edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
7. Question No. 7—Building and ConstructionSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 7—Building and Construction7. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has she seen regarding building consents?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I've seen a report from Statistics New Zealand which shows the number of new homes consented in the year ended 30 September 2021 is at a record high of 47331. This is an increase of 25 percent from the September 2020 year. We reached a milestone earlier this year in March 2021 when we consented more homes to be built than any other Government in a year since the 1970s. Now for a seventh month in a row we have continued to outperform these records while the sector has remained resilient in spite of the challenges posed by COVID-19.Shanan Halbert: What does this report show for Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The report has also shown the number of consents in Auckland has continued to rise and is now up 29 percent on this time last year. The groundbreaking levels of demand for residential construction we are currently experiencing paired with the strong Government investment in infrastructure has meant the sector has been in a stronger position to front our recovery from COVID-19.Shanan Halbert: How is the Government supporting the building and construction sector to build on this growth and its consents?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government's investment in the construction sector—it's creating more jobs; helping us to retain and grow construction skills; and building warmer dry secure housing at a critical time. Already the sector has had a 5.1 percent increase in employees over the last year with approximately 10 percent of the national workforce working in the sector.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—FinanceHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr squeak—Mr Speaker.Hon Members: Ha ha! Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I withdraw and apologise.3. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Can New Zealand afford to pay for all of the Government's policy promises; if so how?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The strength and resilience of the New Zealand economy has put us in a strong position to deliver a policy programme that in turn supports sustainable economic growth reduces child poverty and sees strong investment in health housing and education among other areas. In answer to the second part of the member's question the Government gets the money it spends through revenue from tax levies fees investment income and the sale of goods and services. The Government also funds its commitment by raising debt by issuing bonds. This is standard practice for this and past New Zealand Governments and indeed for most Governments around the world. As we have demonstrated we will continue to roll out our policy programme in a careful and balanced way to achieve our goals while managing resources in a sustainable way.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he rule out raising taxes in order to pay for the extra spending promises made and if so does that mean that the extra money will need to be borrowed?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has made clear that we will not be raising taxes in this term. The way the Government will continue to make sure that we pay for the commitments we have will be a combination of all of the things I answered in my primary question.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Government remain committed to light rail in Auckland the preferred option of which has an estimated cost of $14.6 billion and if so how does he plan to pay for it?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Government remain committed to rapid transport in Wellington the cheapest option of which being $5.8 billion and if so how does the Government plan to pay for it?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm that since he has been finance Minister New Zealand's debt has increased over $40 billion—that's public debt—but in just one week of announcements he's added another $35 billion worth of spending on to the debt pile he's already incurred?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm there's been a global pandemic and in light of that the Government has indeed taken on more debt in order to support New Zealanders' lives and livelihoods through that. We continue to have one of the lowest levels of net debt in the world—lower than Australia lower than the UK lower than the US lower than the euro area. We will continue to borrow where we need to. In answer to the second part of the member's question he should actually take a look. Money has already being provisioned for Wellington's rapid transit and also for parts of the Auckland rapid transit as well.
Speaker's Rulings — Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill—Process
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSContraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill—ProcessSPEAKER: Members before I call the next bill there's two points that I'd like to make. One is that as with the previous stage of this bill if members wish to have one there will be a personal vote and it will be treated through the debate as a conscience issue.The other point I'd like to seek the leave of the House on: I've had a couple of members who indicated that they'd like to make short contributions. What I will do is seek the leave of the House for this to be a two-hour debate with speeches of not more than 10 minutes so that if there's time left from shorter speeches it can be used by other members. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.
Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look happy to rise and take a call on the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill. I would like to join with everyone else in the House in congratulating Louisa; she always brings thoughtful bills well-considered and well-meaning and that also change lots of people's lives for the better so congratulations.I'm only going to take a short call. I wasn't on the select committee for this bill but I did take a look through some of submitters and noted that a partner at Stace Hammond and good friend of mine Arran Hunt submitted on the bill and made some very thoughtful comments. I actually gave him a call tonight and ran him through it. Now Arran is probably one of the country's leading legal minds in this area of law—in fact he took the very first civil case under the original legislation. When I talked to him about the bill and his submission this evening he said it has been very difficult for the police when they're looking at whether or not they can prosecute to figure out whether or not there was that intent to cause harm. He said when it gets kicked to a civil proceeding it can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute. He knows that very well because he took that first case and it took three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars although I expect—I believe actually—that he did a lot of the work pro bono because that's the kind of good guy that he is.So this bill by default when taking away that burden of the police having to prove that there was intent to cause harm keeps it by default with the police rather than in the civil courts which is a good thing. It was interesting to note in his submission—and I was going to make a comment on this about the deep fakes but Louisa has already mentioned that today that she's going to be bringing a Supplementary Order Paper. I thought that might be the case when I read this and saw that it wasn't included in the bill. Of course as my learned colleague Chris Penk alluded to earlier we can't at this stage give any of our assurances that we will be supporting that because it's a conversation that we need to have—and indeed we will have—but clearly there are some issues there that need to be sorted out and potentially should have been looked at by the select committee but I understand why they weren't.So with that I'd just like to again congratulate Louisa Wall on a good bill that we're very happy to support that builds on the good work of the National Party in the past but as all legislation—especially in this area of law—needs to be updated this is a very good bill. So I commend the bill to the House.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I'm pleased to stand in support of Louisa Wall's bill—and to take off my mask! It is a huge credit to Louisa Wall that she has consistently brought to this House pieces of legislation that are courageous and that she's consistently been so lucky in having them picked from the members' ballot. This bill deals with a really serious issue and that is of people posting digital communications of intimate visual recordings of another person without their consent. It is the act of weaponising moments of intimacy against another person. The intent of people doing this is so malevolent it actually makes me filled with horror to talk about it: the idea that images or videos that have been shared with someone in the context of an intimate relationship in a time of trust—that those images or those videos would then be used by a person upon their desire to inflict pain upon someone. To do that without consent is an awful act a malevolent act and it is right that in this bill we ensure that that is very clearly seen by our law as an offence because the posting of unauthorised content in this way causes harm full stop and those who do it need to know that they can be confronted by the full force of the law. I want to acknowledge that this bill is able to be advanced because of work that has come before and which National Party leader Judith Collins played an important role in and that is in the original creation of the Harmful Digital Communications Act which was groundbreaking at the time and which has been an important step forward I think in protecting the rights of people when it comes to harmful digital communication. This bill takes it a step forward ensuring that the law is up to date with the sorts of things that we have seen happening and that the law can in fact be enforced against those who share intimate images in this way. So I end this contribution where I began which is to congratulate Louisa Wall to also congratulate the select committee who I understand heard some compelling and also very emotional submissions and who have worked to make small amendments that we see at the second reading. This is good lawmaking. I commend it to the House.
Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill — Second Reading
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Yeah wait your turn! This is a sensible piece of legislation. I want to echo what my colleague and friend Todd Muller said which is: how can it be in 2021 that sunscreen manufacturers in New Zealand don't have to meet the sunscreen standard of Australia? It's a very simple piece of legislation to remedy this issue. I also want to echo what he said in relation to the therapeutic products regime. Successive Governments have said that they would do something about it and in fairness the last Government did that I was a backbencher in—and we said that too—and it didn't happen. And here we are four years into the term of this Government and I'm sure they'll go through to the six-year term and I'd be willing to put money on the fact that after the end of the six-year term—Hon Stuart Nash: Or maybe even 12 years.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh Stuart Nash here he is the big guy the big man the master of big talk the guy who said he'd do 1800 cops when he was police Minister and delivered 1100 only. The master of big talk says in response to me at quarter to eight on a members' Wednesday No no we are going to do the therapeutic product regime." Well we'll see. We'll see what happens in two years' time whether or not that piece of legislation is through. But the point is it hasn't come but we do need an interim solution in the short term and frankly this should have happened before now.This is a very sensible piece of legislation. The Health Committee has considered it. I know they got advice from the Regulations Review Committee. I was sitting in the car and I was listening to the long discourse from Rachel Brooking who's a very learned contributor to the Parliament particularly on the Regulations Review Committee but I think it would be fair to say there was a degree of detail in that speech that was not particularly necessary for the advancement of this bill. It's a sensible piece of legislation. Let's get through the second reading and on to some more substantive matters. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well I must say I'm very pleased to be here to speak on the sunscreen bill. I'd like to make a special mention to Todd Muller for an absolutely superb and pragmatic bill. As a member of the Health Committee it was an absolute pleasure to go through this legislation. My ancestors come from Scotland so I have a skin complexion that acts like a magnet to the sun. I must say this legislation is going to pay benefits to me and also to my tamariki at home as well. So I commend this bill to the House.
