where I quite clearly put this to officials and said to them The two-year time frame is not enough." And the response that was given to me was "Well the developers and the ECE centres could always apply for their resource consent and their building consent before they apply for their early childhood first licence." I made the point back to them: "Well you name me one developer one early childhood centre that's going to put $100000 to $150000 at risk with a building consent or a resource consent before they know that they've got a licence to actually go ahead and operate an early childhood centre." and they didn't budge on that. So the upshot of that was that I went to the Minister and he graciously in his office let me explain this case to him.Now I notice that the changes that have been made in the SOP have pushed this out to three years and I just want to get the Minister to explain to us why he made that decision and what will be the requirements within that three-year period around milestones. So at what point will the developer or the early childhood provider need to show certain things have been done? Like a resource consent a building consent a spade in the ground Gib up—I mean I don't know what the Minister is thinking around those milestones. So if I could just get him to explain the three years and the milestones that will be required by the developer or the early childhood centre along the way.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes indeed we are extending the time frame required from two years to three years. There will be milestones that the licence holders will be required to meet during that period of time to ensure that they're not simply engaging in anti-competitive behaviour—i.e. getting a licence in order to stop someone else getting a licence in order to shut them out of the market. So milestones will be set out. They're not set out in legislation but they will be set out in the operational part of the process as the new legislation is implemented."
Simmonds Penny; Hipkins ChrisPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister could give us a bit of a general overview an introduction to the legislation. Because during the submissions we had quite a lot of concern particularly around the early childhood education (ECE) work—it was a solution looking for a problem when in fact there are a number of real problems in the ECE sector. And so I'm interested to hear from the Minister how he thinks this legislation might help some of those real problems like child-to-teacher ratios there's major issues there; pay parity where the Government has actually caused more harm than good; quality assurance—spot checks are not occurring regularly; high costs to parents and certainly in these times of inflation and the cost of living crisis that's particularly relevant. The administrative burden on teachers and centre managers; the restrictions on the use of the six-hours per day skill shortages; and the disparate issues around being able to access qualified teachers and many simply burning out and leaving.So these are real problems in the ECE sector looking for solutions. And I would be interested to know from the Minister in a general introduction of this legislation how his amendment might in some way address any of those. Because with the network planning Minister all we are seeing is the likelihood of reducing competition and increasing prices for parents along with the Minister having more control about being able to decide what happens where; and also the Minister giving himself the ability to make whatever changes whenever he wants to to the conditions on an ECE licence. So real problems that we would like the Minister to perhaps outline how this legislation might address those.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I take the Minister can I just advise the member that in the committee stage she is to deal with matters that are in the bill. It is OK to refer occasionally and briefly to measures that do not fall within the scope of the bill but a large part of the member's question related to matters that are not included in the bill. I have been trying to follow so I think I've got it about right. However if the Minister wishes to address any of the measures raised then it is up to him. I call the Hon Chris Hipkins.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you Madam Chair. I think you've just made the bulk of the point I was going to make so I won't re-canvass that. But if the member wants a general introduction to the Bill I refer her to the legislative statements presented during the first and second readings. That is the point of those debates.
