edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ngaro AlfredClauses 1 and 2Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): One and two—I take it this is the title?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Title and commencement.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Correct. I just want to make a brief comment really. We progress through—and I know there's been a change in regards to Oranga Tamariki from Ministry for Vulnerable Children. My comments really are not to take away from where we are now. I'm happy with where we are—Oranga Tamariki. Just my simple comment I want to make to that is that the designation of seeing Ministry for Vulnerable Children reminded us of the task at hand. Oranga Tamariki obviously is the sense of wellbeing tamariki" meaning all children. My hope to the Minister is that we don't forget and I think today was a great moment in which we actually reminded ourselves of why we're here. I want to acknowledge Agnes Loheni and others that were there and even yourself Minister where your words were: "Let us never forget that moment because those are moments that remind us." So just in the title we were always challenged with asking the question "What will help us never forget our reasons why?" and I just want to make comment that the vulnerable children though there was a lot of debate—let's be aspirational.I remember being in Canada where we went to the hospital there and it's actually called the Hospital for Sick Children. I laughed and I thought well that's really strange. They asked me why I was laughing. I said "Well do you know what we call our children's hospital in Auckland? It's called Starship." So it was aspirational and so forth but it did make me think that sometimes if we're not careful we can forget about the "why". I suppose it's just finding those moments and I just want to make that comment Minister that we did have that moment where we reminded ourselves of that. We have the family violence task force we have sexual violence collectives because we remind ourselves of our why while we're there. So we're here. Oranga Tamariki we've accepted I suppose along the way and today was I think a very important moment for us. It just reminds us that sometimes in a title it's easy to negate that and say "No we just want to be aspirational." but we're dealing with the tough end in town. We're dealing with the most difficult situations of abuse and neglect. We're dealing with difficult situations that you have to deal with I know every day Minister and the officials. I want to just acknowledge all our front-line workers who are out there doing really tough work and the mahi that they are doing. Yes Oranga Tamariki reminds them of what the goal and the vision is and sometimes we need to be reminded about the tough work that they have to face every day making really tough decisions. So I just want to make that comment about the name and just thank you for this morning as well. Thank you."
Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a small query that I have on one of the amendments in Subpart 2 but just before I get to that I just want to touch on the cultural I guess initiatives the Rangatahi and the Pasifika Courts which haven't been discussed tonight but have been a very important feature of our justice system with regards to these young people. These are the courts that are either held on marae or in communities and I know that there are 15 Rangatahi Courts around the country and there are two Pasifika Courts in Auckland. The figures have shown that when young people appear in the Rangatahi or Pasifika Courts they end up committing 14 percent fewer offences and are 11 percent less likely to reoffend. So the community involvement in our justice sector is an important one where the community can walk alongside these young people. It provides that cultural context. For many of these young people there is an identity crisis and often given the situations the homes that they come from gang life becomes very attractive and clearly that's not a path that we want them to be going down. So I just wanted to make mention of those courts in our sector.Just going back to the amendment inserted by clause 21 section 87 amended Restraining orders" the new amendment in section 87 to replace : " 'Where the court makes a declaration under section 67 in relation to a child or young person it may on or at any time after making [the] declaration' with 'If on an application under section 68 the court is satisfied that a child or young person is in need of care or protection' ". I guess my question around that one is in terms of now that extra year that going up to 17—what are the extra indicators or the measures that the court requires now to be satisfied that that young person is in need of care or protection? Is there anything different in terms of what will make the court satisfied in those cases? So that's just a bit of clarification if that's possible Minister on that section 87 amended. Thank you.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin to Schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Schedule 4 agreed to.Schedule 5 agreed to.Schedule 6 agreed to.Schedule 7 agreed to.Schedule 8 agreed to."
Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Just for clarity the provisions for bail and remand are consequential amendments to raising the age of the young person and to ensure that 17-year-olds in the District Court for serious charges can be subject to the reverse onus tests in the Bail Act. That means that the 17-year-old would have to satisfy the court that they could be bailed. I believe the Hon Louise Upston makes a very very good point and I think we have heard it from the Children's Commissioner and from others that particularly in our rural areas what we've had is we've had circumstances where young people have not been able to provide an address that the court believes is safe or appropriate for them to be bailed to. That means that they have then come inside a facility.Again there is only so much influence that the Parliament can literally have on the courts them being independent bodies. But I do think that where we have influence is around the work to provide—and I think it's the work where we have provided better remand while the young people are waiting to go to court that then has led on to the courts being more confident that the relationships and the homes that they can be bailed to are more appropriate. So I really feel that the Whangarei example that we talked about this morning is a real opportunity to start to change up some of the consequences—unintended consequences—that I believe we have seen for 17-year-olds.But again I do want to acknowledge and pick up on the fact the Hon Louise Upston that this is also about making sure that the public is safe not just that this is the best pathway for a young person for an up to 17-year-old but that also we're not putting anybody else at risk. So these are finely balanced matters but I do think we have through some of our pilots actually seen some examples of what could work and what we need to try further throughout the country. Kia ora.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to just pick up on the point that the Minister in the chair Tracey Martin was talking about in terms of Part 2 of this legislation—which is the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill—and in particular Subpart 1 which in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) also refers to amendments to the Bail Act because sometimes one of the challenges in not being able to bail someone—and this includes a young person—is there being a lack of a suitable address to bail someone to. So I think it does pick up on the importance of—and whether or not the Minister considered building in additional changes to this legislation to be slightly more directive or to provide additional guidance in terms of the sorts of places that young people particularly in this case age 17 could be bailed to.The Minister talked about the Ngāpuhi Iwi Social Services home which is clearly a very different model. So I'm interested to know from the Minister—and also based on the Children's Commissioner's concerns about the sorts of residencies that young people are going into—whether there was consideration through this piece of legislation and through the SOP about changing the kind of facilities that could be used to address the issue of bail so that more young people had places they could be bailed to. I accept the Minister's point that it's the decision of the court in terms of whether to allow bail or not. But in terms of the conditions that sit behind whether or not the court makes that decision—in terms of suitability of an address suitability of the environment the guidance etc.—whether or not that was considered.Just for a moment speaking on the flip side of it because the Minister also raised—you know the concern of the public is that if a young person who's committed a serious offence if they're in a situation where there's a decision to issue bail or not the victims involved need to be satisfied that the community is safe. So it's kind of the double edge of this. I know when the policy was being originally discussed there were very strong voices about the fact that the youth justice age shouldn't be increased and I think we absolutely made the right decision. But it's about this particular Subpart in Part 2 in terms of amendments to the Bail Act and my question is: was there further consideration more around making it easier for young people to get bail by managing the underlying issues that mean bail isn't provided? That comes to the suitability of addresses for bail and some of the other kind of practical examples.Again I know that there have been some practical examples where corrections have worked with defendants to assist them or to support their case in getting bail. Were there any extra areas that were considered and perhaps not included? If they weren't included I'd be keen to know what sorts of considerations they were.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): I'd just like to go back and actually answer the question from Maureen Pugh with regard to if Schedule 1A charges are laid and non - Schedule 1A charges are connected to that is there any right of repeal? So there is no formal right of repeal but the defendant can apply for the charges to be separated in the District Court or the High Court under existing provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act. The threshold for determining relatedness is the definition which is in the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill on page 9 Part 1 clause 4G subsection (6) of new section 276AA which is that The same incident or series of incidents as the offending for which charge A is filed" and "a series of incidents is determined by: the time at which they occurred; the overall nature of the alleged offending; any other relationship between the alleged offending that the court considers relevant". So there is no formal right of appeal but the defendant can apply for the charges to be separated at the District Court or the High Court. Just to give a cursory answer to the Hon Alfred Ngaro with regard to whether the judiciary—when he's talking about bail and whether the judiciary has been consulted and whether the Children's Commissioner's view has been incorporated in. He will be aware that Oranga Tamariki spends a lot of time talking with the Children's Commissioner and has a very strong working relationship with them. He will also be aware that the Family Court judges and so on have a very strong working relationship with Oranga Tamariki because basically they are the bodies who care and try to ensure that as much as possible we create a positive environment downstream for these young people. I have been informed that at the select committee process neither the judiciary nor the Children's Commissioner put forward a submission to make any changes to the legislation so we take that as a very good sign.I think the only other parts that I probably can comment on there is not really around bail because that is a conversation for the courts themselves. The courts decide where those young people are bailed to. But with regard to the conversation about how Oranga Tamariki is making changes around remand certainly there were conversations that we had in the Social Services and Community Committee this morning where through some of the changes—and again it was through an iwi strategic partnership that we had changed the way that remand worked—that had had a positive impact on giving the judiciary opportunities to then have different options with regard to bailing some of our young people. But at the end of the day bail is in the jurisdiction of the courts and so therefore I'm sorry I cannot comment further on that."