Dean Jacqui; Kerekere ElizabethASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. Members when the House lifted for the dinner break we were on the second reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. Call No. 5 is one to be taken by the Green Party and I call Dr Elizabeth Kerekere.Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. As a member of the Health Committee who worked on this I rise in support of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. It aims to improve the accuracy of claims about the SPF properties of sunscreen products. We received multiple submissions on this and they were overwhelmingly in favour of the bill; not one opposed the bill which is the first time I've seen that in my very short time here.Definitions are important and this bill provides one because what we had was pretty loose. The focus is on the intended purpose of that sunscreen rather than what someone claims it is meant to do particularly theoretical claims to prevent sun damage. Whether it's a moisturising cream an oil a gel or a spray the manufacturer will need to now back that up.As recommended by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the bill directs mandatory regulation under the Fair Trading Act 1986 to prescribe a safety standard in line with the Australia - New Zealand 2021 sunscreen standard. This would replace the existing 2012 one which is already mandatory in Australia but voluntary here. We note however that the Australian regulatory agency has not yet adopted the 2021 standard. That means that sunscreens have not been tested to it so it makes it a little bit unworkable at the moment. So we support the member's Supplementary Order Paper which will come up to change the language so sunscreens are required to comply with the 2012 standard or later standards as adopted by the Australian authorities—meaning as soon as they do adopt it which we expect they will New Zealand sunscreens will be required to comply with it.As I mentioned during the first reading we know that Aotearoa has the highest incidence of melanomas in the world. Although Māori and Pasifika are much less likely than everyone else to get it when we do we have a higher risk of thick and more advanced melanoma with a poorer prognosis; whereas for non-Māori it's predominantly men who get melanomas; for Māori it is predominantly women and we look forward to better data and statistics of takatāpui trans non-binary and intersex whānau so we actually have a really clear picture across all genders in this country. This member's bill is in the name of Todd Muller with whom I share personal experience of skin cancer—not with but we both do—partly because of products which misled us as to their efficacy. This simple bill will reduce skin cancer and it will save lives and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Luxon ChristopherCHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look it's a real pleasure to take a very very short call on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill second reading. I want to commend my good friend Mr Muller for his great work in bringing this to the House and obviously the outstanding work that's taken place in the select committee that's led to screaming bipartisanship which is always a good thing. Obviously getting these standards straight and sorted and aligned as they should be is really important. It's important to me because I along with Mr Muller have a very good haircut and I don't know whether you noticed but it is catching on across New Zealand—this bullet-shaped look that we have. Each summer Mr Muller and I go through a process of lathering ourselves up with great sunscreen to protect this bald dome and each summer we get burnt. I can tell you as someone you know who really uses sunscreen quite a lot because there's obviously a lot more skin coverage to cover off when you look like this it's a very fantastic thing. So I just want to say that when we have got one of the highest rates of skin cancer we've got one of the highest rates of melanomas in the world and our skin cancer rates are at an all-time high. This bill is doing the right thing for New Zealanders. It's doing the right thing for Mr Muller and myself too. Thanks so much. We commend it to the House.