edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
1. Question No. 1—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government's efforts to secure our recovery have been reflected in the latest measure of the country's economic health. Statistics New Zealand reported last week that GDP rose by 1.6 percent for the March 2021 quarter—exceeding the expectations of even the most optimistic commentators. New Zealanders' confidence in the recovery saw a boost in retail spending particularly on big-ticket household items hospitality and holiday accommodation. Importantly activity in the construction sector returned to near record levels while business investment in plant and machinery jumped by over 15 percent. The higher COVID-19 alert levels during the quarter only had a limited impact on the economy thanks to the quick response which provided cash flow and confidence. Quarterly activity in March has now exceeded the December 2019 quarter pre-pandemic level. Nevertheless the data does show the volatility that New Zealand has to deal with during the pandemic. This 1.6 percent increase followed a 1 percent decline in the December quarter and a record 14.1 percent increase in the September quarter.Dr Duncan Webb: How does New Zealand's economic performance compare with other countries?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This result is further evidence that our public health strategy of going hard and early to beat COVID was also the correct response for the economy. Getting our economy back up and running without COVID in the community has meant households and businesses can move about and operate more freely than in many other countries. The New Zealand economy was 2.4 percent above where it was in the March quarter last year outperforming the countries we compare ourselves with. In the same period Australia rose by 1.1 percent the United States by 0.4 percent Canada by 0.3 percent while Japan declined by 1.5 percent and the United Kingdom by 6.1 percent. The global economy is recovering but the ongoing and uneven impact of COVID-19 means that the environment will remain volatile for some time.Dr Duncan Webb: What reactions has he seen to the GDP report?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We're doing it in real time here but previously the ANZ economist called the result eye-popping" and noted that "the rise in GDP confirms that New Zealand has seen a spectacular economic recovery". That sentiment was reflected in other commentaries. Kiwibank said "The report was stronger than expected pretty much across the board. And the economy has confidently returned to pre-COVID levels." And as the ASB noted this year "unexpected strength of quarter one GDP growth adds to the weight of evidence that the New Zealand economy is on very firm footing despite the global pandemic." This Government's economic recovery plan is working. We are supporting businesses and workers to succeed despite the uncertainty of COVID-19 and the naysayers on the other side of the House."
Salesa Jenny; Rurawhe AdrianREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The committee has considered the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has considered the Fair Trading Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Watts Simon; Clark DavidSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I firstly wanted to thank the Minister for being here and being able to answer the questions. I've got two specific questions building on those that my colleagues have raised and I guess the first relates to this law. We've talked a lot around the unconscionable conduct aspect and the fact that the definition is not there. So I guess the question I've got is: is this in effect a symbolic law? Is this in effect going to be unenforceable? And I guess to that concern I'd like to know from the Minister what if any advice has he received particularly from Crown Law around the actual ability for this law to actually proceed through the court system and for someone to actually be found guilty or not guilty under this area. The second question I've got Minister relates to the cost implications of such changes of legislation on our small-business community. Obviously when we're implementing a law such as this which has in effect an undefined aspect to it—you know there's a lot of unknowns that our businesses will have to work through in terms of that and considerations advisers etc. So what I'm interested in from the Minister is if he could give us a little bit of comfort around the consultation or the advice around the impact on our business community. Because I do cite my understanding that Business New Zealand are opposed to this legislation and they represent a significant element of that community. I guess I'm looking for a degree of substantiation around where the Minister sees the advice that balances out the fact that our largest representative of our business community is against this legislation. Thank you Minister. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): To address the member's point around unconscionable conduct—will it be unenforceable—no. Of course it will be enforceable. The Australians have a similar set-up and there's some expectations some principles—we already covered this off in the debate—that point to the kinds of factors a court would be considering when it's determining whether conduct is unconscionable. That includes—just for the member's benefit—the relative bargaining power of the parties whether unfair pressure or tactics were used and the extent to which the parties acted in good faith. So there are some bits of guidance already in place around that. Of course where there's contracts in place for consumer contracts with consumers there's some good understanding around the law already in that respect. The member had another question around perhaps costs on business. I think arguably for those businesses caught up in this arrangement it will lower their due diligence costs and so on because they'll be able to expect that the people they're dealing with are acting fairly and that they can be prosecuted in a court of law. So you know that may in fact reduce business costs in many cases for those smaller contracts because there is an expectation that people will be dealt fairly with. They won't have to be reading the fine print on every part of the commercial contracts. So it may well lower costs in that respect.
