edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Speaker. This is a big reform; it's a very meaty piece of legislation. It is a big reform. I just want to take us up a little bit to talk about principles because it's always important when you are doing a reform to start from a position of principle.What the Minister Chris Hipkins is doing with this piece of legislation is a part of a much bigger education framework programme which is ultimately about high-quality inclusive education. It's about adapting to a modern world and taking all of the existing pieces of legislation that are looking at the reform of Tomorrow's Schools and the early learning strategic plan and creating new reform around that. I want to take us back to the late 1930s actually and another great reformer Peter Fraser a Labour Prime Minister and his secretary of education Clarence Beeby who said that The Government's objective broadly expressed is that all persons whatever their ability rich or poor whether they live in town or country have a right as citizens to a free education of the kind for which they are best fitted and to the fullest extent of their powers. So far is this from being a mere pious platitude that the full acceptance of the principle will involve the reorientation"—Hon David Bennett: It worked well didn't it?Hon CLARE CURRAN: —"of the education system."Hon David Bennett: He ruined so many lives.Hon CLARE CURRAN: Now I know that the member David Bennett doesn't like—Simeon Brown: Socialism. He doesn't like socialism.Hon CLARE CURRAN: —referring to first principles. Oh and I heard somebody yell out "socialism". Well goodness this is ultimately what underpins this legislation. It's powerful; it's important; it's meaty. I'm glad that we've clarified that the Opposition is opposing it because we were unsure.Of the 578 pages 621 clauses and at least 40 substantive changes that are contained in this legislation the Opposition have said that they are likely to support four that they think that they're a good idea. Hopefully after we hear a lot of submissions and consideration on this legislation they'll come to a different position. I'm looking forward to that. I commend this bill to the House."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I am absolutely thrilled to stand here in full support of this bill that the Minister of Education has brought to us before the House. Before I begin my contribution there's just a couple of points I want to raise and discuss. One was brought up by Parmjeet Parmar who said that people that provide home-based early childhood education (ECE) will now be subject to police vetting which will mean that police can enter their premises to check on them whether they've been police-vetted or not—false and incorrect. The next thing I want to bring up is what Nicola Willis the National Party spokesperson for early childhood education said which was that people who choose home-based early childhood education are now going to be treated like criminals. Well I suggest that member do a little bit more research into home-based early childhood education because it does not just mean that a home-based educator may come into my home; it also means that my child may go into a home-based educator's home and why should children that attend home-based early childhood education not have the same safety requirements as they do in the early childhood centre? Early childhood teachers and staff all have to be vetted before they start work in an early childhood centre so why should it be any different for children who attend home-based education? That's the second point I wanted to raise. The other thing I would like to talk about—there are so many things to talk about but I actually don't have a lot so I will stay in the ECE space because prior to coming into Parliament I was an early childhood teacher for well over 20 years so I do know just a little bit about that sector. The new licensing criteria that is going to be a two-stage process makes perfect sense because we have centres opening up next door to each other all over the place in the city. The regions are missing out and therefore parents aren't able to access necessarily or have a good choice of the early childhood centre that they may like to send their child to. So this will allow for better planning and better network organisation. Therefore parents will be catered to communities will be better catered to and whānau will be better provided for and will be included in all these decisions. These things will be for the benefit of all these people—our children our communities—and I absolutely commend this bill to the House.
Venture Capital Fund Bill — Second Reading
Visitors — Malaysia—Sarawak State Legislative Assembly
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first readings of the Racing Industry Bill and the Urban Development Bill; the third reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2); and the further stages of the Venture Capital Fund Bill the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill and the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that list of the Government's intentions for next week. Can he tell us if in the next two weeks before the House lifts the Government intends putting the House into further urgency for bills as yet unmentioned?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): That will depend on how much progress the House makes on the bills that I've listed down. I'm sure that with the Opposition's cooperation further urgency is unlikely to be required.
