edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Look I look forward to adding a few comments to the top drawer contributions that we've had this afternoon on this bill. I appreciate the contribution of Simon Court bringing in one of the greatest movies actually of all time—The Castle—talking about the fact that he didn't really get the vibe" of the thing. Well mate that speech of yours "is going straight to the pool room"—straight to the pool room! It was—Hon Phil Twyford: Tell him he's dreaming.TODD MULLER: Yes exactly—he is dreaming. But frankly I agree with the comments that have been made. This is not a moral hazard at all; this is sensible legislation and National and Labour have actually you know collectively worked through it to get it to a good place.I acknowledge the Greens' contribution by Julie Anne Genter. She is right—every one-in-a-hundred of their ideas is actually worth reflecting on and putting in some legislation. So she is right that the National Party does see merit in this but I wouldn't get her hopes up that it's going to occur again any time soon.It's had a very good select committee process. You heard that from the contributions of the members across both sides of the House who have been involved in this bill from its inception. The contributions from submitters were insightful and saw a number of sensible changes that we support.We think this actually strikes the right balance between contributing to a stable and efficient financial system on the one hand without being overly burdensome on deposit takers. I think it does strike the right balance we support it and it's a piece of legislation that we hope can quickly progress this afternoon."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I'm going to make a very short contribution. I think I will just go to two points. One I absolutely agree that the small cooperatives and non-bank depositors have really had their interests protected in this in a way that was the result of the work and the thought of the select committee. What came to us didn't really have that kind of accommodation and what left did. I think that's a really good thing because I belong to one of those and I think that they're a very good part of our market.The other point I wanted to make was that this idea of securing deposits has been around for a long time. In fact in America they've had it since 1933. It has been one of the things that's made their system more stable at times. I don't think it was the Greens' idea; I think it's a general principle and it's a good one and it stabilises things. I reject the idea that there's a moral hazard in doing it. It makes good sense. I commend this bill to the House.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Look the ACT Party won't be supporting the Deposit Takers Bill. Damien Smith our representative on the Finance and Expenditure Committee has made it clear that ACT is very very concerned about the moral hazard that a Government underwriting depositors may create. I just want to refresh the memory of the House on what ACT's primary concerns are—a depositor and a deposit taker isolated from the consequences of risky behaviour which could increase its occurrence.Evidence from overseas is that deposit insurance only increases the risk because depositors feel that they don't need to pay as much careful attention to the nature of the investments that they're putting their money into because it creates the sense that well the Government will take care of us the Government will sort it out the Government will bail out the bank or the non-bank deposit taker.What is a much more important factor in preventing runs on banks where depositors might lose their investments is a strong credible financial institution and New Zealand is very fortunate that our four main trading banks are anchored in our neighbouring country Australia where they have enormous balance sheets and where they have extensive investments in hard assets including minerals and resources to underpin the solvency of their banks. New Zealand is a relatively small market with only 5 million people only 3 million who work and not all of those are net taxpayers. And yet the cost of deposit takers' insurance is going to fall primarily on the Crown. It's going to require an expansion of Reserve Bank powers and it's also going to be funded by levies on deposit takers which means an increase in cost and a reduction in return.Hon Dr David Clark: Not the Crown.SIMON COURT: Well the Hon David Clark says not the Crown" but the entire sense that the bill has created—Hon Dr David Clark: The sense! The vibe!SIMON COURT: —the vibe—is that the Crown is on the hook that the Government will take care of you. That's the moral hazard. ACT believes that strong credible financial institutions especially a credible Reserve Bank and a credible Governor of the Reserve Bank are far more important to ensure that deposit takers and depositors feel confident and are protected than this legislation. That is why ACT would reform the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act to ensure that the board has appointees that are credible economists with significant financial governance experience. It turns out that the Reserve Bank has been recruiting people and it says explicitly in the recruitment advertisements: no economics experience or qualifications required. So if anything is going to undermine the confidence in our banking depositors and deposit taking institutions it's having the sector administered by people who are not in fact economists and don't have any financial experience. That's why ACT would reform the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act.So ACT will not be supporting this bill but we look forward should there be a change of Government to opening up the discussion again and delivering a far better outcome for New Zealand borrowers and New Zealand investors."