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): It gives me pleasure to rise at the third reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. I rise really to say congratulations to Andrew Bayly. It is a rare thing in this House to have a member's bill of this much weight progress to a third reading in such an orderly fashion and to do so with the support of members across the House. I think it reflects very well on Mr Bayly that that has happened.At the heart this bill reflects principles that are very important to the National Party. We want to ensure that New Zealand's superannuation scheme is a fair one and that it can endure into the future. We have recognised for some years that reforms are necessary to that scheme to ensure that it can in fact survive and endure in a form that will allow it to pay for the incomes of future generations of retirees in this country.So it was in 2017 we began work on amendments to re-strike the balance as to who becomes eligible for superannuation. It had been the case that people were eligible for superannuation after spending just 10 years as residents in this country. That put us out of whack with the rest of the developed world and could be seen to have put an unfair burden on the taxpayers of today and tomorrow who would be funding those New Zealanders of not as long standing. So this bill corrects the balance. It requires that in order to access New Zealand superannuation people must live here as residents for 20 years. This brings us in line with the rest of the world. I think it speaks to Kiwis' ideas of fairness.I want to commend Andrew Bayly for doing the detailed work required with a bill of this significant change to make sure that it can be implemented effectively and that the potential ramifications have been thought through. The bill has a staggered introduction with transition arrangements in place. I want to say I think that's very right and proper because for those who've come to New Zealand in the expectation that they will be accessing New Zealand superannuation at a certain point there does need to be an adjustment period so that people can know full well what their entitlements are when they come here. There also have been sensible amendments to ensure that residents of our Realm countries—the Cook Islands Niue Tokelau—are excluded and that those supported by the Veterans' Support Act 2014 are excluded.Andrew Bayly is one of those members of the House who gets along with people on all sides. But don't be fooled: he has a very sharp brain and it is a sharp brain that has allowed this bill to be constructed and I commend him on the collegiality with which he has managed to get it through the House and it is my honour to support it.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No select committee reports have been presented. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Erica Rowlands requesting that the House pass legislation requiring all domestic cats to be registered via microchip and desexed unless kept contained by registered cat breeders.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: New Zealand Blood and Organ Service statement of performance expectations 2021-22Vote Business Science and Innovation digital economic communications portfolio report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriation for the year ended 30 June 2021. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. Once again I'm going to remind Mr Mitchell who's spent some time away from the House that we do have some rules about what's allowed on desks and what's not.
Dean JacquiWEDNESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 9 November 2021 (continued on Wednesday 10 November 2021) - Volume 755
Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill — Second Reading
VoteDEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10 Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10 Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Incorporated Societies Bill — Second Reading
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Members we've reached the time where we'd normally go to lunch but I can see that Mr O'Connor is very keen to speak. If he was I could take leave for this bill to be completed before we do break for the day. Do people want to do that or do they want to wait in anticipation for Mr O'Connor?Simon O'Connor: I'm more interested in lunch.SPEAKER: Sorry?Simon O'Connor: My enthusiasm is more for lunch than speaking.SPEAKER: OK. Well I will declare this day completed. The House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock today.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Wednesday).