Mallard TrevorTHURSDAY 5 DECEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSMalaysia—Sarawak State Legislative AssemblySPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome members of the Public Accounts Committee from the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly in Malaysia led by Mr Aidel Bin Lariwoo who are present in the gallery.[Applause]
Wednesday 4 December 2019 - Volume 743
10. Question No. 10—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 10—Health10. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about growing and upskilling New Zealand's mental health and addiction workforce?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news. This Government is taking mental health seriously. We're making a record investment in free mental health services so that people can get the support they need when they need it. To deliver those services which are rolling out over five years we need to invest in our mental health support capability. So over the next four years as many as 12000 people will get some form of mental health or addiction training. This is an important step towards better health and wellbeing for New Zealanders.Dr Liz Craig: So what sort of training will be available?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We need a range of mental health and addiction workers from specialist staff to community-based workers. So our workforce development plan is multifaceted. We are more than tripling the number of people in community organisations who can undertake the mental health 101 and addictions 101 programmes. There will be more than 8000 extra places available over the next four years. We're upskilling 350 nurses who will receive training to offer mental health and addiction assessments advice and where appropriate referrals to people when they visit their GP and we're more than doubling our cultural competency programme with 3500 more places to ensure Māori and Pacific people receive culturally appropriate support when they need it.Dr Liz Craig: So are any new training programmes being developed to support staff in the new front-line mental health and addiction services?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes more good news. We will need new training programmes designed specifically for people who are taking on new primary-care roles. There are new mental health and addiction roles planned as part of the new front-line service including health coaches with peer experience and health improvement practitioners. Training programmes are being developed for those roles. It's expected it will take 46 weeks to complete the training which will include classroom and online learning as well as on-site observation. Growing our mental health and addiction workforce will take time but we're getting on with the job because that's what's needed to support better mental health and wellbeing for New Zealanders.
7. Question No. 7—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of TransportQuestion No. 7—Transport7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: How many submissions received on the Government's proposed Clean Car Discount were in favour of the discount proposal measured as a percentage of the total submissions taking into account emails from the email campaign from the National Party focussed on the Clean Car Discount?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Of the 1043 submitters who responded online or in written form to the discussion document question Is a clean car discount appropriate for New Zealand?" I'm advised that 79 percent supported it. However when the National Party's form emails on this policy are taken into account the percentage is 31.Chris Bishop: Would she still characterise her clean car discount scheme as "winning favour with submitters" in light of the fact that 69 percent of submitters oppose the scheme?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think it's more nuanced than that. Seventy-nine percent of the submitters that engaged with the substantive policy document did support it but I accept that if we include the form emails collected by the National Party that number is lower.Chris Bishop: Is she saying that the hundreds of people who submitted to her own consultation are not worthy of recognition because they happen to send it via form email?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No I'm not. I welcome all constructive feedback.Chris Bishop: Is it still a Government target to have 64000 electric vehicles on the road by 2021?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: There's been no change to the target.Hon James Shaw: Has she seen any scientifically robust reporting on New Zealanders' attitudes towards the clean car discount policy and taking action on climate change?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. I note that in August a Colmar Brunton poll on the clean car discount showed a majority of New Zealanders supported the proposal. I note that in 2018 a Ministry for the Environment survey of over 1000 people showed that 75 percent think responding to climate change is the responsibility of all New Zealanders.Chris Bishop: Why is the Government not making a decision on the clean car discount until 2020 when the discussion document was published in July and she's been working on this proposal since 2018?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We will make a decision about that and announce it when we've made a decision but we're working through the detail of the policy."
