edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipango Harete; Rurawhe AdrianHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you. It's a privilege to stand this evening and for the first time this year—and for a long time in fact—to address the House in relation to this bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Mr Speaker you and I both know being locals of Whanganui that one of our own from that community who has committed and dedicated his life working as a disabled person and an advocate in the disability sector Robert Martin had been honoured in the New Year Honours List and is soon to be knighted for his advocacy on the global stage on the United Nations. In fact members in this House and members who have been in the House since 2014 may well recall when Dame Tariana Turia as Minister for Disability Issues recommended Robert Martin—soon to be Sir Robert—for the post travelling with him to New York to support his nomination in 2014. He will return to New York again to seek reappointment in that role to continue the advocacy in this space—and importantly one around the disability communities. As has been comprehensively covered in my colleague Sir—Sir"? Could be but Dr Shane Reti. He has outlined the background to this and I won't go into that because this call that I'm taking this evening is a brief one so that we're able to get through this bill hopefully and the speaking of it this evening. But to say with that having been traversed as to why we've arrived the proposed amendment to the legislation as it has been noting that Part 4A was introduced at a time where there were—it curtailed the limitations around the eligibility of family members in caring for their own disabled family members. I think members of the public are interested in the context of that and I hope to take a call at the second reading of this to go through the history as to how we've arrived at this. But in conclusion people are also interested as to where this is leading to so the time line. This bill was introduced into the House on 21 January this year. Here we are at the first reading and then come 14 April the Ministry of Health will look at extending the eligibility around the funded family care criteria and the rates that go with that with those new pay rates taking effect as at around that time—14 April. Then the DHBs will look at expanding that eligibility around the payment scale to family members looking after their own disabled persons at around about the end of June 2020 all going well and then Part 4A being repealed at the third reading of this on 1 September 2020 by which time we will still be in Parliament and will be debating the merits of this. I am confident that there'll be further robust discussions at select committee level. In taking this brief call the National Party commends this part this reading to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Willow-Jean Prime—five minutes."
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take a short call on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill and I follow after my two colleagues the Hon Alfred Ngaro and Dr Shane Reti on this bill that repeals Part 4A. It's interesting that seven years down the track we come and—as Shane has said—there is new leadership and the passage of new legislation. On this side of the House we are really pleased to be able to support the first reading of this bill and to support the bill into the select committee where conversations can be had and discussions can be had. As a non-member of the Health Committee I'm quite envious that that will happen and I won't be there but all I can say is that this side of the House is open and willing to sit down with the coalition Government and have that discussion listen to what people have to say and work from there on out. My comment really post-that—should this bill pass through all stages—is that the coalition Government will follow it through by making sure that there is adequate funding within the disability sector for the legislation to be enacted fully. At the last Budget I noted that the disability sector came to us and asked for $250 million extra towards their disability services and did not get anywhere near that actually. So it's great to have this bill here and it's great to have the parties agreeing for it to go to the select committee. I just hope that this coalition Government will actually follow it up with the funding and will listen to the disability community as they put their submissions to the Government benches. So without any further ado I tautoko everything that has been said on this side around this particular bill and I look forward to its progress through the House. Kia ora.
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. This bill will repeal Part 4A of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and this legislative change will ensure consistency with human rights law and it'll uphold New Zealand's commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It's a really great committee that I sit on the Health Committee. We are generally a very collegial committee. So it is a real pleasure that this piece of legislation will be scrutinised in the Health Committee. It is interesting to note that in 2018 we actually received into the Health Committee a petition asking the Government to repeal this very piece of legislation we have before us today Part 4A to stop the discrimination against family carers. Now the select committee process will enable those people who have brought the petition to us to have their voices heard. There was no opportunity for their voices to be heard when this piece of legislation went through in 2013 because there was no select committee process. So now it is a great opportunity for them to let us know what their voices have to say on this issue. We in New Zealand First and Labour opposed that bill in 2013. But moving along now—Chlöe Swarbrick: And the Greens. JENNY MARCROFT: —and the Greens—we are able with the willingness of the National Opposition to pass this almost unanimously through this first reading anyway. Part 4A provides the legislative policy framework for funded family care policies in the health sector. Now this Government has improved family wellbeing with a suite of changes together with our funded family care package. Chucking out Part 4A and overturning that hard-nosed policy that was implemented by a National Government is a step in the right direction. No wonder there were howling cries from across the country and in fact from around the world there was concern raised by the disability sector and carer communities. But Kiwis caring for family members of high and very high support needs will have their right to challenge now the laws and policies that directly affect them. They will have that right restored to them through this piece of legislation. They were rendered voiceless by a National Government. We now give them back their voice. I commend the bill to the House.