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Firstly can I just address the question from the Hon Louise Upston. Thank you very much for the question and I apologise that I didn't pick it up in the first contribution. The question was around whether we can be sure there's not going to be any unintended consequences around Supplementary Order Paper 247.So what does this Supplementary Order Paper do? It amends clauses in the bill that deal with the related charges because this is obviously the piece that has given us our most attention at the moment. It improves the clarity of certain provisions in the bill by clarifying terminology to ensure that the new process for joining related charges is distinct from the existing Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provisions; ensuring that existing powers to join charges together can still be used in proceedings where there are multiple non - Schedule 1A charges or multiple Schedule 1A charges—this also includes where the non - Schedule 1A charges are unrelated to the Schedule 1A charges—clarifying the language of the bill relating to the transfer of proceedings back to the Youth Court if circumstances require it; and providing definitions for related charges—Schedule 1A and non - Schedule 1A—to support the interpretation of the related charges provision.Ultimately what the Supplementary Order Paper has tried to do is to give greater clarity to the conversations that the Social Services and Community Committee already had. So we realise—and I hope to answer the member Maureen Pugh's questions shortly—that this is the tricky bit. It's never as clear as one—when we're talking about young people at this level of crime we are talking about multiple incidents taking place just through one single action really. So this is the piece that we're trying to get right. Again I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of the Social Services and Community Committee in the truncated period they were given to try and get this right for these 17-year-olds inside this system.Obviously—and the Hon Louise Upston's question was around trying to make sure there'd be no unintended consequences—with any legislation that we put through we do our best. We as a Parliament do our best and we believe that we've given extra clarity here to try and make sure that the courts and those that are involved with these young people as they go forward—whether with Schedule 1A or non - Schedule 1A—have the clarity that the intent of this Parliament will actually be able to be fulfilled. But as I say that is the answer that I have for the Hon Louise Upston and I hope that I will be able to provide an answer to Maureen Pugh shortly. Kia ora. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. It was quite simple and I thank the Minister for Children for her contributions. It was more around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 247 which we now have before us. When a reasonably substantial Supplementary Order Paper is brought into the committee of the whole House the opportunity to interrogate it is reduced. So it's really just some reassurance from the Minister around any unintended consequences.The fact that she's just answered the question or concern that members of the Opposition had expressed earlier around the time frames—and for those that are just watching this debate it's 12 June and this comes into effect on 1 July with the significant changes to Oranga Tamariki. My question is more around unintended consequences so rather than going through in this committee stage all of the changes in the SOP just really kind of asking about what some of the key risks are that have been identified by officials through the process of formulating the SOP. I'm just really wanting reassurance from the Minister in this committee stage—and this debate is just on Part 1—that the changes to the Oranga Tamariki bill as a result of this SOP have been fully interrogated and there won't be any unintended consequences coming up to bite us.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to. Debate interrupted.