6. Question No. 6—EducationHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his policies and actions with regard to school infrastructure?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. I particularly stand by the largest investment made by a New Zealand Government of $1.2 billion for school property to meet growth; announcing the upgrade or new build of at least 1100 classrooms benefiting 33000 students across the country; and as of Sunday the biggest capital injection for school maintenance funding in at least 25 years benefiting 661000 New Zealand students.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he believe his decision to exclude 330 State integrated schools covering more than 90000 students from his infrastructure announcement is discriminatory and unfair?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. In answer to the first part of the question—yes I stand by that decision. No I don't believe it's discriminatory or unfair. I believe it's completely consistent with the policy around integrated schools' maintenance funding that was signed up to by the last Government in 2016.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with Paul Ferris from the Association of Proprietors of Integrated Schools who has said that he chooses not to engage with the integrated schools sector and is this a factor in his discriminatory policy?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No and no.Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he front up to the crisis meeting tonight with Minister Salesa to try and prevent court action against the Crown and his Government?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: First of all I wouldn't characterise it as a crisis meeting. The fact that the integrated schools think that they should get extra funding which they are not entitled to under the agreement signed up to by the last Government is a matter for them. Jenny Salesa is responsible—a delegated Minister with responsibility for integrated schools—and meets with them regularly.Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he resign if he is found—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order!Hon Nikki Kaye: —to have broken the legal agreement between the Crown and integrated schools?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise of the question.Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of Education and the chief executive officer of the Association of Proprietors of Integrated Schools. SPEAKER: Dated?Hon Nikki Kaye: Dated—I think it's June 2017.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
5. Question No. 5—FinanceTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: He aha ngā rīpoata hou kua kitea e ia mō te ōhanga o Aotearoa?[What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?]Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Monday Xero released its latest small business insights data showing cash flow and late invoice payment have either held or have improved during 2019 compared to 2018. Xero's insights are drawn from the real data from its 367000 New Zealand subscribers. Independent economist Cameron Bagrie said the data indicates solidity in the small business economy". Xero's David Bell said "things like business confidence questions are a hopeless indicator of the economy. It only captures what businesses think or perceive to be happening not how they are actually performing. It's important we don't talk ourselves into an economic downturn and we [do] acknowledge the strength [that is] showing through."Tamati Coffey: What recent reports has he seen on the performance of New Zealand exports?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand data released on Monday showed that New Zealand's export prices rose 1.9 percent in the September 2019 quarter to their highest in over 10 years. With import prices remaining flat the overall terms of trade remain near record highs. Meat prices rose 4.8 percent in the quarter surpassing last quarter's high driven by higher prices for lamb and beef which are at their highest ever levels. Dairy product prices rose 8.9 percent in the quarter with milk powder up 9.6 percent. This is excellent news for Kiwi exporters and demonstrates their continued success in an uncertain global economic environment.Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the impact of higher commodity prices on the domestic economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A recent BNZ Economy Watch report titled "Hot Milk" noted that "From a macroeconomic perspective higher dairy prices are positive for NZ's terms of trade and the nation's purchasing power. It supports nominal incomes. However support to real GDP via this channel needs to be calibrated to how much revenue is actually spent (as opposed to saved or used to pay down debt) and netted against one of the recent price drivers—namely lower milk production." Some of our colleagues in this House may want to take heed of this macroeconomic guidance. While the higher export prices are good for nominal incomes the higher prices don't necessarily feed through into real GDP figures. It all depends on what is being done with that higher income."
3. Question No. 3—Climate ChangeMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate ChangeQuestion No. 3—Climate Change3. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: What announcements has he made recently about Government action on climate change?Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Yesterday I was able to spill the tea that from now on major policy proposals coming to Cabinet will be required to carry out an assessment of the impact that they will have on New Zealand's ability to meet our targets for cutting climate pollution as outlined in the zero carbon Act. This will give Ministers the information that we need in order to ensure that the decisions that we make are focused on helping to solve climate change make our communities cleaner and healthier and don't pull us unintentionally in the wrong direction.Marama Davidson: What will Government agencies need to do when completing a climate impacts assessment on major policy proposals?Hon JAMES SHAW: From now on a climate impact assessment will be mandatory for policy and legislative proposals that are either designed to reduce emissions or which are likely to have consequential impacts on greenhouse gas emissions greater than 250000 tonnes a year. Using a tool developed by the Ministry for the Environment Government agencies will be able to assess what impact a policy proposal will have on emissions and therefore our ability to meet the commitments that this House has made to New Zealand through the zero carbon Act.Marama Davidson: How will this inform Government policy?Hon JAMES SHAW: An assessment of the climate impacts of major policy proposals will be included in all Cabinet papers in exactly the same way as impacts on human rights the Treaty of Waitangi rural communities the disability community and gender. This will be about providing Ministers with a better understanding of the impacts that their decisions have on the climate. Because of the way the process works it will help decision makers across the whole of Government integrate climate considerations into their decision making. Whether it's passing the zero carbon Act earlier this year reforming the emissions trading scheme ensuring more clean and renewable energy or new support for electric cars we will have set New Zealand on a path to a zero-carbon future. This announcement is about making sure that the whole of Government is pulling in the same direction.