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): It's a delight to speak on the Deposit Takers Bill which I've interacted with at various points in various guises over many years and it's interesting to hear other members' reflect on their connections with it through its long passage through the policy and parliamentary stages.I do want to just draw a couple of points that Ingrid Leary the member for Taieri has touched on around the proportionality framework—I really support her comments. And I also note the fantastic influence of Dunedin members on this bill—we'll claim Grant Robertson back—of course Rachel Brooking and Ingrid Leary both chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) and the Hon Michael Woodhouse making contributions as you heard earlier. There's some really good Dunedin input into this bill and I think it's the better for it.So the bill as we've heard does some really important things: setting clear objectives for the new deposit taker regime; it sets out the licensing process for deposit takers; it provides the Reserve Bank with power to set standards for deposit takers it might be capital requirements or liquidity requirements; and it also expands the ability of the Reserve Bank to supervise and enforce the provisions in the deposit takers regime. And of course much of the debate has focused around or commented on the deposit compensation scheme of up to $100000 per deposit and per institution. All of those things were a real response to the International Monetary Fund's review of the New Zealand financial sector regulation in 2016-17. So it's got a good pedigree and achieves things that we would want to see to make our banking sector more stable.But I wanted to just note the proportionality framework that is going to be developed by the Reserve Bank and the fact that they've committed to bringing that back in its draft form to receive some feedback from the FEC probably in the next Parliament.Just for context we know that registered banks account for $650 billion in assets in the New Zealand market whereas the non-bank deposit taking sector accounts for just over $3 billion—it's a really big difference. Members of that committee felt it incredibly important that the regime really looked at where the risk was and responded in a proportionate fashion.I do again congratulate the members the Hon Rachel Brooking and Ingrid Leary—both Dunedin colleagues—for their input into this bill and the overseeing of these changes that have I think made the bill stronger and better and hopefully more responsive to the needs of New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'd just like to pick up on a couple of points made by the Minister Grant Robertson in the previous contribution around the flexibility proportionality and competition because in fact the issues that the Hon Michael Woodhouse raised around the need for flexibility and proportionality so that smaller players and a diversity of players in the market can thrive are exactly the reason that the Finance and Expenditure Committee did make those fairly significant changes both around access to the financial system in terms of the purpose but more particularly around diversity and diversity of provider and diversity of people accessing the players in the market. Because it was our view that this type of more nuanced approach to regulation would ultimately lead to greater competition and that in turn would lead to more stability. So it's interesting that one of the debates we had in the select committee was when we looked at including those elements there seemed to be an assumption at times from various people that the stability of the financial system and the elements of diversity and access were mutually exclusive where in fact some of us believe that they do go in the same direction very much for those competition reasons that I've just stated. Nevertheless there is a backstop in the legislation to ensure that if they are at odds with each other it is stability of the financial system that will take primacy.The other thing I'd just like to raise is around what will happen now with the standards. The Minister mentioned what would happen henceforth. The conditions of regulation will now be replaced by standards under the Legislation Act 2019 and that means that the work that the Reserve Bank does will go before the Regulations Review Committee. But also the Reserve Bank has undertaken to come back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee whether under this Parliament or much more likely the next and we just all wanted that in the Hansard to ensure that they do that because a lot of the devil will be in the detail and the proportionality and the functioning of those standards will be really important. We are aware that the Reserve Bank is in effect writing its own rules so that oversight will be critical. With that I commend the bill to the House.
Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party is proud to support this settlement. The ACT Party supports the concept of property rights and where one group of New Zealanders find that their property rights have been impacted by the behaviour or the actions of another group including the Crown the ACT Party believes that those people whose property rights have been infringed should have their day in court and in this case their day in Parliament.So the ACT Party will support this claims settlement bill. I do note that many of the places that the redress—particularly the cultural redress properties and Ngā Whenua Rāhui—applies to are places that many New Zealanders would recognise and enjoy particularly people travelling regularly from Auckland to the Bay of Plenty and vice versa through the Karangahake Gorge. So it is of great interest to many people that these places have care and protection and that is what this bill anticipates.It is also wonderful to see the acknowledgment that the minerals in part of the lands that have been returned to Ngāti Tara Tokanui are available to be developed because one thing that New Zealand is blessed with is many minerals not just gold and silver but others that are absolutely vital as we move into a technology century. If we want to achieve a low-emissions low-carbon economy having access to those minerals and being able to derive value from them means that we can create not just economic value but social benefits from the employment that development of those mineral resources allows.So we hope that under the guardianship and care of Ngāti Tara Tokanui they will find a way to develop the land that is available to them and to enrich themselves and their people for many generations to come. So with that I just want to summarise that the ACT Party supports this bill.
Personal Statements — Privileges Committee—Report on Correction of Misleading Statement
Tinetti JanPERSONAL EXPLANATIONSPrivileges Committee—Report on Correction of Misleading StatementHon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon JAN TINETTI: I have seen the report of the Privileges Committee titled Question of privilege concerning the time taken by the Minister of Education to correct a misleading statement in the House. I accept the committee's findings and I apologise to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Grant Rosoman requesting that the House of Representatives stop the importation of products linked to forest destruction and human rights abuses.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Government response to the petitions of Morteza Sharifi2023-27 Statement of Intent for the Climate Change Commission2023/24 Statement of Performance Expectations for the Climate Change Commission.SPEAKER: I present the 2023-24 Annual Plan of the Controller and Auditor-General. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Briefing into postgraduate stipend supportreports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on theBriefing on the Government's economic response to the August 2021 COVID-19 outbreakController and Auditor-General The Auditor-General's strategic intentions to 2028Petition of Toby WilliamsReport of the Controller and Auditor-General Inquiry into the Strategic Tourism Assets Protection ProgrammeReport of the Controller and Auditor-General The Auditor-General's mid-term reviewreports of the Health Committee on the2021/22 Annual review of the Hutt Valley District Health BoardPetition of Gerard Rushtonreport of the Privileges Committee on the Question of privilege concerning the time taken by the Minister of Education to correct a misleading statement to the House.SPEAKER: The reports of the Controller and Auditor-General the report of the Privileges Committee and the briefings are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Robertson Grant; Woodhouse MichaelBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 18 July. Legislation to be considered in that week will include the second readings of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill and the further stages of the Business Payment Practices Bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill and the Therapeutic Products Bill.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update and wish all members a relaxing if busy two-week recess before the final push. Can the Minister confirm that the business of the House in the first week back will also include a debate on the question of privilege related to time taken by the Minister of Education to correct a misleading statement? Can I note that in the end of that first week back the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill will celebrate its seventh anniversary of having been reported back from the select committee and would he agree that the best way to mark that milestone would be with a second reading?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): In answer to the first part of the question yes I can confirm that that report on that debate will occur in accordance with the Standing Orders. In answer to the second part of the member's question I'll consider what the best way is to commemorate that moment. It may well need to involve alcohol.