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my honour to speak again in the House this morning and in this particular instance on the Incorporated Societies Bill. Can I start by acknowledging the wonderful organisations at the heart of our communities—whether that be in sport or in social service—that this particular bill relates to. I had the privilege over the last three years to lead out the Birkdale Beach Haven community incorporated society. It's a wonderful organisation where we've worked very very hard to build a governance model and a team of members and staff that reflect our community that the initiatives that we roll out meet the needs and are responsive to our diverse and growing community on the North Shore of Auckland but most of all that we continue the kaupapa to have community-led arrangements and initiatives happening in our local backyard and particularly for our tamariki locally. So I love that particular project. But when I think back to some of the work that we do and it tends to be AGM month at the moment and like other MPs you've probably attended a number over the last two weeks as everyone geared up for Zoom AGMs when the green light went by.But this particular bill supports organisations like mine and other incorporated societies to have a much clearer view in terms of what they need to achieve what they need to report on and recognition of who they are in modern age. When I go back to the ages of 1908 and we talk about pounds and schillings in this outdated bill I am quite grateful that we are updating this particular piece of work. I know that it has limitations for our incorporated societies currently because they are small in many instances but many of them want to modernise and we want to ensure that we are removing the barriers that we need to in this particular instance.So this bill replaces the very outdated Incorporated Societies Act of 1908. It is aimed to be fit for purpose and to be modern. I also want to acknowledge not only the 24000 incorporated societies across Aotearoa but also organisations like our local marae. I acknowledge what member Kerekere said—that many of our marae have assets in the millions but not much cash in the bank. So let's make it as easy as possible as simple for volunteers to manage these societies with the efficiencies we need. So without further ado I commend this bill to the House.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a privilege actually to take a call on the Incorporated Societies Bill. Thank you to the member across the House Maureen Pugh who took us through a history lesson as to what was happening in 1908. It was actually really clear that this is a really old old piece of legislation.Throughout my community work I've been involved in a number of incorporated societies including the mighty Northern United Rugby Union Club or norths as we know them in Porirua and also established tag clubs for rugby league tag. But the benefit was when I was drafting constitutions for some of these clubs that I've had a background in law and I've had a background in accounting. So I was able to ensure that there were dispute resolution clauses to ensure when the society wound up where those assets were going to and then being able to actually help our treasurers put together the reporting for it. But that was done because we had someone who specialised in that area. Not all incorporated societies have that ability. Not all incorporated societies have lawyers accountants or CEOs of other charitable organisations on their boards and some of them do amazing work in our community. So it's really good to see that this bill fills in some of those gaps such as disputes resolution. I commend the committee for some of the recommendations that they've put forward and I hope to see them come through particularly around the societies that qualify as small. It's good to see that the asset threshold was lifted because if you think about say a small rugby club they probably own all the jerseys. The jerseys probably cost $100 per jersey. So if you've got 10 teams you're already you know over a certain threshold you've got the gear bags you've got the balls you've got the cones and then possibly they might have a building—already they're over that $30000 asset threshold. So it's really good to see that the committee listened to submitters and lifted that up. So on that note I commend this bill to the House.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you to the Minister Mr Little for his Obamaesque explanation of this bill about hope and change and you know modernisation. The bill itself is like a Jeffrey Archer novel. It's got six parts 41000 words; it's almost like a novel. I've never seen the ministry of business development—I wish they'd concentrate on foreign direct investment by the way—produce something that's so technocratic around what is a very important part of New Zealand society. I'm convinced given the number of submissions that only 1 percent of the societies actually replied that the Government hasn't brought along the organisations because (a) they either don't understand the law; secondly they've got no experience to review it in their organisations; and thirdly they're just missing the nuances of what is probably something that should have went to the social and wellbeing committee as well as the technocrats.So there's sort of three questions around the duties of officers in managing those conflicts. We're really pleased that the committee has managed to make those amendments. But it's still a very financial-orientated solution to what is a law that originally had 11000 words which is a lot smaller. So how you bridge that gap between local chess clubs and the New Zealand Rugby Union and Federated Farmers is a challenge I still don't think we've met. If you look there's four years now to introduce this and get people deregistered and form new societies which is going to be very painful out there. Some of us may be here to see it and some of us maybe not. But we believe at the ACT Party that keeping it simple while it should have been the basis of this bill and it's become something of a monster for something that I don't think societies are going to really understand.So congratulations to the committee for getting this through. We will support the bill out of probity and modernisation. But there are some unintended consequences here that I don't think we've really thought through. Thank you.