Smith Stuart; Clark DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the Minister for his welcoming of questions as I do have a couple. I think when we were on the second reading of this bill we did discuss unconscionable conduct quite a bit and I might come back to that later but my question actually relates to the expected total value of less than $250000 in a 12-month period. I think they welcome coming up with a number and my question really is around the validity of that number. Is that the total value of the transactions between two parties or is that the expected profit or margin from companies? There is quite a difference. Some companies of course have quite a sizable contract between them but with very low margins. The $250000 sounds a lot but if it's a very small margin—let's say it's $300000 worth of transactions between them or contract but there's only a $10000 or $20000 profit or something like that. So we'd like some clarity around that from you Minister if we could have that.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The $250000 is the total value of the transactions.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It's a real pleasure to bring proceedings on Part 1 of the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. It does provide new protections against unfair practices which unfairly harm potentially businesses and consumers.Some of the key features of Part 1 I'd like to just quickly speak about at the beginning of my contribution. Clause 6 introduces a new prohibition on unconscionable conduct. Now that mirrors largely what's already in law for unconscionable conduct with respect to consumers but makes it also for businesses as well.Clause 7 extends prohibitions against unfair contract terms to small trade contracts and clause 9 empowers consumers to direct uninvited sellers to leave their property—the do-not-knock stuff fundamentally. At the moment it's true that these don't have any legal effect. Members of this House will be pleased to know that politicians are carved out of that as are charities. So that's really intended for people who are unfairly harassing folks who choose to put do-not-knock stickers at their gateway clear messages that they don't wish to be harassed or sold items through pressure sales.There is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which makes a number of small important changes to slightly adjust the threshold for businesses covered by the unfair contract terms protections to allow more businesses to benefit from these protections. There's some technical matters also that are covered in that SOP to clarify things to avoid any ambiguity in the law and the interpretation thereof. Essentially the bill prohibits unfair contract terms in small trade contracts where the contracts are worth less than $250000 in a 12-month period and so the SOP makes sure that the prohibition—well it currently covers related parties and unfortunately the ambiguity in that could mean it's complex to enforce and complex to understand for those who are caught up in it. So we want to remove that ambiguity. It means it will apply slightly more broadly which we think's a good thing.Ultimately with this legislation those who are engaged in fair trade in fair conduct and are contracting fairly have nothing to fear from this legislation. It really is already the case that for example in Australia they have similar legislation. There's plenty of law there which shows that the system works. Those who are trading well and trading fairly can get on with their contracting. Those small businesses certainly where we've heard anecdotes of them being given unfair terms are freed of that and can get on with the business that they're engaged with. So I don't want to spend too long at the outset. Looking forward to questions from all sides of the Chamber about this useful and important piece of law. Thank you Mr Chair.
Rurawhe AdrianFAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Main amendments to principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the committee stage of the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. This bill will be debated in parts. We come first to Part 1 the debate on clauses 4 to 20 the main amendments in the principal Act. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Rurawhe AdrianClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members our final debate is on the preliminary clauses 1 to 3. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Rurawhe AdrianPart 2 Transitional savings and related provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to Part 2 the debate on clauses 7 to 9 and Schedules 1 and 2 the transitional and related provisions.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment to insert new clause 4A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 42 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.Part 1 agreed to.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. In relation to Part 1 of the bill I wanted to also tautoko the points around the unsuitability of the current naming of the benefits. I know we touched on the orphans benefit but I also want to talk about the unsupported child's benefit and how that name in itself doesn't reflect the realities that whānau experience particularly when we think about clause 4 and talk about the fact that we need a breakdown in the family and that you know we inherently talk about the child being unsupported as a result and that speaks to a welfare system that strips away people's ability to be with their community and their whānau.So I commend the Social Services and Community Committee for addressing some of the gaps in these benefits and some of these are already being addressed in the bill such as the ability for caregivers to look after a child for less than 12 months when that is required. And I think this is exactly why the idea of calling a benefit an unsupported child's benefit" and requiring a breakdown in the family in some ways contravenes the intent that this bill is trying to create which is to ensure that whenever possible a child can remain with their communities and this is why we've put forward two Supplementary Order Papers one which does aim to insert new clause 4A around the need for a breakdown in the family and to support families with whāngai arrangements to look after the children.So I do hope that we take the opportunity throughout the last stages of this bill to ensure that children have an opportunity to thrive and that they can remain within the communities. I'd be interested to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that the current settings around eligibility criteria beyond the time required to look after children are fit for purpose."