Stanford Erica; Hipkins ChrisERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Further to that I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on how his officials have told him that these centres will not be caught up by the legislation because it has been our advice and our reading of the bill that they will be caught up. So I would like the Minister to just elaborate on the exact part of the legislation that means that they won't have to apply for both licences. If he could specifically point us to the part of the legislation that shows that they won't be caught up that would be very useful.I guess the second part is he's given us his word that he will make sure that this doesn't happen in the future. But I guess if the legislation quite clearly in our view shows that they will be caught up how can he give us that guarantee? What will put in place exactly if not legislation—how will he make it clear put it in writing put it somewhere that these centres will not be caught up.So two parts to that question: firstly if he can point us exactly to the advice that he's had showing that they're not going to be caught up in this legislation and secondly if he's not going to accept our Supplementary Order Paper 183 then exactly what will he do to ensure that they are not caught up and that they will be exempt? Just saying to us that that's going to be the case is somewhat comforting—you know I take him at his word—but it would be nice to know exactly how that is going to happen.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just to be clear I didn't say they wouldn't be captured; what I said was that in order to facilitate them relocating I did not believe that additional legislative change was required in order to be able to facilitate that. So in operationalising the implementation of the legislation we will be able to make provision for that. So that's the discussion that we've had.I haven't had written advice on it because it was a verbal discussion that we've had so far. In the event that further change is required then we can bring that forward but the provisions in this legislation do still allow for Government to make operational decisions about how they are implemented.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want to echo the comments of my colleague Erica Stanford and also say thank you to the Minister for his comments in relation to this issue.It is I think an anomaly that is produced by the amending legislation that we're going through. People have their own views about the substantive amendments that the Government is advancing but I think we can all agree that centres like Little Footprints which Stanford and I have visited to learn more about this challenge through no fault of their own are being essentially unfairly put in the situation where they are put at a disadvantage because of in this case the RiverLink and the Melling works. They have been advised by the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GRWC) that GRWC needs the land by 30 June 2023 when the RiverLink Melling interchange will finally be under way—God willing—and so of course they wish to move.In relation to the Minister's comments around 10 kilometres I think I'm right in saying Ms Stanford that National would be more than willing to enter into a dialogue or discussion around the precise kilometre basis to get this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 183 potentially 3 kilometres or potentially 5 kilometres. If the Government wishes to move an amendment to that that would be fine but I would just encourage the Government to accept now this SOP.I think it is a sensible SOP. It just says that the section applies to any licensed early childhood service when the premises are required by the Crown or the Public Works Act and the operator of that service may relocate acquire another service or establish a new service or have that licence transferred by notifying the ministry and it has to be within 10 kilometres. As I say we're more than happy to enter into dialogue in relation to the precise kilometre distance for this. I think it is a sensible amendment.The Minister has just indicated to the House that his advice so far is that there's not any particular legislative change required. I would be interested in some further comment as to why that is particularly the case. But I would encourage the Government to accept this SOP because at least in the case of Little Footprints—and potentially unknown other numbers of other early childhood education (ECE) services out there—it would provide some surety and some comfort for them. It's obviously a pretty difficult time for them and then if this became law they at least would have the backstop of knowing that if in fact the non-legislative options don't work there is at least that legislative backstop and they will in fact be able to proceed and transfer their licence so they continue to provide quality ECE services to the tamariki of the Hutt.
Stanford Erica; Hipkins ChrisERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I think that the Minister mostly misunderstood my point but kind of got there at the end and still didn't make any sense. The point is that this is around those providers who have already started construction and are trying to get their application in before the deadline so that they don't have to apply and get caught in this dual licensing scheme that the Minister has set up. He himself pushed the date out from 1 August until 1 February for that very reason: to allow them to get their application in before the dual licensing system sets in. What I'm trying to explain to the Minister is that he did not give them a fair amount of time because included in that time that he's given them—acknowledging that he wanted them to get their application in before the 1st because they're already under construction—they've lost six to eight weeks. The period that he's given them—the period of grace that he's given them—isn't the period that he thinks it is because it loses six to eight weeks. My question to him is: why wasn't that taken into account? Has he listened to the early childhood education providers who are under construction at the moment who are crying out saying they're not going to meet the deadline and are concerned that they won't be able to meet the dual licensing criteria?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): As I indicated to the member just before those are issues that the Government considered; that is the reason we have affixed a longer date to this particular deadline. I am satisfied that the new deadline gives centres a sufficient fair opportunity.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister can provide a summary of this part for the elucidation of the committee. When he is able to do so we will welcome any thoughts he can provide on that particularly in the context of the legislation as a whole and the regime that the Government is planning to implement thereby.Hon Member: Madam—Hon Member: Oh apologies.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well somebody needs to seek the call.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Just to invite the Minister as I did about 30 seconds ago to actually provide some information about the bill as is traditional of course in this stage.Hon Chris Hipkins: Page 1.CHRIS PENK: Page 1—very good. Page one is actually just the title so there's not much useful there. Arguably there's actually not much useful in the rest of it either but if the Minister would care to actually defend it at all that would be very welcome. So I notice for example that the direct engagement would actually be helpful and what we're seeing obviously is a bill that's intended to promote various positive aims but it seems to me that the reduction of competition and the increase of prices in the early childhood education sector is evidence to the contrary. So I'd be grateful for any thoughts that the Minister may deign to give this committee in terms of justifying the policy positions in Part 1 of the bill.