Kerekere ElizabethDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. After starting the day with data and statistics it's very exciting to stand here again so soon to talk about another kaupapa close to my heart which is community organising and the legal structures that support it. Much as case law has built up around this ancient bill over 23000 tangata whenua community and voluntary organisations will breathe easier with this significant update. So many thanks to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee for your work in bringing this to the House. The Greens envisage a strong and independent tangata whenua community and voluntary sector that contributes in ecologically and socially sustainable ways to enhance our social environmental cultural physical mental spiritual and economic wellbeing. We need good laws that will help sustain that and not constrain it. We're pleased that the bill clarifies that an incorporated society may express its tikanga its kawa and its culture in its constitution. We note that the Law Commission's report of 2013 recommended this but of course what's eight years waiting in the scale of 113? While Tikanga may not have been specifically excluded as a person who's written and edited many many constitutions over the years it was always very clear that that stuff was additional; it was never core to our legal documents in our legal entity. The Greens have principles of appropriate decision-making and non-violence written into our charter so we particularly welcome that this bill would clearly lay out the requirements around addressing conflicts of interest and dispute resolution because many people are conflict-averse and passive-aggression is not uncommon—or maybe that's just the committees and boards that I have been on! We hope this criteria will help every organisation who has struggled to address those issues without training in conflict resolution or restorative practices and without the law insisting that proper processes be in place for it.Finally we wish to address financial reporting–the bugbear of every treasurer everywhere. The Greens welcome absolutely standardising transparent and clearer financial reporting especially for those organisations with assets but low cash flow. We note that that change will help up to 60 percent of the sector including iwi and hapū organisations where our marae might be worth $1 million or $2 million but there's only $20000 or $30000 in the bank. The many many thousands of volunteers who could do without the unnecessary paperwork will thank us for that alone. I look forward to this bill coming into effect and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Incorporated Societies Bill and I thank Maureen Pugh for her contribution her history lesson. Riveting—electrifying in fact that speech. Thank you so much. I was hoping for maybe some reflection on some of your members in 1908 and what they were doing at that time but we didn't get time for that. That's OK. I was on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and we work well together. I did hear the Hon Todd McClay saying that they had to fight for that threshold to change but I know my colleagues on this side fought for it too. In fact I think we led the charge on that to ensure that we got it right. When we first embarked with our advisers on this piece of legislation I vividly remember them talking about the 1908 legislation. They said it was very much around the birth and the death of a society but there was nothing about the life which is where it has been complicated over the years. So very much this change in legislation this bringing it into the 21st century is around the birth the life and if it needs to be the death of an incorporated society. We've worked hard and will continue to work hard as a committee. Also I want to acknowledge Jamie Strange the chair of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. Incorporated societies as we've heard can take anything from a $2000 or $3000 community group through to millions and millions of dollars. I really want to acknowledge them because I know many of them—many of them—are volunteer organisations are community playgroups are potters' groups and are groups that support their local community. So in finishing my speech today I just want to say thank you to all of our volunteers who support and keep our nation running. I commend this bill to the House.
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise proudly on behalf of the Labour side in terms of supporting this Incorporated Societies Bill in the second reading. Could I just start by thanking the member who has just resumed his seat the Hon Todd McClay for all of the constructive conversations and the rigorous debate that we've had in the select committee process on this bill. Like he has mentioned we've had many many many many conversations about where this line should fall. I guess it's for me a balance of practical considerations in terms of which incorporated societies should be reporting and what type of reporting they should be doing. I've now learnt a lot more about accrual accounting and cash accounting than I would care to think. I appreciate my flatmate who is a chartered accountant and I don't think we'd ever have imagined we would spend our lockdown debating this issue—but thank you Martin. Like the Minister has mentioned today as well unions are not a cover. Every single incorporated society who wishes to provide scholarships for their members is largely encouraged to do so. Every incorporated society that has that will can do so now under this bill and I'm proud of that change. As has been mentioned there are almost 24000 incorporated societies in this nation and they definitely are a really integral and important part of the make-up of the fabric of our society. I really enjoyed hearing from the submitters on this bill because it just has made me realise how important it is to get this bill right and hence the long time that we took in deliberating. It's because of incorporated societies that we are a healthier society that we are a better regulated society that we are a better organised society and that we are a more community-based society. I'm really proud of the fact that this bill and this update of this bill will make sure that not only do we modernise the legislation but we also make provision for the times when things do get hard—and unavoidably some of these volunteering organisations might. So to be able to talk through those problems and have somewhere for people to complain and then to resolve those issues is inherently important. So on that note I commend this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you. It's a pleasure to rise and take what I think is the final call on the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill. I just want to reflect on the contributions in the House already today one in particular is around that this is not an omnibus bill in the pure sense and it's certainly not an amendment bill; in actual fact it is a replacement for a piece of legislation that is not working—and that has been the case for 20-odd years. I also reflect on the contribution of my colleague the MP for Mana Barbara Edmonds who talked about the fact that the particular change in this bill in terms of its approach is two-pronged. The first is around ensuring that people are actually able to know how to engage with the process to use a particular Act; but secondly actually those that are going to engage with this process—and an important one at that—feel safe being able to do so. I really can't underscore enough the significance of the importance and safety that those that wish to speak out in the workplace whether it be in the private sector or in the public sector feel empowered to be able to do exactly that because this is about protection for those in the workplace who identify some wrongdoing and wish to speak out. It is protection for whistleblowers in that regard.Colleagues around the House have referred to the fact that New Zealand as a country is world leading in terms of transparency anti-corruption that sense of openness and integrity. So that fits quite nicely I would suggest with this particular bill.This bill does relate to activities and conduct within the private sector but also within the public sector as well around the potential to expose fraudulent or criminal activities and actually ensuring that that serious misconduct whether it be in private or in public sector or spaces is able to be disclosed by individuals within the workplace without fear of it being an unsafe opportunity to do so and also actually that when individuals feel as though they can make those disclosures that actually they're not going to be treated unfairly or with a threat of dismissal as a result of that. That's something that they deserve.I want to acknowledge the work of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. I know that they in considering this bill have identified a number of matters I won't go into a lot of detail around that but I thank them for their work. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill — Second Reading
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. I mean it's hard to follow such an excellent speech from Barbara Edmonds but I guess the point I would make is that whistleblowing is—the barriers to it have always been cultural. Even if the rules are in place for whistleblowing we know that we need to shift the culture of an organisation to make whistleblowing an acceptable thing to do that the default position of the company needs to be that we respect and in fact we want people to make those disclosures. This goes some way towards that although ultimately it's up to the organisations—public sector and private—as well.It is good that it sets out the entities to whom the disclosure should be made which is one of the things this legislation does—because that's always been one of the difficult things to know to whom should I disclose. And of course to make it clear exactly what is a disclosable wrong-doing—just giving more tools in the tool kit so that people understand exactly what triggers the protections how it works and who to go to because once we get that right a culture of disclosure a culture of not tolerating wrong-doing within an organisation wherever it might be will be engendered. As my colleague said we have been world leaders in disclosure and in corporate responsibility. We have lagged behind this bill catches us up and I commend it to the House.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's good to be able to take a call on the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill that's being read now a second time. This bill is overdue. New Zealand has always been a world leader in the area of protection for whistleblowers. The 2000 Act was one of the first in the world to actually be put in by any country in the world. This current law is 20 years old and that leads to two possible outcomes: one is people don't know how to use the Act and to apply it or two they don't feel safe using it.On the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index we are consistently at the top and generally first equal with Denmark; even Finland Switzerland Singapore Sweden Norway and the Netherlands—they all follow us. But in 2014 our rating slipped down one and at the time Transparency International warned us and said if action was not taken to keep pace in areas such as access to information and environmental protection further downgrades in the survey were likely to occur. So employees who uncover serious misconduct fraud and corruption in public and private workplaces need protection. This Act needed to be updated so I commend this bill to the House.