Pugh Maureen; Davis Kelvin; Rurawhe AdrianMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I thank Minister Davis for his acknowledgment of the select committee's work on this bill. As he's alluded to it's been something that everyone has supported.There was one issue though Minister that came up that the committee was not able resolve or find a solution to and that was in relation to the name of the orphans benefit. Now normally when you think about the word orphan" it relates to a child whose parents have died and so they are parentless but in the case of this bill the term "orphans benefit" or "orphan" refers to children whose parents have died but also captures children whose parents are missing or perhaps have a long-term serious disability. So even though the committee did turn its mind to finding an alternate name for the orphans benefit we were unable to resolve that. I just wonder Minister if you and your team would consider putting some time or some consideration into finding an alternate name or an alternate descriptor that would capture that group of children because it was felt that the terminology around "orphan" was inappropriate given the breadth of the audience that it was hoping to capture. So just wondering if the Minister could give some consideration to that as we progress through the bill because it will have an impact of course on the terminology that is used in this particular piece of legislation. Thank you.Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): The advice I've received is that that is out of scope. I understand the descriptor does just seem not quite right because you would anticipate that both the child's parents were deceased and that's not necessarily the case here. But the proposal would pre-empt advice that we prepared as part of the long-term work programme agreed by Cabinet to reform the system of financial assistance and support for caregivers. The work programme includes considering a modernised name for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child's benefit.[Ricardo Menéndez March stands]CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you seeking a call?Ricardo Menéndez March: Yes thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Ricardo Menéndez March."
Davis KelvinHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to start this call in this debate at the committee of the whole House by first of all thanking the Social Services and Community Committee for the work they've done to bring the bill back to the House.We know that many caregivers are under financial pressure and that caregivers need more support to care for tamariki. We also know that financial assistance is inequitable for caregivers caring for children outside of the State care system. We know that some caregivers outside of State care are not able to access financial assistance simply because their care arrangement is short term or they don't know how long it'll be for. That's why this bill in clauses 4 and 5 will extend eligibility for the orphans benefit and unsupported child's benefit to caregivers in these kinds of situations. This'll ensure that caregivers who have stepped up to take on the care of a child whose parents are unable to care for them will be financially supported to do so despite the care arrangement being short term or for an unknown or uncertain period of time.To help address equity issues in the payments that caregivers receive the bill establishes in clause 6 a holiday and a birthday allowance for caregivers receiving the orphans benefit or the unsupported child's benefit. These allowances will support tamariki to celebrate and enjoy the significant events in their lives. They'll also help caregivers to provide the tamariki in their care with the same experiences as other tamariki throughout Aotearoa.So to summarise the key changes in the bill are in clauses 4 and 5 extending eligibility for the orphans benefit and unsupported child's benefit to caregivers who expect to provide care for less than 12 months or an unknown or uncertain period of time by removing the requirement for a caregiver to be likely to be the principal caregiver of the child for at least 12 months and in clause 6 establishing holiday and birthday allowances for the orphans benefit and unsupported child's benefit. I believe that there's pretty much support across the House for this bill. It is an excellent bill that goes to making sure that caregivers who are looking after children who aren't their own have the best financial support possible. Kia ora.
Salesa JennySOCIAL SECURITY (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR CAREGIVERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Substantive and consequential amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come first to the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. This is the debate on Part 1—clauses 4 to 6F—and Schedule 3 the substantive and consequential amendments. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Salesa JennyHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill.
Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill — Third Reading
Robertson Grant; Rurawhe AdrianIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2021/22) BILLThird ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill be now read a third time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill.
Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading
Robertson Grant; Rurawhe AdrianAPPROPRIATION (2020/21 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLThird ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Rurawhe AdrianDEPUTY SPEAKER: Ā kāti rā tēnā rā tātou. The House is resumed. Members before the dinner break we were debating the second readings of the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill. It's call No. 8.
Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill — First Reading
Salesa Jenny; Robertson GrantIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2021/22) BILLIntroductionASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I understand it is the Government's intention to introduce an imprest supply bill.CLERK: Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill introduction.First ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill be now read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Urgent Debates Declined — Government Strategy—Revitalising the Gulf
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDRevitalising the Gulf—Government StrategySPEAKER: I've received a letter from the Hon Eugenie Sage and Chlöe Swarbrick seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the release by the Government of Revitalising the Gulf—Government action on the Sea Change Plan. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a matter requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The matter is undoubtedly an important one. The strategy is to be implemented over time and there will be further opportunities to debate the success of each element of it. Implementing parts of the strategy requires legislation. While the application comes close it does not have a sufficient element of urgency to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined. It could however be the subject of an application to the Business Committee for a special debate.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Alexandra Johnston requesting that the House amend the Dog Control Act 1996 to give courts more discretion when ordering the destruction of a dog that has made an attackpetition of Degu Geddebo requesting that the House urge the Government to condemn the ongoing atrocities of the Amhara ethnic group in Ethiopiapetition of Arya Nair requesting that the House urge the Government to give special consideration to registered nurses (with permanent residence) when determining whether our partners are eligible for partners' visaspetition of Ehab Takawi requesting that the House urge the Prime Minister to replace the immigration Minister.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. [Interruption] Order! Order! The member must not take leave for that action.CLERK: Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission strategic intentions 2021 to 2025Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited statement of performance expectations for the financial year 2022 statement of intent for financial years 2022 to 2026Transport Accident Investigation Commission statement of performance expectations 2021-22 and statement of intent 2021 to 2025.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Erin Hampson-Tindalereport of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Billreport of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman report on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act compliance and practice Porirua City Councilreport of the Health Committee on the petition of Nancy Sutthoffreport of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Andy Earlreport of the Primary Production Committee on the briefing into Optimus Groupreports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill the petition of Barbara Kuriger and the report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report on the Ombudsman's report and the briefing are set down for consideration.
Privileges Committee Referral
Mallard TrevorPRIVILEGEPrivileges Committee Referral—High Court's Treatment of Speech Made in the HouseSPEAKER: Members it has been drawn to my attention that a recent decision of the High Court raises a general matter of privilege that requires further examination. This matter has not been raised by a complaint from a member but it is my opinion that the subject is sufficiently important enough to exercise my authority under Standing Order 414. The decision in Staples v Freeman [2021] NZHC 1308 dated 4 June 2021 relates to an action for defamation and substantively considers a speech made in the House on 23 July 2014. The issue for consideration by the Privileges Committee is whether the court's treatment of the member's speech in its determination of the action for defamation compromises the House's privilege of free speech as described in the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 and in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. The Privileges Committee is the body that the House has established to investigate such matters. It has the power to hear evidence and to formulate recommendations for the House that will provide guidance for the future.
SpeechMEMBERS SWORNThe Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Harete Hipango who then took her seat in the House. HARETE HIPANGO (National): Ko ahau ko Harete Hipango e oati ana ka noho pūmau taku pono ki a Kuini Irihāpeti te Tuarua me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture. Ko te Atua nei hoki taku pou. [I Harete Hipango swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.]
Mallard TrevorLIST MEMBER ELECTEDSPEAKER: Members I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that under section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Harete Hipango has been declared to be elected to be a member of the House of Representatives in place of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I understand that Harete Hipango is present and wishes to take the Oath of Allegiance. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right.
Rurawhe AdrianTUESDAY 22 JUNE 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Wednesday 22 September 2021 - Volume 754
Autonomous Sanctions Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Autonomous Sanctions Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion not agreed to.
Resource Management (Regional Responsibility for Certain Agricultural Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Regional Responsibility for Certain Agricultural Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion not agreed to.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. I will return at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.