SpeechEDUCATION AND TRAINING AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteePart 1 Substantive amendments to principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House in committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). We come first to Part 1. I call Chris Penk.
Urgent Debates Declined — School Truancy — Release of Attendance Data
SpeechURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDSchool Truancy—Release of School Attendance DataSPEAKER: I have received a letter from Erica Stanford—[Interruption] Do members want the answer to this one or are they going to chip me again?I have received a letter from Erica Stanford seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the release of attendance data. School attendance is undoubtedly an important issue but an accumulation of data on an issue is not a particular case of recent occurrence. Speakers' rulings 204/4 and 204/5 apply. The application is declined.I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2).
Obituaries — John Gordon Elliott QSM and Hon Bruce Windsor
SpeechOBITUARIESJohn Gordon Elliott QSM Hon Bruce Windsor Cliffe SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 12 July 2022 of John Gordon Elliott QSM who was a National Party member representing the Whangārei electorate from 1975 to 1981. During his membership of this House he chaired the Education Committee and the Violent Offending Committee. I also regret to inform the House of the death on 13 July 2022 of Hon Bruce Windsor Cliffe who represented the North Shore electorate for the National Party and then for United New Zealand from 1990 to 1996. During his membership of the House he chaired the State Enterprises Committee and was Minister for Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Associate Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand Limited and Television New Zealand Limited.I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy to the relatives of the late former members. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to their memory.Members stood as a mark of respect.
SpeechBY-ELECTIONTauranga—Samuel UffindellSPEAKER: Members I have received from the Electoral Commissioner a writ declaring that Samuel Julian Uffindell be elected at the by-election for Tauranga.LIST MEMBER ELECTEDNew Zealand Labour—Daniel RosewarneSPEAKER: I have also received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring that Daniel Peter Rosewarne be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Hon Kris Faafoi in his list seat. MEMBERS SWORNSPEAKER: I understand that Captain (Retired) Daniel Rosewarne is present and wishes to make the Oath of Allegiance. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): I Daniel Peter Rosewarne swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Her heirs and successors according to law so help me God.
Salesa JennyTUESDAY 26 JULY 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Māfimafi kuo mau ta'imālie 'i ho'o 'ofá. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu. Ke ke malu'i 'a e Kuiní mo tataki mai mu'a 'emau ngāue 'i Fale Aleá. Ke fai'aki 'a e poto faka-'Otua - 'a e 'ofá mo e 'ulungāanga malu ko e 'uhí ko e mo'uí mo e nofo melino 'a e fonuá. Pea 'oku mau kole 'a e ngaahi me'á ni 'i he Huafá ho'o 'Aló ka ko homau Fakamo'uí. 'Ēmeni.