Electoral (Entrenchment of Mäori Seats) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. You asked for that quite literally. Only one very brief question of the member in the chair Alastair Scott which is that I wonder if he'll finally be able to answer that question that many of us have asked since the early 2000s: who let the dogs out? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who?Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. I just rise to read out New Zealand First's support for this Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. I too will acknowledge the sponsor of the bill Ian McKelvie who has been referenced earlier as one of I think the most highly respected MPs on both sides of the House. He's a man steeped in common sense and a sensible bill like this is befitting his character.We heard through the Primary Production Committee that there were 13 submissions but really the guts of this is to try to take the burden off the District Courts for those lower-level offences. I think there's two parts of that. I think it'll allow probably those lower-level offences to be actually taken up because there'll be a lot of people that won't want to drag a neighbour or something through the District Court but they may be annoyed enough to want to take it to a JP. So it actually does give some justice for perhaps some neighbourly disputes and the like.I was just going through the category 1 offences which will still be dealt with by the District Court and I did note that dogs rushing at [a person] animals or vehicles" is one of those category 1 offences. I guess my real question there is that our pet dog Snowy is a springer spaniel - collie cross and much to my chagrin he does actually take defending the family home quite seriously and does rush vehicles every now and again. I guess it may be slightly outside the scope of the bill but I'd like maybe the member in the chair Alastair Scott to reassure me that I will not come under the auspices of Strike Force Raptor for Snowy's indiscretions as the local stock agent comes up the drive. I would like some reassurance there because I think there is some concern in the community at this heavy-handed approach.But in terms of the rest of the bill I think it's sensible. It does de-clog the court system and it will allow people to probably take up some cases against neighbouring dogs that they may not have felt compelled to do under the more heavy-handed court system. So we really support this bill. It is a good sensible bill and befitting of the sponsor so I look forward to this progressing through the Parliament. Thank you."
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Can I start by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill Ian McKelvie. He is a very good practical hard-working rural MP and as the chair of the Primary Production Committee mentioned Ian comes up with some very practical bills—a lot around dogs actually.So this is a very practical bill. What it does is it aims to do two things. One is it basically allows JPs to sit in as judges for very minor dog cases and secondly it aims to improve animal welfare by basically getting the dogs out of the pound facilities earlier. If it takes say weeks or sometimes months for very simple and straightforward dog cases if we can get a JP in there to hear the case within days that should improve the animal welfare of the dog but also decrease the work or the strain on those pound facilities.It is important to note that more complex cases—for example dogs rushing at persons animals vehicles; orders relating to dogs seen worrying stock; or the destruction of dogs—won't be seen by JPs. It's basically just for the very simple and straightforward cases. The select committee did ask the officials how many cases it would apply to over the past year and it was around about I believe 15 percent of all dog cases before the courts that would be seen by JPs.Can I lastly finish by just acknowledging all the hard-working JPs out there. They do a wonderful job. A privilege I've got as an electorate MP is that someone that wants to become a JP comes to your office. They are wonderful community-minded people and often the glue of the community. So can I end there by just acknowledging all those hard-working JPs.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want to start by reassuring you that I am not standing tonight as I often do to have a crack at David Bennett. I'm standing tonight to speak in favour of this bill. And out of respect of the bill's sponsor Ian McKelvie I'll be sticking to the bill because I on behalf of the Labour Party will be the only speaker tonight speaking on this because whilst we are here in the committee stage we support this bill wholeheartedly. We feel there is no need for further changes. The Primary Production Committee discussed this in detail. We worked well together. Mr McKelvie has put forward a common-sense and straightforward bill that will benefit not only dog owners but also the court system as well. Those low-level offences that don't need to clog up our system can be dealt with by magistrates and JPs and the like and this bill will allow them to do that.Of course as the previous speaker David Bennett has mentioned the District Courts—the active criminal cases in front of them have increased from 28000 in 2013-14 to an incredible increase of around 35000 in 2016-17. What we also saw—and I don't think this has been covered in the previous reading of this bill—is that it was actually the