O'Connor GregTHURSDAY 29 JUNE 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Wednesday 28 June 2023 (continued on Thursday 29 June 2023) - Volume 769
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Charities Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Emergency Management Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 41New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Emergency Management Bill — First Reading
VoteDEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Noes 42New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Therapeutic Products Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 42New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Therapeutic Products Bill — Second Reading
Lee Melissa; Salesa JennyMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. Looking at the clock I think I'll just take a very short call to give everyone time to have a decent amount of lunch. But I just want to reflect on the comments that my learned colleague Scott Simpson has said from our side of the House. There is absolutely no doubt that everyone in this House is opposed to the very idea of migrant exploitation or exploitation of any sort. The Minister is correct: migrants are often the most vulnerable employees and they actually come under tremendous pressure but as the Hon Scott Simpson has actually laid out this particular bill does not actually address the bigger issue.I guess the biggest concern I have is that this bill removes the requirement of the desk-based officer to have reasonable grounds to do the search on any given employer and without any basis or proof that they're actually doing any wrong. Sometimes those things can be quite difficult to prove right? When employees are actually being mistreated or are being abused they can actually complain make a complaint. If other people actually in the industry notice that you know they're doing something I mean they can always report and that could be the basis for an investigation but that is not what is actually happening here. This random desk officer with no cause to question the employer is able to take on the action which potentially looks at the issues like if the employer employs a migrant they are not authorised to employ how would they know with no basis? That is one of the things that I'm really concerned about.One of the things that we talked about in earlier stages of the bill: we were talking about things like when changes happen to the hours and times that the employees are actually working. I remember working when my parents owned the business—it was a family business and sometimes those hours shift because of things that are not of our control. For example when a container is delivered at a different time and the workers are employed from particular hour to particular hour start and end time can actually shift depending on when that container is actually delivered to empty it.We believe that this is as my colleague has said a fishing expedition by the Government and we do not support this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 12.59 p.m. (Thursday)
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. The Hon Scott Simpson said that migrant exploitation is widespread. It exists but when it comes to solutions rather than opposing the solution that we're providing he's not proposing any solutions. So you can't say that we do have a problem and then at the same time reject the proposed solution. You can't have it both ways.Temporary migrant workers make an important contribution to New Zealand. It's a critical workforce that contributes a lot to our country. At its peak in March 2020 prior to the onset of COVID-19 there were an estimated 235000 temporary migrant workers in New Zealand. It's a workforce that is diverse and includes workers with a range of visa conditions skill levels and personal situations. It is also a workforce that's vulnerable and exposed to exploitation unless robust and fit for purpose legislation is in place to protect them.Currently we all know that we have gaps in our enforcement regimes that exist to ensure employers of migrant workers are complying with their obligations. That's why we believe that the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill implements the remaining changes from the Temporary Migrant Worker Exploitation Review. Once it's passed this legislation will amend the Immigration Act the Employment Relations Act and the Companies Act to introduce a fit for purpose offence and penalty regime to deter employers of temporary migrant workers from non-compliance with their obligations under Immigration's employment law. So we know that migrant exploitation is widespread and it's ugly. It's out there and I would like to commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House because we believe that this is going to be a solution and we believe that this is going to stop this widespread practice in our country. I commend it to the House.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): I'm really proud to have the last word literally on the third reading of this the Charities Amendment Bill. It does some great things for those who volunteer and put all their time into making Aotearoa New Zealand what it is today. I commend this bill to the House.
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): There's nothing for a good shot of adrenalin like being told that you're speaking 20 seconds before you stand up to speak. Yes we are here for the third reading of the Charities Amendment Bill—and thank you Scott Simpson we are opposing this bill as my other colleagues have submitted to the House. It was really interesting to note Chris Penk's position that it's not just the National Party that is opposing this bill; it is indeed parties physically on this side of the House. We've decided to oppose it because we just don't believe that it is going to improve the current system. It is really disappointing that it will be the charities of New Zealand themselves who as everybody has observed really do God's work in this country and we believe that they are being let down in this instance. Barbara Kuriger made the very pertinent comment too that without charities without volunteers in New Zealand this country really would grind to a halt. So with that that was probably the most conflicted and difficult 60-odd seconds of my life so I too will be opposing this bill and I will sit down.