Tuesday 29 August 2023 - Volume 771
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 420 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 422 be agreed toA party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 56New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 1; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Amendments to the amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 420 as amended and Supplementary Order Paper 421 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments as amended be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 to 3 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended stand part.Ayes 96New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34.Noes 22ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 1; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Parts 1 to 3 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded the committee stage and third reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill the first readings and referral to a select committee of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill the Residential Property Managers Bill the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 106New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 1; Kerekere; Whaitiri. Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 1; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the House take note of the Declaration of inconsistency: Voting age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001.Ayes 106New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 96 Noes 10.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Declaration of Inconsistency—Voting Age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001
12. Question No. 12—PoliceHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 12—Police12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so why?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement at the time it was given or to quote Radio New Zealand's summary "Mark Mitchell has been dredging for that lustre of funny in the repetition mine for four months now. … Finding the gag less humorous is the Minister of Police Ginny Andersen who has been adding context to the same partial quote for four straight months [now]."Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister of Police think that public safety is funny?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think that "New Zealanders feel safer" given that a leaked Police report says that there are over 100 offenders on electronic monitoring for offences like homicide and kidnapping and that public safety has been "compromised".Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is correct that there has been an increase in the number of people on electronic monitoring which is something that the previous National Government sought to encourage towards the end of its days in office in 2016. As the Prime Minister has stated there are already a number of reviews into the tragic events in Auckland that are ongoing and we will await the findings of those reports before making any decisions about further action to trends in electronic monitoring (EM). Police advise me that the new national bail coordinator role which will focus on EM bail will be embedded within Corrections from early September.Hon Mark Mitchell: Given her single focus on community safety are communities safer now than when she became police Minister?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There is always more work to do but let's not forget that it was the previous National Government that passed legislation in 2016 to expand the use of electronic monitoring. Now they say "We want to massively limit its use". If the National Party are now walking back they need to explain how they'll pay for American-style mega-prisons needed to accommodate these people."
2. Question No. 2—TransportHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 2—Transport2. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: Will the Government commit to building light rail in our three major centres in a cost-effective way that reduces emissions?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): The Government supports building a light rail connection from the Auckland city centre to the airport and is progressing mass transit for Wellington and developing a rapid transport network in Christchurch. The Government's also committed to developing the north-western busway and completing the City Rail Link (CRL) in Auckland. The Government expects all transport projects such as these to be designed and built in a cost-effective way that gives citizens affordable and convenient transport choices which reduce traffic congestion and transport emissions.Hon James Shaw: What advice if any did he provide to the Minister of Finance for the recent rapid savings exercise on potential savings from doing Auckland light rail at street level rather than tunnelled?Simeon Brown: You haven't even started it.Hon DAVID PARKER: Those matters will be addressed by Auckland light rail in their costbenefit analysis.Hon James Shaw: I beg your pardon Mr Speaker; I was having trouble hearing that answer over Simeon Brown.SPEAKER: I'll ask the Minister to repeat his answer and can we have this in silence please.Hon DAVID PARKER: Those matters will be addressed by Auckland light rail in their costbenefit analysis.Hon James Shaw: Did he as part of the Government's recent rapid savings exercise recommend replacing the $45 billion six-lane road tunnel across the Waitematā with a cheaper more effective rapid transit option?Hon DAVID PARKER: No.Hon James Shaw: Why not?Hon DAVID PARKER: All of the proposed options for the second Waitematā crossing include from the very first stage increases in public transport connectivity.Hon James Shaw: Has he following advice from officials that his draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport would result in an emissions increase received any advice on other transport options to reduce emissions?Hon DAVID PARKER: I think it's notable that the Government Policy Statement for Auckland our largest metro area includes funding for the north-western busway triple and quadruple railway line improvements coming into Auckland and also a priority on securing the points of connection between the CRL and busway so as to maximise the value of those investments that have already been made by central government.
Tuesday 22 August 2023 (continued on Thursday 24 August 2023) - Volume 771
Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteDEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 91New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 29.Noes 22ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 91New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 29.Noes 22ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 84New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 29New Zealand National 29. Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Legal Services Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.Ayes 84New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 29New Zealand National 29.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment bill be now read a third time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 38New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 9.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Legal Services Amendment Bill.
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading (continued)