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. This year marks 20 years since Peter Atkinson and Susan Atkinson Gillian Bransgrove Jean Burnett Laurence Carter Peter Humphreys Clifford Robinson Lynda Stoneham Stuart Burnett and Imogen Atkinson took a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. The complaint essentially was about parents of adult children with disabilities being excluded from being recognised as carers and therefore receiving support from the State. That drove them to go to the Human Rights Commission. That then drove a Human Rights Review Tribunal decision. It was appealed by the Government to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal said that the ministry's policy of not paying parents where a non-family member would be paid was discriminatory on the basis of family status. Further the discrimination was not justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That drove in 2013 the National Government to create a piece of legislation to actually limit them and also limit the ability of parents whose children had disabilities going to the courts to seek redress. Twenty years later my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa whose name this bill is under is coming to rectify that massive injustice. It's incredibly humbling I suppose for the National Party to come here tonight and support that legislation because the guts of their opposition can I say was that it was fiscally unaffordable. That's what Minister Ryall said when they pushed that bill through in one day in 2013. So it's wonderful that they've joined us tonight in working to rectify. What Clifford Robinson said—50 years he's been looking after his disabled children—was that all good things come to those who wait. So thank goodness this House finally will ensure people like Mr Robinson—who has been looking after his two adult disabled children for 50 years—are going to be recognised for the contribution that they make to our society in being carers. So I commend this bill to the House. I can't wait as the chair of the Health Committee to hear from those parents and for their stories to be given space to be heard so that we can fully acknowledge their contribution to New Zealand society. Kia ora.
Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the National Party and as the new spokesperson for disabilities. The National Party will support the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill in its first reading and through to select committee. We look forward to the process of the select committee where we will be able to hear from legal experts as well as the disabled community about the effects of this legislation and also its changes. National does recognise the crucial role of the families in providing care and support. It did so because in 2013 it introduced this piece into the legislation that we are about to amend. It was under this National Government previous Governments had the opportunity but the National Government saw fit that it should be—in fact it was one of only three countries in the world at that time the Netherlands and Sweden and so New Zealand was the third to be able to introduce what they call a funded family care policy to ensure that families could be recognised. What will be challenging is the fact that not all things are equal. There are many discretions that we have in legislation that mean that not all people are entitled. So just because someone is able does not always mean that they meet the criteria and are able to and are entitled. So hence the reasons why there was a cautionary element in regards to Part 4A of this bill. So we look forward to the discussion and the conversation around that. We are supportive of what will be I think an important element to continue to support the care packages for the disabled community. We know the objectives of this are to change Part 4A and in particular what is being recognised inside of that around the framework around the role that the Attorney-General in 2013 had highlighted where he had stated that Part 4A could not be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and that Part 4A allows for an exclusion of certain resident family members. We don't resile from that. We think it's important that discretion is held. It's important to do that. We have an ageing population. We have healthcare facilities that at the moment are at full capacity. So therefore wherever possible where the appropriate relationship with carers with family members is there to provide that support and that care then there should be some ability to allow the Government to fund their role—or responsibility in this case—especially to their loved ones. So we don't intend to speak too long. We support this to the first reading and into the select committee and again to have the conversation. I would again want to preface this though: while the Minister has said that this is important it will be a small change that will also have a big impact I want to have a cautionary measure that while we may want to do this because it's the right thing to do it's the way that we would do this; discretion has to be shown. We want to be able to allow for the funding of family members but at the same time too care and concern in how we do that is critically important to us as well. So we commend this bill into the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): The sad part of politics sometimes is that people in desperation for the saving of their party or their own seat must take sometimes extreme views. We've seen that just now. You know what we had was an opportunity for this Parliament to get together and support a bill that actually is a fair and rational approach to gun control.I point the other side of the House very quickly to the fact that in their time in Government they had an opportunity to adhere to recommendations for gun safety. They only took seven. When asked why they said That was then; this is now. We're going to look at this; we're going to work constructively." But then came along the election and everything changed because they realised that actually they feel there are votes to gain in this. I think that's sad.When you look at the previous record of Judith Collins as former police Minister who expressed support for these sorts of measures; now they are against it. When you look at the views of former National police Minister John Banks who says his greatest regret was that he did not act more strongly after the terrible massacre in Aramoana. The fact is and I think this is regrettable that there are politics at play here when there is an opportunity for this Parliament to take a lead.This bill will not stop me hunting. This bill will not stop the gun clubs in Wairarapa and across the region doing what they do best in showing leadership in regional areas teaching gun safety and discipline. I have absolutely no hesitancy as a member of this Government as a resident of a rural area and as a keen hunter to support this bill. I commend it and I commend the Minister and his officials for the work on this bill."