Ngobi TerisaTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō e lelei Madam Speaker. As a member of the awesome Social Services and Community Committee and having worked in the charity sector and also as a volunteer for over two decades in the Ōtaki electorate I know the bog-down of paperwork that happens in terms of reporting and this bill stops that. We on this side of the House the Labour Government understand this and we want to support those charities to get on and do with the job they love to do with their passion that is supporting New Zealanders. This is a good bill and that's what that does. It supports charities it supports New Zealanders and I commend it to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I commend the Charities Amendment Bill to the House.
Craig Liz; Salesa JennyDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and speak on the third reading of this bill and I'd like to begin by just saying thank you to all of those working in the charitable sector for the work that they do. People rely on charities for so many things in their lives—I'm just thinking about the food banks environmental groups and even the performing arts—and so what this bill does is it makes sure that charities can get on and do the work that they do while still being publicly accountable. The changes that it makes create some of the streamlining. The first thing they do is acknowledge that many charities—the very small ones—are run by volunteers and so it's important that all of their time isn't taken up with paperwork. So what the bill does is it enables simpler financial reporting for very small charities. It also makes access to justice easier for those charities that wish to appeal decisions of the Charities Registration Board because what it does is it creates a charities review authority that can hear those first appeals rather than them having to do the expensive process of getting their appeals heard in the High Court in the first instance. So this is a really important bill and I'm happy to commend it to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call Chris Penk—five minutes.
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call on the Charities Amendment Bill. I'm sure it's no surprise that ACT is not going to be supporting this at third reading. First I'll just point out that obviously we're all in agreement here that charities are an extremely important aspect of New Zealand society—highly valued. I myself have been involved in charities over the years and still am to this day.But the problem is this bill like many others—I'd call it a trend but it's kind of an obvious transformation of taking something and interfering with it like crazy and adding more bureaucracy and compliance. And there's sort of this notion that this House exists to just make lives of New Zealanders more difficult every single day. You know the role of this House as it should be is to liberalise life for New Zealanders and this bill does not do that.It is a very disappointing bill and if I refer back to the Labour Party's 2017 manifesto where they talked about undertaking a first-principles post-implementation review that obviously hasn't happened. And you know usually it's a good thing that things in Labour's manifesto don't happen. But in this case you know the charity sector deserves more. This is not a law that gets discussed very often and looked at by a select committee. And speaking of the select committee as I mentioned in a previous reading—Glen Bennett: Great committee.Dr JAMES McDOWALL: Yep good on you. In terms of the submissions I mean it didn't give me a great deal of confidence and there was certainly a lot of people concerned charities concerned with this bill and the Department of Internal Affairs' response and involvement and really just the interaction with the charities sector is probably not good enough.I just don't buy it: a lot of the compliance and regulations the reasons for having these things for extra financial burdens and reporting that has to be done I don't buy it—there's an ulterior motive in this. Just looking at another part of this legislation you know things like this bill disqualifies persons from being officers if they have been convicted of financing terrorism. You know you kind of expect that a charity probably wouldn't appoint someone an officer in that sort of situation anyway. Nevertheless I hope that includes members of the Mongrel Mob for instance and their charitable work that gets funded by the Government.So as I said ACT will not be supporting this bill at third reading and I do not commend it to the House. Thank you.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Notwithstanding the partisan carping from the Opposition benches not particularly the member who just spoke before but I thought the National Party member Scott Simpson was particularly dyspeptic in his contribution in the House this morning quite out of keeping—quite out of keeping—with the subject matter at hand which is a very sensible very practical set of measures to modernise and continue the task of ensuring that the regulatory framework for charities who do so much good in this country is fit for purpose. As the Minister outlined this morning there's a number of very practical changes here which will provide the regulator the kind of flexibility to ensure that the regulatory burden that falls on even some of the smallest charities of which there are many in New Zealand today is appropriate and won't unnecessarily distract them from the important work that they do.So the bill improves the process for charities to object to the decisions that affect them. It enhances the transparency by requiring the regulator to publish decisions and consult with the sector on the guidance that it provides. It gives the regulator the chief executive of the department the power to exempt small charities from the compliance burden. It clarifies who should be captured as officers of a charity and what their role