8. Question No. 8—PoliceGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 8—Police8. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has she made regarding police front-line safety?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Earlier today the commissioner and I announced a new $45 million front-line safety package to keep our police safe. The package includes more than doubling the current annual tactical training for front-line officers tactical prevention teams with advanced training to undertake warrants and other work involving higher risk tactical dog teams and an additional 78 constabulary staff and 28 intelligence analysts. The Government is committed to keeping our front-line police officers safe so that they can in turn keep New Zealanders safe. This is an investment in ensuring our police officers return home safely to their whānau every day.Greg O'Connor: Why has the Government made this investment in front-line safety?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Police are front-line workers who go above and beyond to keep our communities safe. I want every police officer to get home safely to their family at the end of the day. The Government is committed to ensuring police have the resources they need to keep themselves and our communities safe. That's why we are providing immediate funding to accelerate Police's new tactical response model and that will increase the training and capability of front-line staff.Greg O'Connor: What reports has the Minister seen on the front-line safety package?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I've seen from the Police Association that this represents a really positive step forward and I believe officers will welcome it. Our members have been telling us for a number of years that they want more training."SPEAKER: Any further comment?Hon Member: Not at this stage Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well can I just say to the member that a number of members in the House have the habit of reading their supplementary questions. If the member wants that to cease and for us to have a policy not to do so then the appropriate way of doing it is to approach the Standing Orders Committee for a change. I would like it."
6. Question No. 6—HealthDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—Health6. Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on the long-term pathway for mental wellbeing?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Today I announced Kia Manawanui Aotearoa – Long-term pathway to mental wellbeing. This is the first 10-year plan of its kind that targets the cause of mental distress and also sets out how to achieve hauora—healthy—futures. We cannot achieve healthy futures if the health sector works in isolation. Kia Manawanui calls for all of us to work together taking action from across Government to our communities through to individuals so that people who experience mental illness and distress can be better supported to have the resilience tools and support that they need to regain their wellbeing.Dr Gaurav Sharma: What sets Kia Manawanui apart from the previous strategies?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Kia Manawanui is a new approach and way of thinking that requires Government agencies to work together and work with communities to promote and protect mental wellbeing. It sets out short- medium- and long-term actions to be taken across Government with a focus on key areas such as technology workforce and investment to make transformative change within the mental health and addiction sector. Kia Manawanui includes actions like addressing the social cultural environmental and economic factors that can affect wellbeing; strengthening our focus to promote mental wellbeing for all New Zealanders; and developing different ways to commission services that enable joined-up investment and make it easier for providers to respond to complex needs.Dr Gaurav Sharma: What will having this long-term pathway in place mean for New Zealanders?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government wants all people to have their basic needs met so that things like employment housing and education aren't causing them mental distress. We will see community-led solutions that will empower everyone to attain their own wellbeing—for example people will be able to access advice and support to protect and to promote their own mental wellbeing in times places and ways that work for them. It might be for example that the local rugby club has information about managing stress or has links with the local pregnancy and parenting service that is working with local families to prevent addiction-related harm.
4. Question No. 4—EducationANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 4—Education4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What decisions has he taken to ensure that senior school students in Auckland and around the country have a fair opportunity to attain NCEA in 2021?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Government's providing additional support and credits for both Auckland and non-Auckland students. On 9 September the New Zealand Qualifications Authority set these out for schools outside of Auckland who have had 16 days at alert levels 3 and 4. These students will be eligible to earn Learning Recognition credits at a rate of one Learning Recognition credit per five credits achieved through their regular assessments up to a cap of eight for NCEA level 1 and six for levels 2 and 3. While the provisions for Auckland schools had previously been set on the basis of 20 days of disruption I've today announced revised provisions to recognise the extended time these students are spending at alert levels 3 and 4. Auckland students will be entitled to one Learning Recognition credit for every four credits that they earn rather than for every five and the caps will be 16 Learning Recognition credits for level 1 and 12 at levels 2 and 3. That's twice as many as the other students around the country.Angela Roberts: What other supports are available to Auckland students sitting NCEA?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The threshold for Auckland students to be awarded a certificate endorsement will also be adjusted to 44 credits at merit or excellence level rather than the 46 that it is for students who were able to return to the classroom sooner around the rest of the country. To be awarded university entrance Auckland students will need to achieve 12 rather than 14 credits in each of three university entrance approved subjects. They'll still need to attain NCEA level 3 and meet the literacy and numeracy requirements for university entrance. Put together with the Learning Recognition credits these changes amount to a full reactivation of the support that was provided to Auckland students last year following their second lockdown then.Angela Roberts: What other decisions have been made to assist all students sitting NCEA?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Students throughout the country will also benefit from the two-week delay to end-of-year examinations and most portfolio submission dates. That will provide those students with additional time for their learning and assessment which will help them to earn their full entitlement of Learning Recognition credits.