changes under the previous Government which saw various courts come under further strain. One that comes to mind is the Family Court. The National Government's Family Court reform as it says here in my notes resulted in lengthy delays and not enough judges. As at March 2018 there were 8000 Care of Children Act cases waiting to be heard up 30 percent in two years.Now this bill—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm not quite sure that this bill delivers much change in the Family Court system.KIERAN McANULTY: If I may just simply explain because actually the judges involved in that court will be freed up from having to deal with crossing over from the District Court into the Family Court which is what we saw as a result of the changes—Hon David Bennett: He's making a good point.KIERAN McANULTY: —which is what I was just explaining. Thank you Mr Bennett. I am making a good point. The point being the reason that the Labour Party supports this—in addition to it making sense in addition to this being common sense—is that Mr McKelvie has said to this Parliament that through this bill the dog control bill here he will in some ways relieve this country of the burden that National's reforms of the Family Court and many other courts have left this country in. The Labour Party wholeheartedly supports this bill.
Scott Alastair; Dyson RuthDOG CONTROL (CATEGORY 1 OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Hayes JoanneJO HAYES (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It has been a privilege to lead the first reading of this bill and to be able to stand and provide the right of reply. I am absolutely privileged to have heard the contributions from the members in the House today—the way that they have openly shared their experiences of meeting women and girls who have experienced that abhorrent female genital mutilation action on their bodies and the sharing of the heartfelt stories that our MPs here today have come into this House and have openly given of all of their hearts. I want to say this has been a milestone for this Parliament in this sitting to have four of us being mentioned on the bill a multi-member bill and what I see with this Parliament is that all the significant bills that are about woman and children are always led out from the women MPs and it's very humbling to see that.I want to also add in around the contribution from Maureen Pugh around the visit that we had from the FGM education group. The pictures that we were shown from this group actually put female genital mutilation front and centre and it was those pictures the stories that drove this bill. I can say honestly here that the person who drove it the hardest was Louisa Wall the co-chair of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. It was her who brought this group in and the Somali group and put this issue front and centre in front of all of us. To do what we're doing tonight I think that we can all feel very honoured to be able to speak for these women.Finally I want to also acknowledge David Seymour. I think Anahila talked a little bit about David. David wanted to be on our bill but for obvious reasons—but he supported us and I just want to acknowledge him for supporting the process all the way through. I just say to him: keep in there with us all the way David because you're part and parcel of this historical time even though your name might not be on the bill.I think as we move through as the Hon Louise Upston spoke in her presentation tonight in her contribution about how the select committee no doubt will do a very thorough job in their process but that the process should be as speedy as we can get it because this is an important issue and it is something that we here have given of our time to these woman that are affected by female genital mutilation. I think to slow down would be a little bit of an insult to them. So that's not what we're here for. We're here to support them.This part of my contribution will be brief because it is the right of reply. I just want to thank everybody tonight for their contributions. I want to acknowledge the rest of the Commonwealth Woman Parliamentarians of New Zealand. You've done a wonderful job. You can all be proud of yourselves as I am proud of you. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you. I rise to take a call on this really special bill today. It's a special day in Parliament. We have a bill that has come from our Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. As we've heard it's been sponsored by four women across the House in collaboration and agreement. But the important thing to note is of course that it's come from all parties in this House. These four women of colour have sponsored the bill which is in fact historical not only for the four parties that are represented but actually we do have a little slice of diversity that enables this House to do this and I want to acknowledge that.This bill also sits within the 16 days of activism on violence against women. The 16 days of activism are very dear to my heart. I think every day should be a day of activism against violence but at least we have a formal 16 days. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a form of violence perpetrated at the centre of us as women and girls. I mean that literally and figuratively.I'm humbled that as a Pākehā woman I have the opportunity to add my voice into this important debate. I want to specifically acknowledge my good friend and the Labour sponsor of this bill Priyanca Radhakrishnan. Priyanca has championed this bill at our caucus and with her work alongside the ethnic community is a passionate advocate around issues to do with sexual health and reproductive rights and gender-based violence prevention.I want to pause and acknowledge today that I recognise that it is my privilege to speak when the voice of others who've been pivotal in this work are silent. I acknowledge the organisations who have helped us come to this place. I acknowledge the many many women affected around the world. FGM is a global issue. FGM affects over 200 million women. Every day 6000 women 6000 girls are affected and undergo this horrific act.Talking about this act in this House is difficult and it's somewhat triggering for me because I think about the fact that many of us here have no experience of FGM but we also know that one in four women are affected by sexual violence in this country. As a consequence this conversation may trigger many of those women as well. It's as I said a global issue affecting 200 million women and in fact 30 million girls under the age of 15 are estimated to be at risk from now until 2026—30 million girls. It is my great pleasure to stand tonight and to acknowledge that this is a global issue; one that we here in this Parliament think is important and one that we will in fact be working closely across the entire House to resolve the issue that we accidentally left out one part of the definition under the World Health Organization which talked briefly about the pricking the piercing the incising the scraping and the cauterising of the genital area. It makes me feel almost ill to say those words. So I am delighted to stand in this House and I commend this bill to the House.
Election Access Fund Bill — Second Reading
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): It's a pleasure to take a short call on this. I would like to acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick. I knew that when she was running as the mayoral candidate in Auckland—I remember thinking what a remarkable young woman and I thought she's going to go places and here she is in Parliament now and she has fire in her belly. I knew she was going to make a difference. I knew she wasn't going to leave this place without leaving her mark and she's rocking through two bills now. One of them in particular the cannabis bill is going to be a biggie and this one is another really worthwhile bill.A lot of the matters have been traversed in this bill but one of the things I think as an able-bodied and non-disabled person to actually experience what it's like to have a disability—a number of people I know have tried to say wear a blindfold for a day or ride around in a wheelchair and try and understand how hard it is for disabled people to get about their daily lives and just get places and live life—it's pretty tough. I acknowledge that this bill seeks to establish a fund through the Electoral Commission to allow disabled people to be involved in political life. So it's an honourable cause. It ensures that everyone has equal ability to be involved in politics and covers the disability-related costs of standing in a general election so it's an amendment of the Electoral Act. We in National fully support the process for increased access for disabled people. So good on you Chlöe Swarbrick—good on you.It's important that disabled people have a strong voice and we enable them to participate in the community. I note that from the Governance and Administration Committee there were a number of changes recommended including by-elections and bill coverage reference to changing the definition of persons with disabilities" to "disabled persons" to keep it in line with other Acts and "Payments from the fund" recommends removing the "provision for political parties and not-for-profit entities to apply to the fund." So that effectively narrows the scope of the fund so that only individual disabled people are eligible. So I think pretty good amendments to the bill. I see Chlöe Swarbrick is nodding and so I'm getting her agreement—very happy about that."Payments would not be election expenses or donations": "not to be used for general campaigning costs" so it's "specifically for accessibility costs not faced by others." And I see here payments are to be tax exempt from income tax. Include a review of the fund in legislation within three years to ensure it's tested and any improvements can be made—it's a good recommendation.So this is kind of a no-brainer bill really. I can't but support it so I commend this bill to the House. Well done."
Tuesday 3 December 2019 (continued on Wednesday 4 December 2019) - Volume 743
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 5 be agreed to: before subclause (1) insert:(1AAA)In section 207(2) definition of candidate donation replace or to any person on the candidate's behalf" with "to any person on the candidate's behalf or to any incorporated or unincorporated foundation or trust that is associated with or supports the candidate".after subclause (5) insert:(5A)In section 207(2) definition of party donation replace "or to any person or body of persons on behalf of the party who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party" with "to any person or body of persons on behalf of the party who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party or to any incorporated or unincorporated foundation or trust that is associated with or supports the party". A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to."