is. And it gives the regulator a number of tools for compliance and enforcement. So I commend this bill to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Actually it is a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I just heard 10 minutes of wet and whiny complaints and not one single promise of what would be done better or how they would do better; just point the finger and that was it. But that's not what I'm here for today.First and foremost I beg your indulgence: I want to just acknowledge a volunteer in the charity sector who I had the opportunity to attend an event for. Mr Alan Pine who is a Knight of the Order of St John received his 65-year service gilt on the weekend and I want to acknowledge on behalf of this House his extraordinary service for a charity that has been in place since the 19th century.I now resume back to the bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister who has progressed this bill to conclusion Priyanca Radhakrishnan. She does know the charitable sector very well and can attest to the changes that have been made and in fact what a difference this will make: 28000 charities and about 14000 of those charities are affected by this change. I want to acknowledge the 95 submissions and the 28 oral submitters the Department of Internal Affairs the Office of the Clerk the Parliamentary Counsel Office the Regulations Review Committee and the Social Services and Community Committee who by and large worked very collegially.This bill amends the Charities Act by requiring charitable entities to regularly review their governance procedures gives the Charities Registration Board the ability to disqualify individuals rather than whole charities reduces financial reporting and compliance rules for those charities in tier 4 and moves appeals from the High Court which was extremely expensive into the Taxation Review Authority—all things that are very useful and valuable.I would just like to acknowledge that there are 28000 charities and we are very lucky to have such a charitable sense in this community something we've not seen from the National Party today. Nevertheless I commend this bill to the House.
Ngobi TerisaTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Kia orana Madam Speaker. Meitaki maata for the opportunity to take just a short call on the Emergency Management Bill this morning which improves and modernises the civil defence and emergency management law but more importantly it retains that responses are locally led regionally coordinated and centrally supported. In the Ōtaki electorate we've also had experiences with the severe weather events lately. Last year we had a hurricane that ripped through Levin and a couple of months ago we had a hurricane that hit Paraparaumu. The quickness of the civil defence and emergency management teams which were locally led were able to get together and get out to their communities—they know how to message out to their communities. They know how to quickly get those messages of support out and they're also supported by Government with funds that went to the mayoral fund.That is the key for me in this bill—to continue to make sure that we know that locals know how to locally lead and as a Government we come and support. That is what this bill does. I commend it to the House.
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a call on the Emergency Management Bill. Having come from the Defence Force I've been involved with a lot of emergency responses at all levels of the response and I can see that this is essential. This bill will absolutely enhance the response that we will be able to provide our communities. I think that the Opposition have fundamentally misunderstood what the bill is actually trying to achieve. This bill will enable us to deliver the right effect at the right time within the right settings. The Opposition also mentioned that there were a lot of volunteer groups providing support within the community but the important thing is to be able to provide that coordination and enable them to do their job. There's no use in having two volunteer groups delivering the same effect in the same location if there are multiple areas across that area that need support. Providing leadership from the centre will enable us to do that and that's what this bill does. This bill is not a transformation of the system we already have in place. It wants to make improvements that will strengthen the existing system and make sure that it is adapted to the challenges that we will face in the future.The bill also clarifies the roles of both the lead and support agency and there can be a sense of confusion particularly in those embryonic beginnings of an emergency response. There's nothing worse than trying to figure out who's in charge and there's a lot of dead air and a lot of delayed response as a result of that.So in sum emergency systems can be quite chaotic and it's important that all actors within the response clearly know what their roles and responsibilities are. This bill does that. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'll begin my contribution just by recognising the tireless work of the Minister in terms of the emergency management response from a central level this year in what has been a really horrific year for many people. I would just say in response to Tim van de Molen the last speaker that in terms of reimbursement and the recognition of Māori the fact is that often it is marae who open their doors to all New Zealanders when we've seen these emergency situations play out. However I do take the point from Mr Penk that we do need to look at the network on the ground and ensure that local entities are being supported. Upper Harbour is a north-west Auckland electorate and it's one of the places in New Zealand that was severely affected by the weather events of this year. From Massey to Tōtara Vale and out a bit further to Muriwai there are people who have been horrifically affected. They've welcomed the Government's response in terms of the indications of central support but in addition to looking backwards and needing that support they also want reassurance that we're planning for the risks of the future. So I do believe that this will be a very welcome bill for many and I agree with colleagues in their anticipation of many submissions in this space. This is really a bill about modernising our approach to emergency response in a changing world and while we're doing that we still have an underlying principle which remains the same which is that it will be a locally led response regionally coordinated and centrally supported. I do think that that ought to remain at the heart of any emergency response. I do look forward to reviewing the submissions that come in on this bill which I'm sure will include constituents from north-west Auckland and I commend this bill to the House.