Macindoe Tim; Williams Poto; Dyson RuthHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Madam Assistant Speaker as there would appear to be about 25 seconds until you lift the House for dinner I seek leave for the House to lift now for the dinner adjournment. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You could—does anyone want to speak to that point of order? Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): Yes I do actually. I'm actually very disappointed that—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Bennett Paula; Mallard TrevorQuestion No. 4 to MinisterHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I'm going to seek leave to table a letter. First of all I just wanted to apologise for doing it now and not at the end of question No. 4 but I had to get the letter to check the wording of it. I seek leave to table a letter from the State Services Commission dated 10 June from Mr Hughes about the investigation. It relates specifically to Mr Makhlouf and his actions and statements and I think it might help the House tomorrow if we're still going down the line of questioning that we have been today. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There appears to be none. That will be tabled and I'll look at it very soon I think. Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
1. Question No. 1—Māori EducationKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Māori Education1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): What announcements has he made as part of the Wellbeing Budget that support kōhanga reo their teachers volunteers tamariki and whānau?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Good news. Last week we announced that kōhanga reo will receive a $32 million funding boost to lift wages pay volunteers and improve and upgrade facilities. This announcement was about more than just funding; it was a long-overdue thankyou to the kaiako the kaimahi the nannies the aunties the mothers the fathers and the cousins whose commitment to kōhanga reo never faltered. This announcement shows our commitment to them and is just the start of the work we'll do together to achieve our shared aspirations.Kiritapu Allan: How will the funding be distributed?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Through Budget 2019 we'll be looking after the wellbeing of our kōhanga reo by providing $11 million for improvements to ICT capacity and capability and building upgrades and over $21 million to increase existing pay rates for kaiako and kaimahi to the Government's stated 2021 minimum wage rate and to maintain a level of existing relative pay rates of kaiako and kaimahi. We'll pay kaiako and kaimahi currently working as volunteers in roles that would normally be remunerated. That is a total of just over $32 million for our kōhanga our kaiako our kaimahi and most importantly our tamariki.Kiritapu Allan: What has been the reaction to the Government's investment in kōhanga reo?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The response has been humbling not just because of the recognition that this funding gives to kaimahi and kaiako but because this Government recognises kōhanga reo are not early childhood centres nor are they kindergartens. They should not have to fit a mould designed for non-Māori organisations. They are kōhanga reo—unapologetically Māori. They do not need to be compared to something else to gain recognition because there is nothing else that can compare. As Waihoroi Shortland said at the announcement Tears come easy when the kaupapa is treated so well". He also said in Māori "Kua rangatira tēnei rā i a koutou. Nō mātau te hōnore kia mau i ēnei kupu i tēnei ata. Ka taea e tātau ēnei momo kaupapa te tuitui i te motu ki hea noa atu te hīkoi i Te Ao Māori."["This day has been enhanced by you collectively. The honour is indeed ours to have secured these words this morning. It is possible for us to weave these kinds of initiatives into the country or wherever we may walk in Māoridom."]"
Tuesday 11 June 2019 - Volume 738
Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.
11. Question No. 11—DefenceMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of DefenceQuestion No. 11—Defence11. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What announcements has he made regarding defence capability?Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you Mr Speaker. Today I released the coalition Government's Defence Capability Plan 2019. Re-examining the defence procurement programme was a key plank in the coalition agreement and today we have fulfilled that commitment. The plan includes priority investments to meet the challenges identified in the Strategic Defence Policy Statement of 2018 and to support the coalition Government's foreign policy objectives relating to Pacific reset and the impacts of the climate crisis that we are facing. At its heart the new capability plan is a humanitarian plan. It readies New Zealand to be well-positioned for the future allowing the defence force to contribute to the security of our friends in the Pacific and maintain awareness of our vast maritime domain.Mark Patterson: What planned capability investments are included to support the Pacific reset?Hon RON MARK: In order to increase the capacity of the defence force to respond to events in the South Pacific an enhanced sealift vessel will be introduced in the late-2020s to complement HMNZS Canterbury with an additional vessel being scheduled to replace Canterbury in the mid-2030s maintaining a two-vessel sealift fleet. New Zealand Army personnel numbers are targeted to grow to 6000 by 2035 to allow for the sustainment of concurrent operations in the Pacific while maintaining efforts at home and globally.Mark Patterson: What other investments are included in the plan?Hon RON MARK: To improve awareness across our vast maritime domain the plan includes an enhanced maritime awareness capability to complement the P-8s: maritime satellite surveillance in the mid-2020s and long-range unmanned aerial vehicles after 2030. Planned investment is retained for a dedicated Southern Ocean patrol vessel and replacements are planned for the maritime helicopter and offshore patrol vessel fleets. As technology rapidly advances in the information domain the plan includes an uplift in defence intelligence personnel and cyber-security and the support capabilities required to meet that.Mark Patterson: What announcements have been made about the Hercules fleet?Hon RON MARK: The highest priority project within the plan is the replacement of the Hercules fleet. The current Hercules have served us well since the 1960s but they have reached the end of the road. Today I announced the selection of the C130J-30 Super Hercules as the preferred option for the replacement of our ageing Hercs. We need a proven performer. This aircraft is tried and tested and proven—actually there are about 400 in service over 21 nations. We cannot take risks with what is one of the most critical military capabilities for operating at home in the Pacific and around the world. Detailed costing information will be sought through the United States foreign military sale process for the Super Hercules with the final business case scheduled to come to Cabinet next year.