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker and I thank the previous member Anna Lorck for that graphic description. Anyway I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to make a few brief comments about this bill. We do have some concerns on the details of this bill but I think there is more than sufficient public interest and stories and things we've seen in the media of poor behaviour to at least send this bill to select committee so that it can get a fair hearing and the public can give some feedback and councils etc. because we don't want people to be going around the country and ruining it for everybody else.Despite the construction of new and upgraded facilities around New Zealand concerns do remain. People still raise issues and actually having a working enforcement programme might almost incentivise the construction of new facilities as well. So that could be interesting.As I said I do have a few concerns. There is the scope of discretion because officers will inevitably come across a whole raft of scenarios and different situations and in some cases a verbal warning is more appropriate. We need to uncover any potential unintended consequences where people might be issued fines when they're not actually freedom camping—you know the odd occasion where somebody might pull over in their van to get some rest and fall asleep in the middle of the night and what happens there. We need to have a good look at the granting of power to officers to conduct a search of a vehicle for the purpose of ensuring compliance and so the concern there is simply around privacy and whether or not this could be an avenue for wider prosecution if they find other things while they're doing it.I did want to query as part of this the issue of the notices being sent to rental companies. That was likened to what happens when you're in a rental car and you've got a bit of a lead foot and you go for a bit of a hoon you go past a speed camera and then the rental company receives an infringement fee in the mail for $630 or $30 and then they send it to you. So that was interesting because I would have thought for this regime it would be more likely to be on-the-spot fines as people are searching your vehicle so that's something that I was sort of querying.So as I said I think it's fair and reasonable for these concerns and others and for the public to have their say on this issue because clearly the problem still exists. It's less of a problem at the moment because of the border situation and the pandemic but I'm sure this will come back. I guess the last thing I would say is how did I know that the Hon Stuart Nash would oppose this despite it being right up his alley. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill — First Reading
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Autonomous Sanctions Bill and to support it at its first reading.The ACT Party believes that our foreign policy should be to uphold the safety of all New Zealand citizens but also to reflect our interests and our values. The ACT Party believes that the values of human rights individual freedoms and democratic liberties are of utmost importance. We take a lot of our liberties for granted things like women's rights even being able to stand here in this Chamber; freedom of association joining clubs and groups; being able to speak freely what is on our mind; and importantly to have freedom of religion as well.But we also recognise that we are a small trading nation and for a lot of other countries they don't necessarily think of us as a big player so it's important for us to be part of a rules-based order. In order for us to maintain peace and security we need to work with other countries around the world to maintain rules that are fair and equal and provide peace and stability not only for our country and our region but for the world. We do this mainly through diplomatic ties and advocating our values through those means but also through trade liberalisation and signing free-trade agreements. We also do so through defence which I note is severely lacking when we're not actually part of a new agreement with some of our strongest allies. But mainly we do this through the UN.The Security Council has five main players and unfortunately while it has been used in the past to maintain peace and security we also note that in some instances the big players don't seem to uphold peace and security within their own countries. Through veto powers things don't go as they should to have sanctions be put in place.Now the ACT Party is very proud that we brought a motion to Parliament earlier this year to condemn the severe human rights abuses that have occurred in the Xinjiang region of China against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. But we also note that there was a gutless move from the Government to water down our motion and I note the Minister's comments here today also sound gutless talking about the fact that this bill doesn't go far enough talking about human rights. Well that's absolutely obscene. If she has a problem with the bill that is why you send it to select committee; if it doesn't go far enough send it to the select committee. Don't go opposing this bill just because you might be scared.We need to have a framework that sits outside what is the way that we sanction through the UN and that is what this bill seeks to do. It puts in place a framework for us to do what is called an autonomous sanction and I think that is really important especially as we see today issues in Newsroom being announced about foreign interference in New Zealand's media. It is time that New Zealand decided it was a sovereign nation. We shouldn't shy away from the big problems; they will always be there but we need new ways of upholding peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. New Zealand is an independent nation with an independent values-based