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to take a call on the first reading of the Emergency Management Bill. Can I acknowledge Minister Kieran McAnulty for the work that he has done to get the bill to this point and have it introduced to the House. I'm looking forward to the select committee process where we can consider I am going to anticipate a significant number of submissions so that we can improve the bill and bring it back to the House to improve our emergency management system in New Zealand.In my electorate of Nelson we have what I'd call a well-oiled machine in our local emergency management response That is due to people having worked together over a number of incidents including Cyclones Gita and Fehi the Pigeon Valley fires COVID-19 and most recently the August floods in the Nelson region. Can I acknowledge in particular two outstanding individuals Roger Ball and Alec Lavertis who have led our local responses to many of these events.I want to acknowledge that our team has learnt through many examples exactly what a locally led and centrally supported response looks like. Part of that has included iwi liaison officers and our local civil defence response has been one of the models that is being used in the implementation now through this legislation of how we properly partner with iwi Māori. I want to acknowledge Shane Graham Barney Thomas Dexter Traill Aroha Gilling and most recently Rebecca Mason for the work that they have done leading the iwi work within the Nelson-Tasman civil defence system. I note that iwi leaders have conducted mechanisms like Coordinated Incident Management System training to ensure that they are well resourced to support the response that we have in our region.I'm very much looking forward to this bill coming through the select committee so that we can also look at the exact matters that Mr Penk raised around the response to events of this year and look to any further inclusions we can make in this bill. I commend it to the House.
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Therapeutic Products Bill at the second reading. I would like to commend the Health Committee who have worked through what is as you can see a substantial piece of work that has been many years in the making. As we've heard there have been many many submissions to the select committee in this process. Variable submissions as you will often see when you have a great deal of submissions—as we've seen with other pieces of legislation passed through—with very significant and real concerns raised by experts and also by people who were affected who were very specific and I'm going to explore those and see how we have addressed those in the amendments in a moment.Unfortunately though it's also true to say that the committee was bombarded with many submissions—in addition to many submissions that were valid and came from an expert point of view—that I would describe as being weaponised by misinformation and disinformation. That's not to say that there were not serious concerns and that amendments didn't have to be made. We should know by now in the House that the purpose of the select committee is to ensure that the best possible legislation is presented at the second reading and that when we actually move any piece of legislation through the House the concerns that are raised at select committee have been addressed because that's literally the purpose of a select committee. It's a little frustrating for me to hear that process being misrepresented in the House. I want to explore a couple of really serious concerns that were raised by submitters and by constituents to me. One was the importation of medicines for personal use—a very serious issue. Clause 105 in the bill as it was brought to us in its first stage was indeed going to restrict access. So that has been amended to remove the prohibition on importing prescription medicines as part of the delivery conditions providing that if it's a prescription medicine it would need to be prescribed by a New Zealand health practitioner prescriber for that medicine and for the intention of being used by a patient in New Zealand. Which I think will reassure many people who expressed very serious concerns on lifesaving medication that they may not be able to import. That is covered thank goodness by the hard work of the committee. The Government members were also committed from the very beginning to ensure that rongoā Māori was not going to be captured by this legislation and we will see a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) being presented to ensure that Māori will determine what rongoā is and who is a rongoā practitioner and protect it from those who might abuse it. But to protect rongoā is incredibly important and we recognised that from the get-go as indeed we did the need to exempt small-scale natural health product manufacturers who will not need under the SOP to be introduced to get a product authorisation or manufacturing licence from the new regulator. For that reason I have confidence in this bill and the Supplementary Order Papers to come and I commend it to the House.