Luxton Jo; Rurawhe AdrianJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Firstly I want to acknowledge the leadership that our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has shown and the Hon Stuart Nash has shown by bringing this piece of legislation to the House. [Interruption] Thank you. Thank you for that cheer. I see you're all in agreeance.I grew up in a little place—spent time for a few years on a farm in a little place—called Ngakuru; I don't know if any of you are familiar with that. My dad worked on a sheep farm there. My husband is a keen hunter. He may not be that great but hopefully he's not watching this evening to hear that about his hunting skills. I have sons who are avid hunters and the one thing I know—and the one thing that we've all talked about—is that owning a firearm having a firearms licence is a privilege not a right.Now I have not been a permanent member of this select committee. I have sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee maybe once or twice. When I sat in on that select committee there were some actually really good arguments brought about by people that were submitting. I'm really pleased to see some of the things that they talked about have been brought about in this legislation one of them being around the dealer regime whereby people who are from clubs who sell firearms for the benefit of the club hunting guides or operating on a small scale are exempt from that dealer regime. To me I think that makes perfect sense. I also live in a rural provincial area of New Zealand where there's lots of farming lots of areas where people can go hunting. Ultimately this piece of legislation is about making New Zealand safer. And I heard the argument before about targeting gangs etc. etc. but actually quite often many people not just here but around the world who go out and use a firearm in a crime have never had a criminal record. Something has happened to them within their lives and they've just decided to go out and commit a crime of some sort with a firearm. We can no longer sit and continue to wait for things to happen. Situations like we saw in March happen before we act. We have to act now. We can't allow tragedies to happen again and again and again. So I just want to say that I commend this bill to the House. I commend the Minister and the Prime Minister for their leadership on this.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Ian McKelvie—five minutes.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member who just resumed her seat Chlöe Swarbrick in her speech imputed improper motives to another member Chris Bishop for the positions he takes. Now in Standing Order 120 I think it is very clear that that's unparliamentary and I think she should withdraw and apologise for that. I find it quite offensive. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I didn't take that inference from that.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well Madam Speaker she said that his position had changed inexplicably and she wondered who had been in his ear. I think that's quite an improper inference.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): No that's not unparliamentary. I think if you're—there's a different type of influence. Being persuaded by something that's different than being influenced in the way that the Standing Orders refer to.