Bennett David; Mallard TrevorHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. I was going to have a very conciliatory speech but after the temptations put by that past member the Hon Damien O'Connor it may change. I just want to raise one point with that member because often members do leave after they've done their introductory speech and that is that we have had an email a genuine email from an accounting firm around this bill. They were at a recent Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand rural advisory committee meeting with the Inland Revenue Department.Now the Minister's smiling so he might be aware of this issue. It's just an issue that hasn't been raised with us during the committee stage or any other part of the process but we just got it on our desk yesterday. There is a tax issue that they have foreseen that they raised with the IRD at that meeting. So if the Minister would indulge the Parliament and possibly look into that issue that would be most appreciated because in the Primary Production Committee all members of the committee worked their best to try and work through any issues that were raised that were genuine. This wasn't raised—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The Government has indicated to me that it's their intention to end urgency. The member's speech and the debate are adjourned.The House adjourned at 12.50 p.m. (Wednesday)
Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise with pleasure to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First as we seek to eliminate foreign influence from New Zealand's democracy. It has no place.The reason we are here of course taking out this lowest of the low-hanging fruit—the foreign donations—is because the Justice Committee which started on this process reviewing the 2017 election in July 2018 and is yet to report. This has been a dysfunctional committee on a very important issue. And Minister Little has implored that committee to come back with a report so we can look at these wider influences and they have failed to do so. So we will support him in bringing this measure—as I say the lowest of the low-hanging fruit. We do need this wider reform. There are plenty of international examples out there where we've got foreign actors in all sorts of jurisdictions around the world—in hacking and disinformation and yes in funding. We've heard from Professor Anne-Marie Brady from Canterbury University that those influences quite possibly exist within our democracy.Now we have heard also some incredibly disturbing accounts from Jami-Lee Ross articulating exactly how Todd McClay as a Minister of the Crown went over to China and solicited a donation from a foreign national which then came back through a New Zealand - front company—that most Kiwi of New Zealand - front companies—the Inner Mongolian Racing Company" or some such thing and Jami-Lee Ross was advised to tell him how to break those donations up into amounts that would not be detectable completely flouting the intent of the laws of New Zealand. It is an absolute display of collective amnesia over there that the only party—the only party—in this Parliament that's sitting before the Serious Fraud Office is the National Party.Hon Member: No no. Winston told us you guys have voluntarily gone in.MARK PATTERSON: So we've volunteered to go to the Electoral Commission which is the appropriate place. That Serious Fraud Office is a big step up on volunteering information to the Electoral Commission.So there is need for wider reform. We must do this but until that Justice Committee returns its report we somewhat have our hands tied behind our back. New Zealand democracy is for New Zealanders. It is up to us to decide our fate. It is only us that have skin in the game here and this bill while it's a modest step is a step in the right direction and New Zealand First has pleasure in supporting it."