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It's my pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill which as has already been mentioned in previous contributions plans to exempt many small-scale natural health product manufacturers and rongoā practitioners from regulation under the bill as has been announced by the Minister of Health. This is due to feedback received by the Health Committee from submitters. There was a wide range of feedback and these changes were an acknowledgment that the bill as originally drafted went a little bit too far. Particular concerns were raised around the regulatory regime for natural health products as they weren't proportionate to the risk that was presented. And the last thing we want to do is put on additional costs that may drive those small producers out of business. We all know those small producers in our communities. There are many in the electorate that I live in for example in the Waimakariri where they've set up many of their local farmers markets in Kaiapoi Rangiora Ōhoka and out at Oxford. They have a whole lot of herbs and spices and things like that that won't fall under this bill. So that's fantastic.The bill is intended to support product safety. We took a common-sense approach and I think we've struck the right balance with this regulation being proportionate to the risk. So we've taken a common-sense approach to this bill and it's striking the right balance and as a result I commend it to the House.
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. On behalf of my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer it is a pleasure to speak to the second reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill on behalf of Te Paati Māori. She has put on the record in the first reading and through the Health Committee that if Māori rights under Te Tiriti were being acknowledged and reflected in this process then engagement with the tangata whenua would have occurred before the bill was introduced to Parliament. And this would be reflected by Treaty-based protections in the bill. Instead we have the dire situation in which our people have had to fight tooth and nail for the protection of Rongoā and Rongoā practitioners when this should never have had to be a fight. Rongoā Māori is a Treaty-protected taonga. The Government has acknowledged that this bill was the result of a 10-year work programme and yet they totally failed to work with tangata whenua on Rongoā regulations until after the bill's introduction. This is completely unacceptable.The opposition of tangata whenua to the Crown regulating Rongoā has been unmistakeable it has been loud and it has been clear. Submission after submission to the select committee communicated this. Rongoa practitioners around the country have been generous in their time and commitment to ensuring this bill is changed. I note the submission of Tohe Ashby heamana mō Ngā Rongoā o Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu who laid out the whakapapa of the rights and protections which must be upheld: from He Whakaputanga to Te Tiriti to the Wai 262 claim and the kōrero and findings of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry. I also acknowledge the hīkoi that arrived to the steps of Parliament in recent weeks voicing opposition by our people. But despite all that the bill before the House still includes Rongoā.We acknowledge the announcement of the Minister of Health that it is now proposed that in most cases Government will not regulate Rongoā in the new regulatory system and that they will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to make this change at the committee of the whole House stage. We appreciate her statement on his behalf that we are serious about protecting Rongoā and Rongoā practitioners.Proposed changes to the bill will also ensure Rongoā activities and services operating from marae continue as usual. On that basis we will be conditionally supporting the bill at second reading.However we do question why these changes weren't made during the select committee process—an opportunity for parties to work together and make the necessary amendments before the bill was brought back to the House. We will be keeping a close eye on the provision of the SOP that has been signalled by the Minister. We will scrutinise that in detail to ensure that it sufficiently protects Rongoā and the rights and interests of tangata whenua. We hope that the Minister will work with Rongoā experts and parties across the House to ensure that he gets the wording right. The Crown has no right to bring Rongoā into Pākehā law putting Rongoā practitioners at risk of civil and criminal penalties. Tēnā koe Mr Speaker.