edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Minister on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) later on but I do commend the bill—it is a good one—most importantly because it makes it very clear who is in charge at the time and soon after an emergency as we've had in Christchurch and Kaikōura recently. No doubt we will have other earthquakes; it's inevitable in a country as we have. The importance of having and knowing and understanding who is in charge is important for a number of reasons. It makes sure that actions are taken. It gives confidence to the general public. There's no confusion as to who is in charge and who is going to say what and what authority one party or group might have over another. I find it quite ironic saying this because we look across to the side and we really don't know who's in charge. We don't know if it's the New Zealand First guys or the Labour guys. I find it quite ironic that we have a bill here to determine and make very clear whose instructions one should follow in an emergency.Now the other part of the bill of course is to do with the powers that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment have after the event. After the event we need to know what has been the cause of some of the collapses for example in the building or in the dam—that was articulated in select committee. This bill gives more power to investigate power for information and power to access information from designers architects and engineers and that's also a very good initiative. So all that is all good.We have an SOP number 234 and two of my colleagues have already mentioned a couple of points in SOP 234. I just want to question the word relevant" that's been inserted into 133BK(2)(c)(i) and also (d)(i). So the question is: why are we inserting the word "relevant" when to me reading it before the SOP it makes perfectly clear that there is a perfectly clear direction by the director or the group being a person acting under the authority of the director or the group. That's my question: why the insertion of the word "relevant"? Thank you."
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): I'll do a little brief submission here because it's been covered so well by the previous speaker Andrew Bayly. I'd like to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for working on this. I took part; I'm on that select committee and it's a great select committee. Hon Member: It's a great committee.MATT KING: Yeah it's a great one a lot of good workers on there and we covered—we support the bill. We do support the bill. It's a detailed bill; it's our work and it's taken 18 months to get here—25 submissions eight oral ones. I understand it's the Hon Jenny Salesa's first and only bill that she's brought to the House. I acknowledge that it's a robust process that allows our Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials and others to manage buildings in the case of an emergency or significant event. The law needs to be clear on buildings and how they're managed in emergency situations and a common sense approach is required. This bill adds new powers to allow buildings to be inspected evacuated or restricted in the case of emergency and to balance the rights between the building owner and the regulator. This bill allows work to be carried out on a building or it to be demolished and allowing flexibility in management. I know the MBIE officials investigate situations where buildings have failed in the past and I know they've—poor old MBIE they get a lot of work these MBIE guys. They're always in select committees and they're out all over the place; so we'd be in trouble without them. I know that they looked into the Southland Stadium the Forsyth Barr building the Pyne Gould Corporation building Hotel Grand Chancellor CTV Building and Statistics House for this bit of work for this bill. Kieran McAnulty: I might move closure after this. MATT KING: Thank you Kieran McAnulty. I know that the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors have also said that we need to learn lessons from these Christchurch earthquakes. So the Transport and Infrastructure Committee came up with some amendments—some handy amendments—tidying up the bill to make it more consistent. I notice here they changed some prescriptive criteria so that the outcomes of the work—not the work itself—need to be described and that introduces some transparency in the decision making. I also note that a responsible person as classified in that piece of law also includes police constables and it gives them immunity if acting in good faith; so I agree with that. So it's a great bill; it's very practical. We've learnt from our mistakes. Some good work's been done by both sides of the House and we're all in agreement; we support it. I commend the bill to the House.
McAnulty Kieran; Williams PotoBUILDING AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all the provisions within the Building Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That can happen.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move That the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 15 October 2019.Motion agreed to.
Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill — First Reading
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Talofa lava e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I'll be quick because I don't want to hold up proceedings and I extend congratulations to our newest member of the House. Firstly when I was preparing for this kōrero my question was: why were mental health and addiction workers excluded from the care and support workers settlement in the first place? Actually the reason we're debating this legislation is because at the time we were really clear that those in the aged-care disability and home-care sectors—55000 workers—deserved pay equity. We valued them and so I acknowledge the National Government at the time who after a court case valued those workers.What they didn't do though was value mental health and addiction support workers. So why did that happen?Simon O'Connor: It was the union.LOUISA WALL: They're blaming the unions. Well I've got a quote here from John Ryall who was very clear that the veto came from the then National Government the Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman—he did that with his Cabinet colleagues. So we're here today to make sure that this country realises that mental health and addiction workers are incredibly valuable and they're valued. We're fixing up a mistake a deliberate exclusion of 5000 workers by the National Government.So what does that mean for the ordinary worker? It means $120 extra for 50 percent of those workers; $200 a week extra for 20 percent. This is a significant advancement so well done but why you excluded them in the first place the Lord knows. Kia ora.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'd just like to start by acknowledging the collegiality that the House is showing in relation to passing this bill through today and the support that it's gained. I think it's a very very needed and necessary amendment to a piece of legislation that went through under the previous Government and I'm certainly not going to sit here and try and blamestorm what was essentially an area that was missed and now we've got the opportunity to fix up. So here we are today to talk about the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill which is a tidy-up really of the main legislation which is the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act from 2017. The reality is that I don't think there's a single person in New Zealand that doesn't sit out there and acknowledge the hard work that goes on behind the scenes to ensure that our mental health workers are doing a great job in providing huge amounts of service. We all acknowledge the fact that they have been under-rewarded for their hard work and diligence in this field and this is the opportunity that we've got to tidy that anomaly up. The reality is that as it's already been articulated the Terranova case when it was finally settled after Kristine Bartlett brought it to the floor—and it did take a number of years to get resolved—the significant fund of $2.3 billion that was actually put to tidy that up was a very historical moment for the history of New Zealand.However this part is essential: that we actually tidy up this anomaly. We are talking about mental health addiction and we're taking it very very seriously—the vocational and disability support workers along with the effect and the elements settled from the mental health and addiction support workers also.New Zealand First is only going to be taking a short call on this and we want to see it going through the select committee process. Our Health Committee will be looking at this hearing from submitters and working through this very very diligently. We certainly will be commending this bill through the House to make sure that it's expedited in the true fashion and the pace that it deserves. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
Mark RonHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I move that the bill be reported to the House by—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Could you give me the name of the bill please? Please start again.Hon RON MARK: I move That the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill be reported back to the House by 12 June 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).The select committee process is important. I want to make sure that our veterans who want to comment on this proposed amendment will have the opportunity to do so. However I am proposing that the time that the committee has to consider the bill be very brief. There are three primary reasons for this. Firstly passing the bill quickly will allow veterans who are already receiving support under the 14 retrospective declarations to date to have certainty that their entitlements will continue uninterrupted as has always been intended. Secondly the longer the Act is left unamended the longer many of those who it was intended to benefit won't be able to access support; this would perpetuate inequities between the veterans who have all served their country in high-risk situations. Finally this is a short and simple piece of legislation for the select committee to consider. I thank the House. Madam Assistant Speaker I thank you very much.Motion agreed to.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): As a member of the very hard-working Social Services and Community Committee which will be receiving this bill it gives me great pleasure to be the final speaker in this first reading. I look forward to helping this bill transition through our committee and through this House. As I've looked through some of the criteria here I think it's important to say that one thing has been left out by a few of the speakers. I'm not saying that to be critical in any way but an important part of that is that this enables New Zealanders who have served overseas to receive support in services if they have been injured or made ill because of what they have done for their country. I think that's a very important part. My experience in police is that when these overseas deployments came up there was generally a line-up of people who were very keen to go. We read our history and find out that even in those terrible wars World War I and World War II actually there were many people who did volunteer and were very keen to go and head away and it was only when they came back that the impacts of that service were really felt and that was where we had our absolutely essential and great work done by the RSAs. However as I read through the deployments that are going to be part of this—you know places like South Sudan Sudan itself the Sinai Peninsula Afghanistan Iraq the United Arab Emirates the Kyrgyz Republic the Solomon Islands Bougainville Haiti Yugoslavia Cambodia Angola—most of them are hardly places that one puts on one's list to be having holidays in when planning one's vacation. They are all places that even though those members and my own members who were going and being deployed to some of those places lined up and were very keen to go it was in the families when they came back where often the issues raised themselves when they came home. It was not just the physical injuries—what we'd call the below-the-neck injuries—but also those other injuries. So this piece of legislation enables those families of those members who were part of those deployments to ensure that they were assisted and were—not rewarded and it was never seen as an reward—acknowledged and given the necessary assistance. So fixing this piece of legislation to ensure those smaller ones—and like all those it's often the forgotten theatres of war theatres of activity that become the most important part that cause the issues rather than those that are well traversed in the media social media and even in movies and entertainment later on.So this is a piece of legislation that I'm looking forward to being part of as I say shepherding through the process through the Social Services and Community Committee. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill. I'd like to begin my contribution by acknowledging the Minister for Veterans the Hon Ron Mark. As I travel around the country and I speak to veterans the Minister is always spoken of in a very high regard and the point that they raise is the fact that the Minister has served in the New Zealand armed forces. The veterans appreciate that because they know they have someone as their Minister who can relate and who has served and I'd just like to acknowledge that fact. I think it certainly is seen as a very important fact. I'd like to thank the Minister for his service to our country and I'd like to lead on from there to thank all of those veterans for their service to our country. My father-in-law fought in Malaya Borneo and Vietnam and it was certainly a difficult time for him as he served over there. For him to have the support that he requires as he's now in his 70s is absolutely vital and this piece of legislation ensures that that support is there for him and also for other veterans. We have heard from a number of speakers the fact that it's simply around correcting a drafting error and that's true but it's important that we don't belittle that because correcting this drafting error provides certainty to those veterans for the support that they need. It's important that we do this quickly so that New Zealand veterans can have that sense of certainty around their entitlements and around that support and I'd like acknowledge the Minister for his leadership on this. I commend this bill to the House.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to a very important bill.The bill has already been well canvassed and I hope that my short contribution doesn't detract from the support from the entire House for our armed services those who have served and those who are still currently serving. So I end my contribution by saying well done to the Minister and I commend this bill to the House.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party to put on record again our support for this piece of legislation. I will be right upfront—I'm not going to fill the full 10 minutes. This is about fixing a drafting error and we all I understand are supporting this bill across the House. I did speak to the original legislation and I will as we go into this debate recall some of the submissions from family members of veterans who told harrowing stories of the impact of war on their dads in particular—they were the stories I remember. We got to see the intergenerational impact of fathers not accessing the support that they needed to deal with the trauma of their experience in conflict. The initial legislation sought to put in place a framework to ensure that all of the people who are sent off into conflict zones by this House are properly supported to be able to deal with the huge consequences of that because we can't kid ourselves that war does not have a profound impact on the people there. So this piece of legislation is fixing the drafting error. The initial intent of the legislation was to enable the Minister to declare a deployment as qualifying operational service for that support for veterans at any time before during or after a deployment occurred. That's how it's been operating for the last five years but in the process of reviewing the policies I understand it was discovered that in actual fact technically there wasn't the ability to extend that coverage to veterans who had been deployed before 2014. That makes no sense and doesn't match the intent of the original legislation. So it's great that we're all standing in the House and hopefully with short speeches so we can speed this through to make sure those veterans have the full support of our law.
Williams PotoVETERANS' SUPPORT AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 28 May.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): When we were last debating the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill Priyanca Radhakrishnan had nine minutes remaining to speak—should she so wish? And she does.
Tuesday 7 May 2019 - Volume 737
Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Annual Review Debate — External Sector
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the reports of committees relevant to the External Sector be noted.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Reports of committees relevant to the External Sector noted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the reports of committees relevant to the Environment Sector be noted.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Reports of committees relevant to the Environment Sector noted.
Annual Review Debate — Environment Sector
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the reports of committees relevant to the Education Sector be noted. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57 New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Reports of committees relevant to the Education Sector noted.
Annual Review Debate — Education Sector
Annual Review Debate — Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the reports of committees relevant to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector be noted.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Reports of committees relevant to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector noted.
12. Question No. 12—Internal AffairsMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 12—Internal Affairs12. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made regarding the recovery from the devastating Tasman fire?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): It was a pleasure on Saturday last week to attend an event at the Richmond Fire Station to acknowledge International Firefighters' Day and can I thank all the members across the House that also did that to acknowledge their local firefighters. I particularly want to acknowledge Melissa Lee and how wonderful she looked in their level 2 gears. At that event I had the opportunity to announce another $792000 from the Lottery Grants Board for the restoration efforts via the Tasman Mayoral Disaster Relief Fund.SPEAKER: I'll call a supplementary question but if I gave that answer I'd be in trouble! Mark Patterson: Is this the only funding that the Lottery Grants Board has provided for the restoration efforts?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No. Earlier this year on 15 March I travelled to Nelson to announce an initial payment of $1 million of Lottery Grants Board funding through my lottery ministerial discretionary fund. The subsequent amount is recognition that Fire and Emergency New Zealand and the Tasman District Council have since made a more accurate assessment of the extent and cost of damage.