10. Question No. 10—Economic DevelopmentJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister for Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Economic Development10. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: What is the Government doing to enable more innovative knowledge-intensive high-value firms and start-ups to grow and scale within New Zealand?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): The Productivity Commission has highlighted that the development of innovative new products and services and jobs is currently inhibited by low per capita investment in our productive businesses. There is a particular gap in our early stage capital markets beyond seed or angel investment where companies are looking to scale up and that's why in the Budget we announced the creation of a $300 million pool of capital to support New Zealand's venture capital markets through a new fund of funds model which will also attract private sector contributions. This Government recognises the importance of lifting New Zealand's productivity.Jo Luxton: What are the objectives of the new venture capital fund?Hon DAVID PARKER: Helping to fill this hole in the capital cycle has three main objectives. The first is to increase the number of start-ups that can progress and develop into successful companies and so employ New Zealanders; the second is to increase the volume of technology that's commercialised which has the benefit of increasing productivity across the economy; and the third is to build capacity in the sector so that institutional and other investors over time better service this part of the capital cycle. The effect of this will be that more start-ups in New Zealand stay for longer and grow which will produce wider productivity benefits.Jo Luxton: How will the new fund operate?Hon DAVID PARKER: The new fund will be administered by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation via a separate fund to be legislated. It will be invested via the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund by private sector capital managers. It's expected that the addition of $300 million to this market will be leveraged by investors from private sector players. Two-to-one matching by investors would see a total investment of around $1 billion. Most of the funds will be invested within five years enabling more of New Zealand's high-potential businesses to thrive and grow. After 15 years the funds are wound up and all of the money is returned to the Crown for the future pre-funding of superannuation.
8. Question No. 8—HealthANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about investment into mental health and addiction facilities?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Good news. Last week I visited Gisborne which currently has no dedicated residential addiction treatment beds meaning some people in Tai Rāwhiti have to travel to get the help they need. That will change as a result of the Wellbeing Budget. Last Thursday I announced funding of $15 million to $20 million to develop an innovative new inpatient unit combining both mental health and addiction services. It is part of the $200 million set aside for capital investment in mental health and addiction facilities over the next two years.Angie Warren-Clark: Why did the Government decide to dedicate $200 million of investment into mental health and addiction facilities?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The report of the inquiry into mental health and addiction confirmed what I think most members of this House will have heard from their constituents: our mental health and addiction facilities are often run down and out of date. Chapter 2 of that report described the frequent complaints about shabby and depressing facilities. It also highlighted the need for more rehabilitative and detoxification facilities such as the project announced last week in Tai Rāwhiti. We've heard those concerns from the community and that's why Budget 2019 set aside $200 million to tackle the legacy of under-investment in mental health and addiction facilities.Angie Warren-Clark: How does investment into mental health and addiction facilities fit into the wider capital investment programme in health?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Budget 2019 included a capital investment of $1.7 billion over the next two years in our hospitals and other health facilities including mental health and addiction. This will result in better more modern facilities for both patients and staff. All of this comes on top of $750 million in Budget 2018 meaning a total of $2.45 billion has been allocated to the Government's first two Budgets to start making up for years of neglect. By comparison a total capital investment in health in the nine Budgets from 2009 to 2017 totalled less than half the amount we have already set aside in our first two Budgets even including $290 million funded from insurance following the Canterbury earthquakes. And most egregiously in Budgets 2015 and 2016 there was no capital investment in our health system.