foreign policy which speaks volumes about what we stand for what we care for and why we want to work in our region how we want to work in our region and beyond on issues that matter to us and to our like-minded partners.The world is evolving the world is changing and we are facing considerable challenges posed by COVID-19 pandemics geopolitical crises that are constantly shifting and climate change and the list goes on. To let our values-based policy go at this critical time is unwise. In fact if we have to stick to it—this is the time to basically not to let it go but stick to it. Since coming into Government as the Hon Nanaia Mahuta said we have addressed a lot of issues. One of those issues is modern slavery and counter-terrorism. We just had a bill a couple of days ago—in fact yesterday—money-laundering which is a big issue for all of us and the Government has proudly dealt with this issue. So this is not the time to walk away from the way that we work traditionally and adopt a new system. This bill disregards the human rights issue even though the member has intended for this bill to address the human rights issue by imposing sanctions to international entities. We have seen this policy constantly causing issues and in fact causing crisis. The United States and some other superpowers acted like an international police and it didn't work. That is not what New Zealand stands for. It's not like us and we don't need it. If we wanted to deal with international issues and the crisis we've got our own tools our diplomacy which is effective. We have seen it in Afghanistan lately. When the crisis unfolded we responded and things worked quite well and our relationship with multilateral organisations works quite well. The United Nations the Security Council the International Criminal Court—these all work for us quite well so we don't need this approach.Countries that have adopted this bill like Australia have disregarded human rights. Then they realised that they made a mistake and now they are considering their ways and they are working to adopt human rights back into it. This bill doesn't include that. To me it's quite simple why we oppose this bill. We oppose it because it disregards human rights abuse. It disregards and disrespects the multilateral organisations that we have a very good relationship with. It disregards our longstanding values-based approach on international politics. This bill does not provide for sanctions with respect to emerging areas of security risk such as cyber-security. This bill simply is not fit for purpose. In fact it diminishes New Zealand's place globally. Therefore we cannot support this bill. On that note I will just end it there and because of the things that I have mentioned above we don't support this bill. Thank you.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I just want to thank the various members for their concerns and various contributions. I noted that the Minister the Hon David Parker that spoke directly after me didn't seem to actually address the bill at all and actually just spoke about the history of the quality of New Zealand water the fresh water that we're all concerned about and totally support.This bill speaks quite specifically to regional nuances that have totally been overlooked by the centrist sort of Government overlay. I think more sadly I note that the Green member has this perpetual animus to the rural sector and basically said farmers are the reason that environments across New Zealand have degraded to the level they have. Well I totally repudiate that statement.Firstly the ACT Party along with rural communities and aforementioned stakeholders request that the Government give this bill the consideration and opportunity for scrutiny at select committee that the process deserves. All across regional New Zealand it has been widely acknowledged that the often well-intentioned central government planning model frequently fails. We see it time and again—the desired outcomes routinely failing. So many regions have established regionally indicative farm water fresh plans environmental plans put in place mitigations to protect against sediment loss. In many instances these farms' plans have been developed over decades taking all considerations into account and are continually being improved and upgraded.All regional specificity is given to consideration to mitigate the environmental impacts whilst undertaking respective local farming practices. Such undertakings taken by the likes of Pomahaka Water Care and Environment Canterbury affectionately known as ECan along with the likes of Hurunui trust all the wonderful work they're doing is totally obfuscated. They preserve both the environment and the area in which they live and farm. These endeavours are locally undertaken they acknowledge regional nuances giving consideration to such things as native plantings freshwater preservation understanding sedimentation loss and methodologies for certain things as the member from the National Party mentioned winter cropping and how to mitigate those environmental effects. These are regional endeavours that are mirrored up and down rural New Zealand. That's why this bill is a better way to proceed.It will put pause on national planning standards over regional specificity and give that oversight back to councils. It will give farmers and industry certainty as it is they who best understand how to effect the changes and create the desired outcomes to preserve the environment whilst equally supporting the productive primary sector that routinely we hear the Minister of Finance laud and applaud. Most importantly it will give some sense of direction to those that live in their rural communities on how to operate in their rural communities and some sense of fairness in what seems to be an ever increasing unfair world. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill — First Reading