8. Question No. 8—HealthHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: What advice if any has he given to the Prime Minister about an early access scheme for patients seeking faster access to new medicines through Pharmac?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The Prime Minister has asked me to accelerate work looking at options for early access to medicines. While I've had some initial advice it is not yet sufficiently developed to provide to the Prime Minister or her office.Hon Michael Woodhouse: When did that work first commence?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have received reports around questions I've had around early-access schemes since I became the Minister. I couldn't name them all.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that many of the cancer sufferers who signed one of the six petitions tabled today will die waiting for that advice?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Obviously this is a difficult and emotive issue and I understand the anger and frustration directed at Pharmac over these matters. It is why I have instructed Pharmac to look at the openness and transparency of their decision-making process and it's also why we are looking at options for early access.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with Pharmac CEO Sarah Fitt that taking more money from district health boards (DHBs) means less money for hospital services and will he commit that any funding for an early-access scheme won't be funded out of existing DHB budgets?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would expect that the Pharmac CEO provided that comment in a wider context because Pharmac is able with its purchasing power to gain more drugs for more people through using the budget that also sits in DHBs.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well isn't it true that early access to at least some of the medicines that are the subject of those petitions could have been funded by the $200 million of Pharmac savings achieved in Budget 2018 had that money not been reprioritised to other parts of the health sector?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Pharmac budget is at a record amount currently and I'm not about to make the clinical decisions that Pharmac makes. They are difficult decisions to make—prioritising drugs—and they do it based on evidence.
6. Question No. 6—Social DevelopmentPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Social Development6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about making the welfare system fairer and more accessible?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On Friday alongside the release of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's report Whakamana Tāngata: Restoring dignity to social security in New Zealand I made three pre-Budget announcements that will contribute to the fairer and more accessible welfare system that this Government is committed to. Firstly there was the repeal of section 192—formerly section 70A—which penalises parents and children by reducing a client's benefit if they do not name the other parent of their child and apply for child support; secondly there was an increase in the abatement threshold for main benefits over the next four years to reflect this Government's commitment to increasing the minimum wage; and finally we announced 263 extra front-line staff at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) over four years to better support people into meaningful and sustainable employment.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What impact will these announcements have?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: These announcements show that this Government is taking immediate action to support people into work and improve income security for New Zealanders. By repealing section 192 around 24000 children will be better off as a result of this change with sole parents who are currently affected receiving on average an extra $34 a week. The changes to the abatement threshold will ensure that as this Government increases the minimum wage over the next four years and clients who are working and on minimum wage will receive the benefits of these increases and our extra front-line staff will mean there is a more proactive employment service available to support people into the right work for them.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What are the next steps for overhauling our welfare system?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Welfare Expert Advisory Group's report will contribute greatly to this Government's welfare overhaul. The three pre-Budget announcements are important steps and in total we have already started working on around 15 of the recommendations in the report. However we know there is much more to do which is why we will be taking action in our three priority areas: income support; supporting everyone who is able to to be earning learning caring or volunteering; and improving access to affordable housing. At the same time we will also be developing a three- to five-year plan that sensibly addresses recommendations in the report through a systematic overhaul of the welfare system that is effective and enduring and that ensures those who need access to MSD support are actually better off.
3. Question No. 3—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 3—Education3. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has the Government made to get more teachers in classrooms and support thousands more in training?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last week I announced a $95 million investment in teacher training and recruitment—the largest in a decade. This will fund almost 2500 more teachers through more scholarships more on-the-job training and new iwi-based scholarships. We're also supporting 800 beginning teachers into the workforce through the new National Beginning Teacher Induction Grants and the voluntary bonding scheme expansion.Jan Tinetti: How does this additional new funding compare to previous investments made to address teacher supply?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The $95 million I announced last week builds on the $40 million investment the new Government made shortly after taking office. That's about 12 times the mere $11 million of new money invested in the nine years before that.Jan Tinetti: How does the $95 million for teacher supply build upon previous announcements over the past 18 months made by this Government to support our teachers?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has committed among other things $500 million to support children with additional learning needs. A significant portion of that money will fund 600 more teachers to fill the role of learning support coordinators in our schools. We've also been working to reduce compliance to make sure that teachers have the time to focus on teaching and of course we've been investing in a large capital upgrade for our schools to ensure that the working conditions and learning conditions of our teachers and students are improved.