6. Question No. 6—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How will eligible decile 1-7 schools benefit from the Government's additional funding to replace parental donations?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): There are around 1703 schools that could receive additional funding through their operations grant of $150 per student if they choose to forgo asking parents for donations. As an example a decile 2 school with around 500 students could be getting around $3000 per year from parental donations presently. If they opt out of gaining that $3000 they could gain an additional $75000 in Government funding that the teachers and staff can then use to support children's learning. I'm very pleased to say that this year's Budget takes a major step towards making school education free again. Jan Tinetti: Will decile 1-7 State integrated schools be eligible to opt in to the scheme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. Yes I'm very pleased to say that parents in State integrated schools can also benefit from this policy although I should be very clear that the proprietors can still charge compulsory attendance dues and request donations to cover the property and insurance costs that the Government does not pay for.Jan Tinetti: What are the next steps for eligible schools to participate in this scheme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Details of the opt-in process will be made available to schools in July. Boards of trustees will need to opt in to the scheme by 14 November in order to start receiving their funding in January 2020. I encourage them to consult with their school communities and to reflect their views when they make the decision about whether to opt in to the scheme or not.Jan Tinetti: What does the funding to replace school donations for decile 1-7 schools mean for parents?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm aware that many parents feel enormous pressure to pay donations to school even though they are supposed to be just that—voluntary donations. In fact some parents feel that if they are unable to make those contributions they feel shamed by their local community even where the school goes to some great lengths to ensure that doesn't happen. I've had feedback from principals around the country saying that this will be a huge relief. It will remove a lot of pressure from parents who simply cannot afford to pay.
Salesa JennyBUILDING AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): I move That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I introduced this bill to the House on 15 August 2018 and it is with pleasure that I now begin its final passage. Everyone in this House of Parliament wants a New Zealand that is a safe place with safe buildings and I'd like to thank and acknowledge everyone in this House who is supporting this bill. We live in a beautiful and yet unpredictable country and the current system for how we manage buildings when the worst happens needs to be better. As Minister for Building and Construction I've overseen a tremendous amount of work on this piece of legislation and we've reshaped the ways we manage buildings to make it fit for purpose for New Zealand today. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I commend the member who's just resumed his seat Simon O'Connor on sharing his knowledge with us for an entire 10 minutes which I found extraordinarily impressive. There are very few more important subjects than the issues of how to turn around the lives of young offenders and it's great to hear support across the House for the measures contained in this bill. On that note I want to commend the leadership of the Hon Tracey Martin in this regard and wish her all the best in what is going to be a huge amount of work going forward but one which I know she will find as we will find as citizens immensely satisfying. Bill read a second time.
Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill — Second Reading
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It's an absolute privilege to stand in this House to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. I know in the very brief time that I have I'm going to keep it brief.The youth justice principle is about holding the young person to account. This bill includes 17-year-olds. So when you first appear in court if you are charged with a Schedule 1A offence which I might note will only come into effect on 1 July and if you have other less-serious charges what the Youth Court does is (1) appoints a duty youth advocate which is a lawyer in the language of the Youth Court and (2) Schedule 1A will transfer the charges to the District Court. On a lesser charge if it was held today it will remain in the Youth Court. What that means is that the court then adjourns that matter if the young person does not deny the charge to a family group conference for a later date. So now we are in two courts: we're in the Youth Court and then we're in the adult court; one lawyer there one lawyer here and different dates.The young person goes that way with all its supports under the Youth Court and then he or she travels that journey in terms of the support with the adult court. It is a common-sense approach that the last Government did not put into practice. So really what this is is just to remind the House that youth justice is about holding young people to account but at the same time provide the support system to assist them not to reoffend. In that sense I just want to say that Schedule 1A comes into effect on 1 July and speeding up the process will make sure that due process and due accountability is supported and held for young people whether they're in the Youth Court or the District Court. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National): Mr Assistant Speaker good evening tēnā koe magandang gabi. It's a privilege to take a short call. This is my first time to speak. I express our support for the bill. The omnibus bill provides for a further definition a finishing-off of the Oranga Tamariki legislation of 2017 by the National Party. At that time the legislation was a major effort towards change a programme that was built for a more child-centred and care and protection - focused system. The object was to prevent trauma and to provide early intervention as much as possible. This was part of the National Government - led programme and efforts to better understand the lives of the more vulnerable people our young people.This helps the Government to help change the lives of young people and help them with opportunities to improve. The honourable Minister Tracey Martin has done very good work on this and has already clearly read through the bill and the notes of the bill. It provides for a criteria and consistency for providing 17-year-olds with the opportunity to remain in the youth justice system which is a big big help for them. Instead of being pushed into charges in the adult courts they are allowed to elect to stay within the youth justice system or elect to be tried by a jury—but it is still at their election which is empowering to them.I think that the bill is especially laudable and praiseworthy for the fact that not only does it prevent the risk of processes being done twice and all the persons involved—the complainant the witnesses the families of the complainant and the accused themselves—to relive the processing of the offence.As a formerly practising lawyer for many years I do understand that oftentimes the damage that's done of going through the process of the court system—while it is there for everyone's betterment the trauma that it does to everyone that goes through it is extreme and that this bill seeks to avoid that is very very good.So apart from the fact that it does provide for efficiency timing declogs the courts and all that I would like to point out that the main valuable contribution that it does is really the fact that it avoids further trauma and provides our young people with the opportunity to have a bit of control over the destiny that they have and that they face. For these reasons I happily support the bill and commend the bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I must compliment the previous speaker Agnes Loheni for pointing out as she did that this bill is fixing drafting errors from the 2017 changes. It's good that someone on that side of the House has reminded those at home that this is actually a drafting error which is being fixed here today. Of course being an irony-free zone over there when there has been so much made of the odd drafting error made on this side of the House it's good to see that that irony-free zone-ness doesn't preclude them from mentioning it; so well done to that previous speaker. The essence of this bill of course is around moving 17-year-olds into the youth jurisdiction. The debate at the time of the legislation was to ensure that this didn't become an opportunity for adult offenders particularly gangs to do what they do with 16-year-olds now which is to use 16-year-olds knowing that the punishments around them and the regime around them will be lesser than for adult offenders. So that's why it's so important that when we look at the bill that everything is done and that that doesn't become the case. Particularly I know the frustration in the past of dealing with offenders of different ages who were being dealt with in different jurisdictions and where they had lawyers who saw the advantages of being able to have two cases witnesses and being able to actually lay the blame off against a co-offender who might have been appearing in another jurisdiction. So that was why it became very important for those who didn't quite understand what we're doing here that where there is an offender charged with a Schedule 1A offence that that offence will be heard in the adult court despite whatever the age of the offender at the time. That's very important particularly for victims because the last thing we want to do is have victims not only have to give evidence twice but also the possibility of again lawyers being able to lay blame off to other jurisdictions.The other part of the bill that is very important of course is what happened in the transition. When any law is passed or changed there will always be necessary transition; what happened with an offender who was arrested for a crime and went into the system when in fact that person is 18 and the offence was committed when they were 17. So it's important that the 17-year-old will actually be given the benefit of being able to remain in the youth jurisdiction where the proceedings only began when they were 17-year-olds. So again this is an important part of this bill to ensure that everything does gel and that the implications of having 17-year-olds now remaining in the youth jurisdiction do firstly not become an opportunity but secondly results in fair treatment for all particularly the victims. So I commend this bill to the House.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. The very nature of this particular bill is very technical. I want to touch on a particular kaupapa. In the last 12 months I attended a kaupapa on the marae in Kaikohe which was a partnership between Oranga Tamariki the Department of Corrections and the Ngāpuhi rūnanga. It was a significant initiative because it actually looked at ways that we work with young offenders to make sure that they don't fall into the recidivist pattern of offending. This particular legislation actually brings all of those facets into line. It has been tricky. It's been running alongside a significant review of the judicial system more broadly speaking. But in particular with the age group that we're talking about in this bill it is very technical in nature and we want to make sure—as Mr Ngaro has already mentioned in the House—that those young people and their