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): It's a pleasure to take a call on the Arms Legislation Bill. Can I acknowledge that 15 March 2018 absolutely changed this country in terms of what took place down in Christchurch and it required real leadership and we got that through our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who stepped up and made a commitment to making our communities a lot safer—of course with the Minister himself and I want to acknowledge the work that the Minister Stu Nash has done in bringing this bill to the House. I want to acknowledge the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. You see I come from a rural community. I'm proud to be a member representing Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and the Tai Rāwhiti and Hastings and yes many of my constituents are farmers as well as rural people. They too have said they want a safe community—and this is what this bill is addressing. It's acknowledging the rightful use of guns; they are acknowledging that for many of my community who have raised up and used the weapons and the guns safely. But it's around removing guns from those that commit harm and this is what this bill is attempting to do.So I do want to acknowledge the work of the select committee in bringing a much better bill. Essentially the significant change that the committee has recommended and the Minister addressed in his opening speech is the introduction of a firearms register. Who would argue with that? It also talks about the terms of the firearms licences. We also talk about the amendment to the fit and proper person criteria to ensure that those that are owning a gun are both fit and proper and of course it creates new offences and penalties. The bill ultimately helps keep guns out of criminals' hands. It's a simple bill. I think all members of this House should support it. I commend it to this House.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): How extraordinary it is that after around 40 speeches from the Opposition over the course of this piece of legislation in the House we have not heard a single solution for how we move forward the interests of the vocational sector in New Zealand one of the most critical sectors for the wellbeing of our young people and the future of our economy; a sector inherited by this Government bleeding money $100 million a year and with massive shortages in key sectors of vocational training. Try and find enough plumbers or electricians or carpenters or labourers out there at the moment—a legacy of failure and a legacy of that previous Government that did nothing over nine years to deal with these problems.With this Government and under our Minister of Education Chris Hipkins things are different. We are taking up the challenges dealing with the long-term challenges presented in the sector and we have a positive plan to make sure that this sector moves forward that we train the young people that we need for our economy and our society and that we give them a bit of hope and the skills that they need to develop useful careers in our society.This is a good piece of legislation. It has wide support across the sector across staff in the sector across key industry organisations and it's going to make a real difference. It's part of this Government's positive plan. I'm delighted to commend it to this House on this its final reading. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Jackson WillieHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I'd like to talk for quite a while but I can't. But I will say this I agree with part of what the previous speaker said. He was responsible for propping up a failed system; he admitted that in his speech today. He knows what a total failure it was but he pledged his undying support sadly to a National Government who did not appreciate his skills and his efforts and his innovativeness. Now I'll give him the opportunity to support a Government who knows what they're doing—who knows what they're doing.We took over a $100 million debt from a Government who didn't give a stuff about the regions about our young people about our students. Shame on the previous National Government. Shame on David Seymour for propping them up. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. In my area in the Hutt Valley one of the big advocates for these changes has been the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce because they see the clear benefits for local businesses and small employers. One of the biggest issues that I hear from those small-business owners is that the people they get employed haven't had on-the-job training. This is why it's a great bill. It gives young people who are learning the opportunity to learn in the workplace and to have that hands-on training alongside of the extra-curricular support. And that is the key difference. It's addressing that disjuncture we've had between training and real life skills in the workplace and that is why local businesses support it that is why the local chamber of commerce supports it and that is why our young people will be better off for having better learning and better job experiences as they train. I commend this most excellent bill to the House.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): I move That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.
Evidence (Defendant's Silence at Trial) Amendment Bill — Leave for Introduction Declined
Visitors — New Caledonia —President of the Congress
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to draw your attention to Speaker's ruling 32/4 and ask you a question with regards to that Speaker's ruling. It's a longstanding ruling from 1989 by then Deputy Speaker Terris where he said that There are no grounds for ruling against a member making a statement that there is a legal action in existence." My question there is really around the definition of "legal action" whether the fact that there is a legal action taking place in the court—whether referring to the fact that that is happening is something that members cannot do or whether that is in fact acceptable. I accept that having read all of the relevant Speakers' rulings around matters before the court it's important that the Parliament doesn't get into the specifics of the case or seek to influence the court in any way but surely a member must still be able to refer to the fact that there is an action in existence.SPEAKER: I'm sure there's a random thing with Speaker Terris' rulings and on the basis of statistics he would occasionally get one right. This I think is probably that one. The fact that there is a legal case in existence can be referred to but Mr Robertson certainly went further than that previously and referred to detail of it and that is something which is not allowed."
Penk Chris; Mallard TrevorEVIDENCE (DEFENDANT'S SILENCE AT TRIAL) AMENDMENT BILLIntroduction—Leave DeclinedCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I seek leave to introduce the Evidence (Defendant's Silence at Trial) Amendment Bill a member's bill in my name and for the bill to be set down as members' order of the day No. 1. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process being followed? There is.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 19 FEBRUARY 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.VISITORSNew Caledonia—President of the CongressSPEAKER: I'm sure members would wish to welcome Roch Wamytan President of the Congress of New Caledonia who is to my left and his delegation who are present in the gallery. President Roch Wamytan accompanied by Assistant Speaker Rurawhe entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Wednesday 11 March 2020 (continued on Thursday 12 March 2020) - Volume 744
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8 Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill — First Reading (resumed)
VoteClause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 2 be agreed to: Replace clause 2 with:2Commencement(1)New sections 20D(3) and (4) and 20F come into force 18 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(2)The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross. Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.Result corrected after originally being reported as Ayes 63 Noes 56.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill with amendment and the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 452 in the name of the Hon Jenny Salesa to clause 9 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendment to clause 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 481 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee in relation to the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 452.Part 1 as amended agreed to. Part 2 agreed to.
Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Parts 1 & 2
Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 3
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 477 in the name of Andrew Bayly to Part 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 453 and the following tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to clause 2 be agreed to:in subclause (19) delete 113(12)".Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Andrew Bayly's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 477 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently."
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Health Committee
Macindoe Tim; Mallard TrevorHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Speaker. I want at the outset to endorse the five points that the Hon Michael Woodhouse made in opposing this motion. I intended to make three of my own but I do want to draw the attention of the Government to the interjection that was made at the end of the Hon Michael Woodhouse's speech which I think the Government must answer and I hope that the next Government speaker on his or her feet will do so and that is: has there been consideration of the huge implications for the Health Committee of the coronavirus outbreak and the potential for an enormous extra workload that that committee will face? As they try to push for a truncated select committee process on this particular bill—Darroch Ball: It's not relevant—not relevant.Hon TIM MACINDOE: I think I just heard Mr Ball say it's not relevant. Is he seriously suggesting to the country—SPEAKER: I apologise to the member for interrupting him. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Thursday)
Salesa Jenny; Mallard TrevorHon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I move That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 June 2020; and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a siting of the House; and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).I want to very quickly set out why it is important that we have a shortened time for consideration of this bill at select committee. There are two clear pieces of feedback I've had on this bill. The first is that it's vital that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to provide feedback to ensure that we're striking the right balance between protecting our kids our tamariki while at the same time helping our smokers who want to use vaping as a quit tool. That's why the select committee process is so important. The second is that it's time for New Zealand to have a proper regulatory framework for vaping in place and that Parliament should work together quickly to get this done.Let's not forget that vaping has been in Aotearoa New Zealand since about 2008. This is yet another—SPEAKER: Order! This is a very narrow debate and the Minister is now going beyond it. It might have been relevant in the first reading debate; it's not now. The history's not relevant.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I stand to commend this bill to the House to acknowledge the Government and the Minister for bringing what is an important piece of public-good legislation to our Parliament. I want to acknowledge as well the National Party for supporting it for having a brief break from the bonfire of regulations line that they've been running the last couple of weeks which has been called by Matthew Hooton a pig ignorant populist claptrap piece of politics.I'm pleased that—SPEAKER: Order! That's not relevant. Joining other members' irrelevancies is not the way of doing things.MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you Mr Speaker. Anyway I want to acknowledge the cross-party support for this piece of legislation and the recognition that public-good regulation of this kind should be supported to support the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. I also want to make the point that the Minister had done a very good job of preparing this piece of legislation in a careful way. I want to point out that we are dealing in this area with an industry that as has been pointed out is highly commercial is highly cashed up and that through the course of the legislative process and in the implementation phase will do what it can to defend its patch. So it was the right and proper thing for this Minister and this Government to take a bit of time to make sure that the legislation that has been brought to this House is as tight as possible and can be implemented effectively without those kinds of problems being created. That's what a responsible Minister and Government does. And that's what we've done in this case. This is a good piece of legislation. It gets the balance right and I'm very happy to commend it to the House.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I in no way wish to trifle with or dispute your earlier ruling. However I would ask respectfully that you reflect on particularly Speaker's ruling 20/5. There's a matter that arises when a member is on their feet speaking is defamed in violation of the Standing Orders and is required to interrupt their own speech to uphold the Standing Orders and defend themselves. I think it might be reasonable to consider that as with Speaker's ruling 20/5 one of the circumstances in which the Speaker might allow a person to raise a point of order at the conclusion of their speech is so that they are not disadvantaged by another member's actions outside the Standing Orders process.SPEAKER: Speaker's ruling 20/3 is very clear; 20/5 does not refer to those circumstances at all. They refer to circumstances where essentially the Speaker has missed the point. The member should read the report of the select committee of which I think he was a member when that matter was considered.David Seymour: Well speaking to that Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No we're not—David Seymour: It's not what 20/3 says.SPEAKER: I have ruled.David Seymour: Well it's not what 20/3 says.SPEAKER: Sorry you're not sure what 20/3 says? The member should read—David Seymour: I'm sure what it says. It refers to absence from the House.SPEAKER: 20/3: a point of order must be raised at the time. That's what it says and it says it—David Seymour: And it refers to—SPEAKER: No no. We're not having a debate. I've read it to the member.David Seymour: Read the rest of it.SPEAKER: Does the member want to stay in the House for the rest of the day? Well he'll stop interjecting. [Interruption] He doesn't care. Well if he wants to go he should.
Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to make a contribution on this the first reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. It's a much awaited bill and as with all bills that come before us in the House it's incumbent on us as legislators to make sure that what I guess our mission is in terms of the outcomes for this piece of legislation meets the expectations that New Zealanders have on this bill—on vaping.With regards to vaping I do support the use of vaping as a tool for smokers to get off smoking. It's something actually that I didn't know much about and I was pleased that we had Hāpai te Hauora who invited MPs to a breakfast session in Parliament last year to discuss this very topic. So I went along because I didn't know much about vaping and was pleased to have a very good session. We had people in the policy area and research but more memorable for me on that particular session were a couple of women who gave very personal testimonies around their journey with smoking and the challenges they've had in trying to quit smoking. So to hear from them their personal experience around how vaping has been a real game-changer for them in getting them off tobacco and into something that is less harmful but also more cost-effective. So I want to acknowledge Hāpai te Hauora for the work that they are doing in that space.I also want to say that we are here ultimately to make sure that we have got better health outcomes for our communities. The other side of that coin here is that we have had parents and teachers and principals who have been fairly vocal about the lack of any regulations and guidelines on vaping particularly in terms of our young people and our teenagers. So that as I say is pleasing that this bill has finally arrived. So I say mālō 'aupito to the Minister Jenny Salesa but I also want to acknowledge—as has also been mentioned by my colleagues here—the work of the Hon Nicky Wagner in this space.I'd also like to say that even though there has been quite a significant delay in getting this bill to the House I do urge the Government members that it would be really important that we get the settings right in this bill and that we do allow a full select committee process so that we can hear from the organisations the families the teachers the parents and men and women like the ones that I heard last year who talk about how vaping has been an important measure for them.One of the things I do note is that one of the women talked about flavours. As a parent with children when we hear bubble-gum" that evokes a sense of something that is targeted to children but this woman spoke about how particular flavours were a key part of vaping for her. So I think that engagement around flavours is an important one. I do note I think in Part 4 of this bill that one of provisions there is around generic retailers that are not specialist vaping shops—they would only be able to sell tobacco menthol and mint. So I think it'd be good to allow a full discussion around how flavours impact this as well. I'm pleased that this bill is here and I commend it to first reading. Thank you."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. There was a lot of second-hand smoke in that speech then. Going around once twice three times I think.Look this is a great piece of legislation. It's timely to move on. There are a lot of unknowns in respect of vaping and that is one of the gaps. That is why we need some good regulations around it to empower the Ministry of Health to take the right steps when we get the facts around it.We know we need limits on advertising. The Attorney-General's opinion gives us some views on that. I know the select committee will look very carefully at striking the right balance between freedom of speech use of intellectual property and ensuring that we don't have the sale and unfettered advertising of dangerous products. There is work to do. The select committee is well placed to do it. I commend this bill to the House—a great piece of legislation.
Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill — Vote Correction
Rurawhe AdrianVOTINGCorrection—Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call Jenny Marcroft members in the committee of the whole House of the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill a vote was inaccurately reported to the committee. On the question on the tabled amendment of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to replace clause 2 the votes were reported as Ayes 63 Noes 56 when the correct votes were Ayes 56 Noes 63. The result of the vote was correctly reported as the amendment not being agreed to. The report on that vote will be corrected accordingly.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to take a very quick call to make three points—I won't delay the consideration in committee. Can I first commend the Minister for her willingness to engage in this process. I think both the process in the committee of the whole House and you know even if the amendments aren't agreed to the thorough examination of them strengthens that process. So I do commend the Minister for that.I heard an inconsistency in what she said around the fact that this was not about infringement but the very reason we're being delayed 18 months is because we're going to put in place an infringement regime and I just want to highlight the inconsistency there. I do agree and I do hope that the health promotion agencies are going to embark on an increased campaign but they're already doing it. It is not as strong a message to say this will soon be unlawful than it is to say this is unlawful and I think we have an opportunity to strengthen that argument in that promotion.