Dyson Ruth; Tolley AnneSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker it's always good for the House to conclude on a high note and you couldn't get much higher than the contribution from Greg O'Connor. It would be a shame to have just a few seconds on an important first reading speech so I seek leave of the House for the House to rise now. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.The House adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. It's my pleasure tonight to stand up and speak against the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I think Mr Wood has just given us a perfectly good example of why we don't need this legislation. The reality is that he's talked about all of the social projects he's talked about the trusts that were set up in his patch and he's talked about libraries. Well actually libraries have been around for a terribly long time and they didn't need four well-beings in the Local Government Act to put them there because local government can simply do whatever its community asks it to do and is prepared to pay for. So putting them in legislation simply adds a huge bureaucratic level—Michael Wood: How?MAUREEN PUGH: —into the reporting and assessment of local government. I can speak from experience Mr Wood because I was involved when the four well-beings were actually put into the Local Government Act. The reality is that every single activity of council has to be assessed against every one of those well-beings and in order to do that—in order to have that assessment—you've got to consult with your community to see how they feel that you have performed against those assessments in the four well-beings. So we have this huge compliance layer that is added to local government and the reporting that needs to be done gets added into the audit process. Now we all know what happens when you have Audit New Zealand come in to order your local government accounts and your activities—what happens is that Audit New Zealand comes along and then assesses again how well you've performed against those well-beings. There Mr Wood comes the cost. And where does that cost lay? Of course it lays with the ratepayers; there is no other way it can be paid for. So why would we want to layer yet another level of cost onto the ratepayers for absolutely no benefit? The things that happen in local government can happen with or without this legislation.The only reason that I can think of that this Government would want to add these well-beings in is because it is divesting responsibility for those social outcomes back to local government when it is the domain of central government to take care of. For that reason I oppose this bill.
Tolley Anne; Falloon AndrewLOCAL GOVERNMENT (COMMUNITY WELL-BEING) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 2 May.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity tonight to speak on the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill in its third reading. It is a third reading and it is my first opportunity to speak on this bill. I do understand it went to the Governance and Administration Committee where it would have been shepherded through under my good friend Mr Brett Hudson who's a very good and able chairman. I do want to turn to a couple of the provisions of the bill but the first one is the primary focus I guess which is to promote the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of communities" and the concern that we have on this side of the House is what does that mean in terms of cost and in terms of increased rates. I would like to turn initially just to the very very good submission that was put in by Federated Farmers who are one of the few organisations who do work across New Zealand across every territorial authority and across every regional council certainly in terms of the organisations who submitted. So I do think they have a very important perspective and this is what they had to say. Their recommendation which is in paragraph 3.8 says "Federated Farmers recommends that the Bill should not proceed and it should be reconsidered after the Productivity Commission's upcoming inquiry into local government funding has been completed and its findings and recommendations considered by the government." I think that's actually a very worthy thing that the select committee and certainly this Parliament should consider because as I understand it the Productivity Commission's submissions closed back in February—so quite recently—and in fact they'll be reporting back in about November. So it's not very far away at all for Government and indeed this Parliament to wait and look at their findings and say "Right we need to take those on board and actually incorporate those into this legislation or indeed scrap this legislation and come up with something quite new." I did suggest this was going to be a brief call but before I finish I do just want to cover off a couple of comments that were raised previously when this bill was debated last week. The first one of those is that I enjoyed the contribution by Ms Chlöe Swarbrick as I often do but in her contribution she said that what National was saying was that it is untrue that there would be increases in rates as a result of this bill. Well Ms Swarbrick I just want to point you to the contribution of your colleague Mr Paul Eagle who a couple of speeches before you actually said that when this bill passes "I know that councils will unleash a range of things". So—to end—my question to Ms Swarbrick is: how does she think those things will be paid for? Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I was going to use this contribution on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) to talk about communities of online learning and the opportunity they provided for choice. I was going to talk about the Teachers Council and a Minister who is introducing directives barely a few weeks after he said he wanted a more independent council but instead I listened to the contribution of Tracey Martin and I felt absolutely compelled this evening to speak on behalf of the tens of thousands of parents up and down this country who struggle with making the choices about how they will balance their paid work with their children about how they will balance their desire to give their children the very best in life—to give them their care to give them their love to provide them with opportunities and choices for the future—and about how they will balance that with the very real need they have to go to work each day and earn a crust.I raise this tonight because what we have had in this debate is the spectre of Nikki Kaye suggesting very fairly that up till this point New Zealanders have expected that every five-year-old would have the right on their fifth birthday to attend school and yes what that meant when cohort entry was introduced was that some children would start school a few weeks before they turned five—just a few weeks before they turned five—in order to hit the cohort entry. What Nikki Kaye suggested was that actually some parents might make that choice because they believe it best suits their child and their family circumstances—that it would best allow them to manage their family's life—and what a very good point that is. But what did the Minister for Telling Parents what is Best for their Children"—Minister Tracey Martin—say? She said that parents who made that choice—the parents who chose to let their children start school just a few weeks before their fifth birthday—weren't putting their children's needs first. Oh no they weren't; what they were doing was putting their desire to return to work first. Well Minister Tracey Martin on behalf of New Zealand parents I say: how dare you bring that attitude into this House? And to the parents of New Zealand who struggle with these choices who try to do what's best for their kids I say to you well actually I understand that you are doing what is best for your children and I reject the notion that you get from Ministers like Minister Tracey Martin that somehow you are not putting your children's needs first because those parents are and the last thing they need is another person laying another layer of guilt on them telling them that the Government knows best what's best for their children and their family. This Government doesn't know what's best for individual parents and their circumstances and it smacks of the ideology of Labour and New Zealand First that they think they can tell parents what is best for them. Well Tracey Martin may not trust you to make the choices that are best for your children but I do and National does. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope it was not me that the member was talking about. NICOLA WILLIS: No I apologise."
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to take a short call on this bill tonight. I'd like to acknowledge my colleagues who've made extraordinarily good contributions and have covered much of the material and who were indeed in the select committee as I was not. What I would like to talk about briefly is cohort entry and just really take a look at what we've heard so far from the other side of the House and deal with some rebuttal you could say. Firstly just briefly dealing with Jan Tinetti—I'm not sure that we actually should be changing legislation because of something Jan Tinetti didn't understand on the internet. If that was the case we would potentially be here a long time and be rather busy. But what I want to do is actually base my contribution tonight on what Tracey Martin said because actually there are a few of us mothers on this side of the House tonight who were listening to her contribution and our blood was boiling. Tracey Martin has henceforth come to this House tonight and decreed that if you send your kid to school before they're five years old you are a terrible mother. That is classic left-wing politics: we know best. We will dictate to you what is best for your family and for your child because we know best. You can't possibly know what's best for your child and your family. We know what's best. I apologise Madam Deputy Speaker. It's so wrong on so many levels because parental choice is about the ability to know what is best for the individual child. Some families hold their child back until they're six to send them to school. Others want to start them slightly earlier. It's for a variety of reasons: maybe the child is ready maybe they've got an older sibling at the school and maybe—yes maybe that mother wants to go back to work and that is not the bad negative terrible thing that Tracey Martin seems to think it is. Actually mothers make choices to go back to work most often in the best interests of their family and of their child because it takes some of the pressure off the family. Maybe it's a financial pressure; maybe it's an emotional pressure of the mother. There are many reasons—maybe they want all of their children going to the same place at the same time. There are a number of reasons but Tracey Martin is going to dictate to you that you are a terrible mother and it's bad for your child because she knows best.How would she feel I wonder if I told her that I sent my son to day care when he was 10 months old? She's probably reeling over there. What an awful parent I am. I know. The guilt of the mothers out there listening to her dictate what's best for their child—how absolutely appalling. It is such a destructive attitude. We are standing for choice and backing parents and mothers to know what is best for their family and for their kid and not making them feel guilty for making that decision. Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker.