Leary Ingrid; Rurawhe AdrianINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I am a big fan of those brave souls we call whistleblowers. As a former journalist when I was freelancing for Campbell Live we got some of the most important stories thanks to whistleblowers. There were stories about mental health patients who had been sprayed with pepper spray inappropriately. There were stories of cruelty to animals from circus workers including small monkeys on tiny chains locked up in their cages for days on end with inadequate food. More recently we've had Russell McVeagh have its Me Too moment thanks to whistleblowers and in this House we've heard stories about ACC that brave people have dared to bring forward. Internationally Facebook has had the lid lifted on the fanning of flames of ethnic bias and prejudice and on creating political tension. So whistleblowers are incredibly important. What I think this legislation does is it gives people the option to not necessarily have to take that giant leap to the media but to know they are safe going through a process where they can keep their identity and their privacy and where there is the right to natural justice the right to be heard as raised by Chris Penk.For me at the heart of this bill is the deterrent element: that this helps strengthen the culture of transparency of good workplaces where bad behaviour doesn't happen. There's plenty of research to show that one of the considerations that leads to good behaviour is people's fear of getting caught. So the cultural element of this of increasing the security for whistleblowers and therefore deterring those who might behave badly whether it's misappropriating funds or bullying or other bad behaviour is really important. For that reason I think this is a great bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Simon Watts.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call in support of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill a bill that's been around a while well before my time here and it replaces the Protected Disclosures Act which by all accounts wasn't used very often. A report review by the State Services Commission in 2017 found a number of reasons why the organisations and the disclosers were confused about when to use the Act. The processes both internally and externally were very confusing and the fear of speaking up was very relevant and the disclosers lacked the confidence in the protections that were available to them.The bill seeks to ensure that those three things are remedied and that employees and the organisations are familiar with the Act and know when to use it that the disclosers know who to report to and understand that support is available when they do make these disclosures that the organisations know what is expected of them and they have the skills and put in place the skills and competencies for their organisation to handle those things effectively and that the disclosers have a lot of confidence in the protections that are available to them.The threshold of serious wrongdoing is a high one and rightly so. There should be no confusion with what is serious wrongdoing and those issues that would be dealt with with a personal grievance process. New Zealand has quite a rigorous personal grievance process as it is and the divide must be clear.ACT believes this bill strikes a good balance with disclosers reporting issues and being confident they'll be dealt with appropriately and protected—they will be protected—and the potential for false or vexatious complaints is dealt with in the bill as well and any intentional abuse of the bill should be dealt with and treated very seriously. A review after five years will show any flaws or unintended consequences that can be sorted out then. This is a good bill that addresses the issues. It should give confidence to disclosers of suspected wrongdoing. They'll be better informed of who and when to report the serious wrongdoing and the organisations will have things in place to actually deal with these complaints. This can only raise public confidence in the transparency and integrity of Government and we support this bill. Thank you.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill. I just want to take a short moment to speak about a particular aspect of the select committee's report which was comprehensive and I want to acknowledge the work done by the Education and Workforce Committee.As the Minister mentioned earlier there is a particular area that is going to be reflected in the bill through a Supplementary Order Paper which relates to health and safety. This is an area that I take quite a bit of interest in having worked in this area before entering Parliament. I think that this element of the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper that will come will actually assist in ensuring that we can enhance workplace health and safety particularly within the public sector and areas that may have significant areas of safety risk.One of the challenges we sometimes face with our existing health and safety law is around the ability for employees to use some of the elements within that law such Provisional Improvement Notices. We are starting to see more workers take up those opportunities. But in my view having seen some of those Provisional Improvement Notices be used and sometimes then go through quite a long process over something that's quite serious it's my view that having an extra layer an extra option for employees to raise significant health and safety matters through this bill particularly when there may be real risk to people's lives and their wellbeing I think will be incredibly helpful. So I'm looking forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Minister and the next stages of this bill and I commend this bill to the House.