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Speaker thank you very much. Now this is an important piece of legislation as the select committee found out because we heard as members of the Justice Committee that there have been some examples of foreign interference in New Zealand. We've heard this from the GCSB and the SIS. And it's important we take this action urgently to put in place legislation before the next election in order to prevent any interference or possibility of that happening.Yes there was a more fulsome report from the select committee that would have added far more detail and would have informed the public debate. And it's very unfortunate that that was stymied to the point where it was not able to be brought to this House. And that was incredibly frustrating. The committee heard evidence and reported back and all of those members opposite actually were in agreement of the key areas.Now the real reason—this is the last thing I'll say before I sit down—that the committee did not report back was because of the Hon Dr Nick Smith; he prevented it from happening. And it came to the point where his own party tried to physically remove him from that committee because he was being so obstructive and that is a shame—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think if the member is referring to incidents which occurred in the non-public part of a committee which has not yet reported back she is out of order and will cease.GINNY ANDERSEN: Apologies Mr Speaker. To get to the point the real reason that came out in the Hon Dr Nick Smith's speech today was that there was a general unhappiness and dissatisfaction that the party that got the largest vote—this is what he said—were not in Government. And he blamed New Zealand First for that. And that is the underlying real reason and his self-interest that shows the true colours. And there is no concern for the public interest in New Zealand to protect our democracy and to protect us from foreign interference. I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. A disappointing contribution from Mr Penk there taking a cheap swipe at the Deputy Prime Minister. I would have thought a man of his talents would look at the substance of the issue before this House. What I wanted to do here just very briefly was just note the fact that this bill is well pitched. There has been some discussion about the obligation on party secretaries to look into where donations come from and some criticism of it. I think that criticism is quite unfounded because if we do look at clause 8 which inserts new section 207JA it talks about the secretary having to take all reasonable steps—it's kind of got two branches to it—in the circumstances. So if you've got a $51 donation obviously the sky won't fall if that's come from overseas but you're not expected to spend a thousand dollars trying to find out where that came from. So in the circumstance this is an absolute signal to the Electoral Commission and to the courts that this is a proportional question—that you take the steps that are proportionate to the risk. Now if you were to get $150000 through a strangely named overseas company you'd expect some very robust investigations to be undertaken there. In particular you'd want to be sure that not only was it not by an overseas person but it also wasn't made on behalf of" an overseas person—the other words used in this piece of legislation.So this is a very well-pitched piece of legislation. We're not holding it up. We're not delaying improving our electoral law. This is an excellent piece of legislation. I commend it to the House."
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Otirā e Te Whare tēnā tātou katoa. Protecting New Zealand's democracy by addressing the real threat of foreign interference through donations and electoral advertising is what this bill aims to address. I'm proud to stand and support the third and final reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2).I want to acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat Nick Smith for also supporting this important issue and this bill. It is really something that we want to take to the election next year. We've been very very clear on expectations around foreign donations and the Minister Andrew Little has outlined the threshold about $50.But we also in this bill talk about the expectations of party secretaries to ensure that the due diligence expected of them is also outlined in this bill in collaboration with the Electoral Commission and the defence of taking reasonable steps to ensure that that particular expectation isn't breached. It is a bill like the Minister said that as we go into the start of the election year next year we want to be very clear that we are banning foreign donations up to $50 and of the expectations of due diligence from party secretaries. It is part of a wider piece of electoral reform that we will be bringing into play on the side of the House. It's an important issue that all parties in this House have been talking about—and the general public—for months on end.It is a simple bill to address that. I commend it to the House and look forward to its passage through the House. Kia ora.
Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I thank the member Gerry Brownlee for that contribution. Look the commencement is as you would expect because particularly in relation to the obligations on party general secretaries it allows time for both the Electoral Commission to prepare any guidance on the application of the new provisions but also on party general secretaries to ensure that they have systems and processes in place ready to go. They may well have to get some endorsement from their respective governing boards which they might have to do in a reasonably hasty period of time at a busy time of the year. Look if there are members who think that between now and 31 December they can hustle around and cobble together some foreign donations compliant with the current law fill their boots I suppose—but I doubt whether that's going to be practically possible.The next question was about the 1 April residential requirement. Again that is just a reasonable time for both the residential requirement and the advertising requirement. In the event there are arrangements in place where a party doesn't comply with those things or there is advertising booked that has not yet had a promoted statement put on it there is time to rectify that to get through the busy Christmas and New Year period in a reasonable time to get various houses in order.The final question was: what is the process from here? There is one other piece of legislation that commenced before the Electoral Amendment Bill—(No 1)—which has already started. It's working its way through the process. That is the one that creates a better chance for more people to cast their vote—particularly for example the 19000 on election day in 2017 who turned up to a ballot booth weren't on the roll and could not enrol. So those changes are still making their way through the House subject to obviously the dictates of this House. I reasonably expect that bill to be passed in the early part of next year so that by the time we get to the election—and certainly the regulated period—all rules applying to next year's election will be known and understood the information out there parties fully compliant candidates fully compliant and we will have a very happy 2020 general election.
Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 2