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I do agree with the Hon Michael Woodhouse when he says that we should be looking at a social campaign because you see the focus of this particular bill is about prevention; it is about changing people's behaviour. This is not a punitive bill where we're focusing on the infringement notices and on the police ensuring that people are fined. And on that note we are not actually waiting for the 18-month period before the social campaign begins. In fact the Ministry of Health has already had several discussions with the Health Promotion Agency so that as soon as the Royal assent is actually put in place the Health Promotion Agency can begin the social campaign because it is in our interest to let all of New Zealand know that this is a law that's coming into line.In terms of the infringement notices and the fines the reason why we're asking for the 18-month period is it will take a while to get that system up and running. Police will have to train their folks—you know they do have the power of discretion if and when they do stop someone. One of the things that they could do instead of issuing a fine—what we're actually asking the police and they have to be trained in this—is refer people to a stop smoking or cessation service. This is one of the reasons why we're asking for that period.But the thing that we do agree with the honourable member on is the fact that we must focus on prevention and ensure that the whole of New Zealand the public knows that this law is coming into line and that we should focus on ensuring that they know well in advance before the 18-month period is up.I do want to reflect back on other jurisdictions as I said earlier. In Australia Canada as well as the UK they weren't actually focused on the fines and the infringement notices. The focus there is basically on helping the country to change their behaviour to ensure that when they go into a car and if there are children in that car that are 18 years or younger if they want to smoke they possibly stop the car step out and smoke—that they change their behaviour and that they do not expose their children their tamariki to second-hand smoke.We do know that it is actually the tar and the thousands of toxins that are in the smoke and tobacco—that is what is most harmful to our children and that is absolutely what we're wanting to change here to ensure that we do not continue to expose our children to second-hand smoke because the reality in Aotearoa New Zealand today is we still have up to 5000 people who die from smoking-related diseases every year and this is one of the reasons why we're having this legislation being introduced because this will help us get to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. It is about saving people's lives and in this instance it's all about saving our children's lives. Thank you Madam Chair.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to follow on from my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse our health spokesperson who once again is an Opposition spokesperson who doesn't have an army of officials but actually has tabled a very succinct Supplementary Order Paper that actually speaks volumes in fact of a change that this bill needs. Now we all agree this bill is important and we all agree that this behaviour needs to stop sooner rather than later so then why as my colleague has pointed out wait for 18 months after the Royal assent? Yes we take the argument that there needs to be some time to put the infringement process in place but I think what we're actually doing is sending a very clear message. I mean what's the importance of bringing a bill to the House and then saying that actually we'll wait 18 months? If this issue is an important issue that needs to take up the House's time today then why would it not be enacted once it gets the Royal assent?We need to send a very clear message to those who are smoking in cars with young children. In fact I would argue that getting rid of the 18-month stand-down as I put it is actually part of the education campaign that needs to be rolled out. If we are saying that it needs to be enacted urgently we're actually reinforcing that education campaign—that it needs to be taken seriously. I would also like to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Jenny Salesa why maybe an Order in Council isn't looked at. In fact a good example is that some bills are going through select committees at the moment where they do have a date but they are also putting in an Order in Council. So if things are lined up earlier then the enactment date can be brought forward. What we're rather concerned at is that this might take longer than expected. And we come back to the original point from my colleague: why would we wait 18 months? If this is important enough for the House today then why do we not send a very clear message?When you break it up like that as my colleague has done it actually is simplified; yes there are two parts to this: the enactment of the Act and sending a very clear message and the infringement process. We don't disagree that potentially it may take 18 months for that to be installed. But firstly why would you not separate it like the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse and secondly why not put an Order in Council in? So if things line up earlier—because of course let's be honest a new Government coming up will probably get things done a bit quicker—we mightn't need 18 months. Maybe we might be able to do it—and I see a few nodding heads—in a shorter time. So I would like the answer to those two questions from the Minister in the chair.