families have the best opportunity to make sure that they can lead fulfilling lives and that is the ultimate underpinning of this particular bill.So the technical nature has already been touched on by the Minister. She covered it quite clear with Schedule 1A and around the convictions. We have to understand that this amends 11 Acts and related sets of regulations including the Oranga Tamariki Act the Children Young Persons and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act the Bail Act the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. That by definition is technical. So to bring it all in line to align with the policies that we have for our young people to give them the best chance is important.The bill will ensure the intent of the expanded youth justice jurisdiction which Mr Ngaro touched on very briefly. It applies across all criminal justice processes from 1 July 2019 and we might consider that. As Mr Ngaro has said he talked about some six months or so before this particular bill has come here and other ones have gone through in a truncated process. I think actually—and I want to commend the Minister Minister Martin for her work in lining up all of these ducks—it has been difficult it has been challenging but she's driven by the purpose of making sure that this works for all the people that it's intended to which is why this is a significant policy move and I want to acknowledge the Minister and the work she's done on this. The urgent interim court orders related to custody guardianship or restraint are made in line with intended and established processes which will serve the best interests of the child. That's where we must always remember as Minister for Whānau Ora putting whānau and the children at the forefront of policy decision-making like this is how we should be operating. I too look forward to the progression of this bill right to its completion and once again thank the Minister for leading this particular piece of work and I commend this bill to the House.
Partnership Law Bill — First Reading
Parker DavidPARTNERSHIP LAW BILLFirst ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): I move That the Partnership Law Bill be now read a first time. The Justice Committee has been nominated to consider this bill.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Parker DavidAPPROPRIATION (2018/19 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLFirst ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move That this debate be now adjourned.
Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Question of Privilege on Cyber-Security and the Parliamentary Precincts
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. First of all in terms of what happened to my forehead just look at the other guy! But this time the other guy happened to be a big tree and some fallen branches. This was a result of poor gardening skills while battling strong winds. But back to the Budget debate. As the Guardian newspaper said New Zealand 'wellbeing' budget promises billions to … [the] most vulnerable" and the very first wellbeing Budget in the Western World has received widespread praise. We are tackling the long-term issues facing New Zealand such as mental health homelessness child poverty family violence and under-funded infrastructure. The Wellbeing Budget is designed to tackle those issues facing New Zealand. I want to thank the finance Minister the Hon Grant Robertson for delivering the world's first wellbeing Budget which has received widespread praise from credit-rating agencies to social sectors. I'm proud that New Zealand has become the first Western country to design its entire Budget based on wellbeing priorities and to instruct its Ministers to design policies to promote and improve wellbeing.As Mr Robertson said many New Zealanders were not benefiting from a growing economy in their daily lives. The reasons can be complex but one of the reasons is that for almost all Budgets GDP is taken as the primary measure of economic performance. "This is because GDP is a measure of market production which therefore tends to focus policy on the interests of producers rather than on the wellbeing of consumers." I quoted that part from a well-researched book called Wellbeing Economics: Future Directions for New Zealand by Paul Dalziel and Caroline Saunders. This book is one of the series published by BWB Bridget Williams Books Ltd. They are short books on big subjects from great New Zealand writers.The wellbeing concept is nothing new. In the United Kingdom its Government launched in 2010 a nationwide wellbeing programme. Closer to home the mission statement of the Australian Treasury begins with a simple phrase "to improve the wellbeing of the Australian people". The OECD has extended the concept to a wider audience. The OECD offers advice and analysis on economic issues to its member countries. Its mission is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social wellbeing of people around the world.We're tackling the long-term issues facing New Zealand such as child poverty mental health family violence and under-funded infrastructure. We are delivering a plan to address those issues; notably as I said homelessness child poverty mental health and under-funded infrastructure. We're delivering a strong surplus and low debt with net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP being forecast to be 19.9 percent in the year 2021-22. We are investing in New Zealand's crucial national infrastructure. We're building a productive nation in the digital age through innovation and social and economic opportunities. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker."
Parker DavidPRIVILEGEConsideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Question of Privilege on Cyber-security and the Parliamentary PrecinctsHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege on cyber-security and the parliamentary precincts.Motion agreed to.