Lee Denise; Tolley AnneDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for a chance to speak on what is basically a crude dismantling of previous National Party reforms. The Government didn't even try to mask the raw ideological grab at important educational institutions and systems. The messy hodgepodge includes ironically considering the previous bill—I guess you could call it the No. 1 bill this being the No. 2 bill—reducing independence of the Education Council deliberately burdening private schools annoying and confusing parents as to when their kids can start school and finally scrapping communities of online learning. On that last note as a demonstration of how ill-disciplined ill-advised and ill-inducing this bill is they're scrapping communities of online learning without a replacement. Go figure. The Virtual Learning Network which the Minister previously referred to—that group of educators told us at the Education and Workforce Committee that online learning if done right is perfect for students who are not engaging or have diverse needs. Very fascinating to hear a Cabinet Minister just earlier refer to what sounded to me like implied lazy five-year-olds with lots of screen time—extraordinary comments. The good folks from the Virtual Learning Network told us—and this is a real kicker here—that no one had talked to them. Again I repeat: no one had talked to them. That's what they said when they turned up for their submission and I and many members here in the Chamber were there in person. Very reasonably the Virtual Learning Network simply want the following: a regulatory framework to be clarified. That's not asking for much. It's not rocket science. That does sound reasonable. But folks don't hold your breath.DEPUTY SPEAKER: So this is a split call. I call Jan Tinetti.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the committee report progress. Motion agreed to.House resumed. Progress reported. Report adopted.
Williams PotoAnnual financial statements of the Government and Finance and Government Administration SectorCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): There are two questions in this next debate. The first is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the previous financial year be noted. The second is that the reports of committees relevant to the finance and Government administration sector be noted.
Urgent Debates Declined — Referendum—Legalising the Recreational Use of Cannabis
Points of Order — Global Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice
Motion — Battle of Monte Cassino—75th Anniversary
Tolley AnneCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I call the next speaker can I just refer—I know we only do this once a year—members to the Speakers' Rulings 131/1 to 5 which is the conduct of debate. In particular 131/3 At some point members must make reference to the period of expenditure under review or one of the select committee reports". So it's not just a general speech that you're giving about how wonderful the Government is or the select committee is etc. We do actually want some reference to that period of expenditure under review."
Tolley AnneANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Colleagues can I ask your indulgence while you leave the House. This that I'm going to read out is quite a long piece for me to read so I suggest that you bear with me and listen carefully.The House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments offices of the Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. The time allocated for this debate is 10 hours. The debate is divided into 10 separate debates covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations 2017/18. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of a select committee reporting on the sector in order to set out the major findings of that committee. Other speeches are allocated on a proportional basis based on membership of the House—and that means that executive members are included in that count. The parties therefore have the following number of calls to use as they choose across the debates: National has 51 Labour has 42 New Zealand First has eight Greens have seven ACT has one and Jami-Lee Ross has one call. At the end of each debate the question will be put that the committee reports relevant to the sector be noted. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members depending on the party's use of their allocated calls. However the debate expires after 10 hours. A motion to report progress on a bill must be moved on a call not a point of order—and that's Speakers' ruling 77/5. Because the annual review debate will run for a fixed period of time and the calls have been allocated proportionally it would harm the proportionality of the debate to treat a motion to report progress as a member's entire call. Therefore when a member moves to report progress in this annual review debate the presiding officer will call on that member first when the debate resumes. This is a similar process to that followed in other debates when they are adjourned. At the conclusion of the debate a single question is put on the provisions of the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment or debate on this question. We turn first to the select committee reports on the first sector of annual reviews and the question is that the report of committees relevant to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector be noted.
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDReferendum—Legalising the Recreational Use of CannabisSPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Paula Bennett seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government's recent announcement regarding the proposed referendum on legalising the recreational use of cannabis. This is a particular case of recent occurrence it involves ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular matter requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one—I am not convinced that the application meets the test for urgency. I must therefore decline the application.
Sage Eugenie; Mallard TrevorPOINTS OF ORDERMotion Without Notice—Leave to MoveHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to acknowledge the global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science and Policy Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection.
Mark RonTUESDAY 7 MAY 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSBattle of Monte Cassino—75th AnniversaryHon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Cassino.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.Hon RON MARK: Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That this House recognise that 18 May 2019 is the 75th anniversary of the fall of Cassino which brought to an end one of the most brutal and costly battles in which New Zealand forces fought during the Second World War.Motion agreed to.
Thursday 9 May 2019 - Volume 737
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading