edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Rurawhe AdrianSPEAKER: I mua i te wakaaetanga o te mōtini nei e tika ana kia tū ake au kia tukua atu taku mihi atu ki a koutou o Maniapoto ka whakapiringa ki ngā mihi o te Whare nei ki a koutou. Nō reira tēnā rā koutou tēnā tātou. [Before assenting to this motion it is only right that I stand to acknowledge you Maniapoto and add my greetings to those of this House has extended to you. Therefore greetings to all.]Bill read a third time.SPEAKER: Nō reira koutou Maniapoto kei a koutou te wā kia whakakapi tēnei āhuatanga.[Accordingly Maniapoto the time is now yours to bring this aspect to a close.]WaiataHaka
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. As I rise to take a call on the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill in its third and final reading I just want to acknowledge first of all that it is a beautiful part of the country. I have been privileged to spend a bit of time farming and hunting in that region and I do want to acknowledge everyone from Maniapoto who has come here to be with us today for what is a pretty historic account from Maniapoto but I also acknowledge a former member of this House Mr John Robertson the Mayor of Waitomo who has joined us today as well. Can I just note on behalf of a colleague of mine Harete Hipango our spokesperson for Māori development that she would have loved to take call in this debate as she regularly spends time travelling through the Maniapoto rohe but she is unable to take a call in this third and final reading.Here we are at the end of a very long process. They say that good things take time and I believe that having come through what has been quite a journey hopefully everyone can agree that this is the best outcome that was able to be reached. I say that in the context that there are always differing views. It is long process and a complex process and we saw that through select committee process as well where a number of submitters had varying views on groups that should or shouldn't be included and indeed on different aspects of that bill throughout that process as well. But it takes time and it is challenging and it involves negotiation. Ultimately though a position has now been reached that I think we can all support. We have a good outcome. That includes of course cultural redress financial redress and commercial redress—things that are important. But for me as I understand it a sense of identity I think is absolutely critical and the self-worth the value and the importance that comes from settlement claims being finalised is absolutely vital. When I see our country experiencing a time of increased division and increased uncertainty across a range of areas I think this is a good step to help try and in part perhaps address some of those challenges that are being faced as well.On that note I would just like to reiterate that we do support this bill. We are delighted to see it now receiving its final reading and we look forward to the completion and the subsequent moving forward for Maniapoto. As their future looks bright I am sure and the opportunities will be significant I think that is the most exciting aspect of any settlement bill. It puts a line in the sand and enables people to look with positivity to the future and to drive their own success from there. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E mihi ana ahau ki a koutou kua tae mai ki te Whare Pāremata me te marae o Pipitea i tēnei rā whakahirahira i tēnei rā whakanuia. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa. [To the Speaker of the House I acknowledge those who have come to Parliament House and to Pipitea Marae on this important day this day of celebration. Greetings to you all.]Kei te mihi ki te Nehenehenui [I acknowledge the people of the Nehenehenui] and all of the negotiators including the chief Crown negotiator David Tapsell. The work you have done to get us to this day has been a service to your iwi to everyone here and to all New Zealanders. E kī ana te Minita [The Minister states] It is right that the Crown atones for the pain and suffering it has caused your people." and today's reading of this bill is the next step towards the historically important and overdue apology from the Crown at Te Tokanganui-a-Noho marae on 4 December. I look forward to that and as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee Tāmati Coffey said we will stand alongside you with tears in our eyes and our noses running on that important day. I also want to acknowledge the comment of Joseph Mooney that Ngāti Maniapoto's history is etched into that of the King Country and it is all around New Zealand. I grew up seeing most days the memorial at the junction of Mangere Road and Great South Road that commemorates the member of the House of Representatives Colonel Marmaduke George Nixon who commanded the Colonial Defence Force Cavalry—which attacked your people at Rangiaowhia—in the Waikato Wars. I acknowledge the comments around this House that Parliament recognises the shame for the Crown in the way that it acted in those years particularly at Rangiaowhia and the disrespect of the unequal treatment that followed with conscription and confiscation since then. But those views aren't shared everywhere and by all New Zealanders and that shame is not known. What I hope is that from today's reading in Parliament and from the work that you will be able to do from settlement and the work that continues with the Government you will be able to tell that important history to everyone and most importantly to your mokopuna who will know that they come from a great line of people and have a place in New Zealand and with you. And I want to acknowledge the work of the ever-impressive and obviously quite intimidating Tom Roa on that. My thanks as well to your kaumātua and tīpuna who despite what they have suffered through the effects of colonisation have always striven to uphold their tribal unity and mana whakahaere. They made sustained efforts in their pursuit of their claims for redress and compensation from the Crown. They shared that history they kept that memory alive and my thanks to all of you for the sense of hope that you bring today for your mokopuna and for ours. Ki a koutou ngā mihi maioha ngā mihi mahana. [Warm and affectionate greetings to you all.]"
O'Connor Greg; Rurawhe AdrianHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
O'Connor GregMANIAPOTO CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 to 7 Schedules 1 to 6 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill. I'll remind members that it will be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. We come to first to the debate on Part 1.
Rurawhe AdrianWEDNESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2022(continued on Thursday 22 September 2022)SPEAKER: Kāti rā tēnā rā tātou katoa. Kei te haere tonu te Whare i tēnei ata i runga i te tukunga iho o rātou mā te wāhi ngaro Matua Tama Wairua Tapu me ngā Anahera Pono te Māngai hei tautoko mai āianei ake nei āe.[Greetings to you all. The sitting of the House continues this morning on the auspices of those of the divine realm the Father the Son the Holy Ghost and the Faithful Angels with support of the Speaker now and for ever amen.]The House has resumed for the extended sitting. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill.
Wednesday 21 September 2022 - Volume 762
Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Sharma.Motion not agreed to.
Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Motion not agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members when we broke off for the dinner break we were debating clauses 1 and 2.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 stand part.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 stand part.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Plain Language Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 242 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown's amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown's amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule 1 agreed to.
Plain Language Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Plain Language Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
10. Question No. 10—WomenWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 10—Women10. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for Women: What progress can she report for Suffrage Day on women's equality?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): I'm sure the House will join me in commemorating the occasion of Monday—Suffrage Day—when we marked 129 years since women won the right to vote in this country. As the Minister for Women I am proud to say that the Government has made progress to improve the lives of Kiwi women through passing the Equal Pay Amendment Act rolling out pay parity to many female-dominated industries such as early childhood education and reducing the pay gap in the Public Service.Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Government supporting women who are mothers?Hon JAN TINETTI: Under this Government we've boosted support for all parents but we know that women still do the majority of unpaid caring responsibilities which is why taking action such as extending paid parental leave further funding childcare programmes launching the Best Start payment and reinstating the training incentive allowance will make a difference to the lives of working mums.Willow-Jean Prime: What work is the Government progressing to ensure equal employment opportunities for women?Hon JAN TINETTI: I've already spoken in the House on how proud I am that we've launched the first ever Women's Employment Action Plan earlier this year. This plan was written by women for women with immediate and medium- and long-term actions to address barriers to women's employment. This work is happening across Government agencies now.Willow-Jean Prime: How else is the Government ensuring that girls and women are getting the essential health and wellbeing services they need?Hon JAN TINETTI: We made historic moves to decriminalise abortions introduced paid miscarriage leave and led a comprehensive plan to end family and sexual violence. We're also making critical investment into women's health through providing free period products in all schools improving cervical and breast cancer screening covering maternal birth injuries through ACC and investing in maternal mental health services.Willow-Jean Prime: How is she supporting women into leadership roles in the Public Service?Hon JAN TINETTI: Suffrage Day is a reminder of the tireless work of the great Kate Sheppard and Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia who petitioned this Parliament for women's right to vote. And 129 years on I know that they would be pleased to see a Parliament here today full of so many talented women and that we now have 52.5 percent of women on all Government boards thanks to a concerted effort to lift women's leadership.
7. Question No. 7—Social Development and EmploymentANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 7—Social Development and Employment7. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made about supporting rangatahi into employment?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week I announced that we're supporting 1000 more rangatahi into employment through new funding for He Poutama Rangatahi programmes. Seven programmes from the top of the North Island to the West Coast in the South will receive funding to engage young people in their communities who are hardest to reach. This includes young people who have experienced challenges in accessing education or who are encountering barriers that are preventing them from getting a job. We remain laser focused on supporting young people to become work-ready and helping them to tackle the barriers to employment.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will this funding support both young people and the workforce?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: He Poutama Rangatahi focuses on providing bespoke wraparound support pastoral care and pre-employment training for 15- to 24-year-olds. It means that young people are better supported and gain the confidence to take up job opportunities in the labour market which we know is paying dividends. For example filled jobs for the 15 to 24 age group rose to 131000 in the June 2022 quarter up 18 percent when compared with the June 2021 quarter. The focus remains on filling demand for skilled workers improving employment social and whānau outcomes supporting businesses and the labour market to grow and fundamentally supporting people to realise their potential.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How does this announcement align with the Better Pathways Package to tackle youth crime?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: He Poutama Rangatahi was a feature of our Better Pathways Package announced recently by Minister Hipkins and myself. Whilst this additional support sits separate to that it aims to achieve the same goal which is to see more rangatahi in employment or training. As part of the Better Pathways Package we announced an extension to He Poutama Rangatahi. The extension recognises the importance of disrupting the cycle of crime addressing some of the long-term and very complex issues that children and young people face and giving them an opportunity to re-engage with their communities.
6. Question No. 6—Social Development and EmploymentCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 6—Social Development and Employment6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What current contracts does the Ministry of Social Development have with Visions of a Helping Hand Charitable Trust in Rotorua and what process around conflicts of interest if any did the ministry undertake before awarding the contracts?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has one contract with Visions of a Helping Hand to provide intensive support to people who are staying in non-contracted emergency housing in Rotorua. This is to work with up to a hundred clients at any given time to develop individual plans to support their wellbeing and long-term goals. Funding decisions for this contract are through a panel which is made up of representatives from Rotorua Lakes Council Korowai Health the regional commissioner for the Bay of Plenty and Ngāti Whakaue. MSD has advised me that there was one conflict of interest on this panel. This is not an MSD staff member and was unrelated to the Visions contract. This is managed by that member not participating in discussions or deliberations on the conflict of interest matter. I've also been made aware of the perceived conflict of interest involving an MSD staff member with Visions. I've received reassurances from MSD that this interest was declared prior to the tender process and that the staff member was not a member of the panel that awarded the contract or involved in the development of the tender by Visions. Visions of a Helping Hand also received two amounts of one-off grant funding relating to provider capability and a COVID-related Community Awareness and Preparedness Grant Fund.Chris Bishop: Does she think it's appropriate that when MSD awarded a contract to the Visions of a Helping Hand trust in November 2021 one of the trustees of Visions was working for MSD as a regional housing adviser in the Bay of Plenty?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I've already covered the conflicts of interest that were declared and the processes that were undertaken to ensure that the process for awarding the contract was fair and transparent.Chris Bishop: What steps did MSD take to manage the conflict of interest or perceived conflicts of interest around their awarding of this contract to Visions of a Helping Hand trust?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I responded to that very clearly in the answer to the primary question.
5. Question No. 5—PoliceVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 5—Police5. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Police: What announcements has he made on preventing at-risk youth from entering a pathway of crime?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): The Better Pathways Package that we announced earlier this month extends police and Oranga Tamariki initiatives that are backed by evidence and that are known to work. They provide intensive wraparound support to at-risk young people and their wider families and that support is provided from within their own communities. The Government is backing local providers to scale up the work that they do best and to give young New Zealanders the best chance to succeed. Vanushi Walters: How many will benefit from these services?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Part of the Better Pathways Package targets some of the most at-risk young people; 232 families with at-risk young people will benefit from the scaling up of initiatives such as family functional therapy intensive mentoring and community-led youth inclusion programmes.Vanushi Walters: Why are these changes necessary?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: While overall trends around youth crime are continuing to point down we are seeing a spike in youth offending in some key areas particularly in the upper North Island. But we do know that punishing young people through the criminal justice system more often than not has led them on to future and more serious criminal offending. So these services alongside other evidence-based initiatives in the Better Pathways Package aim to put more young people into education or training or work in order to drive down youth crime. Vanushi Walters: What evidence has he seen that family functional therapy programmes will help at-risk youth?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Family functional therapy programmes already operate across New Zealand and they've led to a reduction in youth offending of up to 60 percent in some regions as well as reducing challenging behaviours and instances of family harm. We're supporting their expansion because they have been shown to work.Vanushi Walters: How will youth inclusion programmes help at-risk youth?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: These programmes are helping to lower the rates of youth offending and increase participation in education training or employment. So as of August 2022 for example if we look at 59 of the 61 young people who went through programmes in Ōpōtiki and Taitoko they were more fully engaged in education and supported into employment as a result of those programmes. They work and that's why we're backing them.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The country's strong economic and financial position continues to be recognised by international rating agencies. Standard & Poor's reaffirm New Zealand's local currency credit rating to AAA and the foreign currency rating to AA+—both with a stable outlook. The agency once again praised the Government's response to COVID-19 saying New Zealand had weathered the pandemic better than most countries in terms of health fiscal and economic outcomes." We are taking a balanced approach in what is a difficult international environment that is tough for many New Zealand businesses and households.Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on credit rating assessments for the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Fitch Ratings upgraded New Zealand's long-term foreign currency credit rating from AA with a positive outlook to AA+ with a stable outlook or the long-term local currency credit rating has been reaffirmed at AA+ with a stable outlook. The country's rating was downgraded I would note to AA in September 2011.Ingrid Leary: Why are credit ratings important for the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ratings are important for ensuring that the cost of our borrowing remains low. Our AAA and AA+ ratings give people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. It helps ensure our debt-servicing costs are kept as low as possible. In a challenging global environment our strong credit rating is a sign of confidence in the economy and that the Government's economic plan and management is working. We are as a country well placed to support New Zealanders and to make the long-term investments we need to build a sustainable and resilient economy.Ingrid Leary: What did the reports say about the economy's prospects?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Standard & Poor's report said New Zealand's economy is performing well and the strong rebound in economic activity and the removal of pandemic-related support measures will narrow New Zealand's fiscal deficit. The agency said that debt levels remain low when compared with our peers internationally and that New Zealand is in a good position to deal with further challenges. The Fitch Ratings agency said the Government's credible commitment to prudent financial management and our planned return to surplus will lead to a gradual reduction in debt relative to GDP—well below the medium of our peers. There is—even in challenging times—every reason to remain optimistic about the New Zealand economy."
Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill — First Reading
SpeechHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to thank members across the House for their very good contributions to this simple small member's bill of mine. I want to reflect how wonderful it is to sit in this House for nearly an hour and listen to biosecurity issues to have a very good discussion around those threats to the economic wellbeing the social wellbeing and the environmental wellbeing of New Zealand. I think that this has largely been a non-partisan discussion with some very unique contributions almost without exception to what I would argue is one of the most pressing issues we have in New Zealand. And we all know what those are. We all know about M. bovis we all know about foot-and-mouth we all know about marmorated stink bugs—Nicola Grigg: I didn't.Hon Member: We do now.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Well we do now. And when you see a stink bug you look at it really closely these days. But why do we do that? Because incursions across our border threaten our very way of life and they threaten our environment. And that has been the most satisfying part of this discussion.I have to say though that Teanau Tuiono was struggling and it took him a full 2½ minutes of his contribution to talk himself into not supporting this bill.Simeon Brown: We know he wanted to.Hon Member: He wanted to—he really did.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Well my colleagues are saying he wanted to—I believe he did. And I can only reflect that we have in this Parliament the Green Party which is becoming more and more disconnected from what really matters in New Zealand. And I would argue that for a party which calls itself green they have failed to live up to their name tonight. But what I will say about other parties around the House is that there has been a near universal acknowledgment of those things that matter to us as citizens as members of our communities and as parliamentarians. And so I want to thank everybody very sincerely for that. As I said the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill is a small bill that makes a couple of changes. It empowers Immigration officers to deport people who wish to bring things into New Zealand which will damage our environment which will damage our community which will damage our economy.I do hope that the Primary Production Committee invite me to come along to consideration of the bill because I remain very very interested in its outcome. And once again I do want to acknowledge the contributions across the House and thank you members for your support. Thank you Mr Speaker.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I think there was a plain English bill earlier in the day—I think it was a pretty crap bill; sorry that's probably more colloquial than plain. But I thought—to make it relatively simple I think this is a good bill.Hon Member: Yeah.SIMON O'CONNOR: Yeah. I want to commend Jacqui Dean for getting this bill up and by the sounds of it near unanimity apart from the Green Party who have yet again found an excuse not to sort of involve themselves.A pretty simple bill. Pretty simple bill. Makes sense. I just flew back in to New Zealand recently and thought to myself $400 is not a lot of money; $1000 might make people think a little bit further.It's a good bill. It's a good bill. I think I've said it's a good bill. There's really not much more you could say. I could pause a bit more for dramatic effect. [Pauses] Probably just did.Simeon Brown: Very plain English Simon.SIMON O'CONNOR: I think it's great. I think it's very plain English. Very simple. Not messing things up. No it's a very good bill. Jacqui Dean's done well to bring it to the House. I'm pleased that there are a number of parties—hopefully all—that support this. Anything we can do to protect our environment our farmers and our trades is worth supporting.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasant surprise and something of a rarity to have a Labour caucus actually understand pragmatism and practicality when it comes to legislation and agreeing with it. So to canvass the bill what a wonderful piece of legislation and I just want to—Simeon Brown: You woke them up.MARK CAMERON: You certainly did there Simeon Brown. I just want to contest the Hon Jacqui Dean on her simple" bill. I actually think I'd change the wording to a small bill but an important one an immensely important one. As has been well canvassed in the House the primary sector is worth umpteen billions of dollars—something like $52 billion to $53 billion—to our overall wellbeing economic wellbeing.ACT fundamentally supports the bill and as has been well canvassed before in the House to use the Hon Jacqui Dean's words it's a simple piece of legislation that increases the offences regime from $400 to $1000 and for a conviction fine from $1000 to $2000. I think that's a nonsensical argument to make when we're talking about the potentiality of a biosecurity threat coming into New Zealand and potentially doing billions of dollars damage to the overall economic wellbeing of the country.Just to canvass a couple of the biosecurity issues that we are currently confronted with for those that are either naive to these issues or simply don't know for various other reasons: Queensland fruit fly pea weevil fall armyworm granulate ambrosia beetle—gracious me; I don't know what that thing looks like but I can only imagine the damage that pest does. Apparently the granulate ambrosia beetle consumes some 350 different plant species. Try and reconcile that into economic terms. And that beetle's also found interestingly in dozens of countries including in Australia our nearest neighbour and one of our largest economic trading partners.I'm not going to overplay my hand here. This is a wonderful simple—to use the Hon Jacqui Dean's wording—piece of legislation and yeah ACT supports this bill."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Speaker. Congratulations to the member for having the bill pulled but the National Party opposes this bill. The Labour Government has already implemented an independent review of electoral laws and is due to report back later this year and that is the appropriate place to consider changes to electoral law. There can be a few things as important as determining how people can select those who represent them in this House and the appropriate place to do that is in the independent review of electoral laws rather than on a hodgepodge basis which this unfortunately is.Staggering individual electoral law changes risks having changes all over the shop that are unaligned and could have unintended consequences. In fact the Attorney-General has already raised concerns about the bill which is indicative of why electoral laws should be considered thoroughly. Electoral law is of course incredibly important and should be thoroughly considered on a cross-party basis. So we do not recommend this bill to the House.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look one of the things I have found in life is that the more you try to insinuate something in the title the less it actually is. And so saying this is strengthening democracy" is the first indicator it's doing the complete opposite. While I do not take away from the intention of the member putting this forward Golriz Ghahraman this is just a grab bag of Green Party wish lists to gerrymander the whole system. It's not how we do electoral law reform. To give credit to Government they're putting reviews in place Justice Committee's review a grab bag of seven ideas—Golriz Ghahraman: They came out of the justice review.SIMON O'CONNOR: I know I'm on the Justice Committee which is one of my delightful biases that I'd much prefer that we do our normal reviews of each electoral cycle than a member's bill as I say with seven rather arbitrary and inconsistent ideas as I say under the somewhat Orwellian double-speak of strengthening democracy. This will do the complete opposite other than of course strengthening the democratic results that the Green Party would want."
Personal Explanation — Debate—Reflections on Members' Families
Hipkins ChrisPERSONAL EXPLANATIONSDebate—Reflections on Members' FamiliesHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation regarding an interjection I made during question time today. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you. Today during discussions around ministerial conflicts of interest I observed that family members in successive Governments have been engaged within the Public Service in a wide range of roles and conflicts of interest have been appropriately managed. New Zealand is a small country and family members should not be precluded from public sector work simply because they're related to someone holding elected office. Later in the House I interjected during question time using Bill English and his family as an example. I did not intend to suggest in any way that the appointments involving his family were inappropriate; in fact I was attempting to illustrate the opposite. I've worked directly with members of Mr English's family both in Government and in Opposition and have found them to be very professional. I regret that my interjection has been interpreted as suggesting the opposite of what I intended and on reflection I also regret bringing the former member and his family into a debate that they were not part of. Accordingly I withdraw and apologise for my interjections.
Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Salesa JennyREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Plain Language Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll bring the member's attention if I can back to new section 17AA(3)(f) inserted by clause 4 and it speaks to specify how long before a craft's arrival in New Zealand the information must be provided." I'm just trying to ascertain from the member: in that instance then it's purely an operational discretion at the hands of the said captain or you know the vessel operator etc. Is that not potentially problematic insomuch that those may convey—should they fall into prosecution—that they had inadequate time to actually make sense of the information because it's fairly operationalised in terms of discretion if you can understand what I'm asking?STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): To answer your question—the reason for the specification of how long before the craft's arrival in New Zealand the information must be provided—that is because we do not have the ability to enforce laws outside our territory. So in order to be able to enforce this what we want is for the information—if it's provided say by an airline hostess reading out from a script or provided on the TVs on an aircraft—to be conveyed to passengers as close to disembarkation as possible so they've got time to remove that apple from their backpack before going through the Ministry for Primary Industries.Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look thank you to the member Steph Lewis for engaging clear knowledge of the bill. I'm still not clear—and it's possibly the way I articulate questions—where the actual authority rests. Again to draw her attention to new section 17AA(2) inserted by clause 4: Before the craft arrives in New Zealand the person in charge of the craft must—" and then it follows on. Makes perfect sense that this has to be delivered but does she believe that this is clearly legally defined who is in charge of the aircraft? And again I use the simple example: the captain of an aircraft is in charge but she or he is not the one delivering this message; it's the purser. As we all know it's the flight crew who you know do all the jazz hands stuff. [Waves hands]Hon Member: The what stuff?SIMON O'CONNOR: The jazz hands. Very important. Very important.Hon Member: Give us a demonstration.SIMON O'CONNOR: No but I just did. Just go that way and maybe to your left or your right—I'd prefer we all go to the right just want to make that clear.Hon Member: Where are the nearest exits?SIMON O'CONNOR: The nearest exit for the Labour Government is the next election. But sorry apologies—[Laughter]—I know I thought it was pretty good. But no quite seriously—[Interruption] We are really going a bit—so long and short how do we clearly define who's in charge of the aircraft? Because ultimately the captain is not going to be the one delivering this message. And again if we take something like Air New Zealand or Jetstar or Qantas whoever the person in charge of the aircraft is ultimately following orders from higher up. So does she think this is clear enough?STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): In answer to your question: yes I do think this is clear enough. The person in charge of a craft is the person who is flying or sailing it into New Zealand with passengers on board who is then required to ensure that the information is provided in the form specified in the regulations.However in future as technology evolves and there is the possibility—we wanted the flexibility for this information to be able to be conveyed through electronic apps on people's phones etc.—for this information to be provided at that point in which case it may be a decision for the particular airline."
SpeechSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Chair. To answer the members' questions—all very good questions thank you. In terms of the information that's required to be provided that's going to be set out in the regulations which will be drafted by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The reason for the extension in the commencement clause of the bill is to enable MPI to go out and consult with key stakeholders such as the airlines and cruise ship operators to make sure that we're getting the regulations right in terms of what information needs to be provided to passengers and how it's provided to passengers. Also putting it in the regulations enables that flexibility to take into account the changes in technology that we're seeing at the border at the moment. The director-general of MPI will be involved in that process of confirming what information is required to be provided as well and the form in which it is to be provided. In terms of the fines and whether that amount is sufficient the advice from MPI is that the range of fines—$1000 for an individual or $5000 for a body corporate—is consistent with similar offences already in the Biosecurity Act. The Primary Production Committee agreed with MPI's advice and accepted that recommendation. Likewise it wasn't appropriate to include an element of mens rea. It was considered very unlikely that anyone would intentionally and deliberately try to obstruct our biosecurity laws. It was deemed appropriate in the context of other offences in the Biosecurity Act to make this a strict liability offence.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. To the member Steph Lewis: I'm just asking around the new section 17AA provision inserted by clause 4 and the decision to make this a strict liability offence. I just wonder if the member could just explain to the committee the rationale for deciding to settle on a strict liability offence. And obviously this is an offence that can be established without the need for proving the intention of committing the offence so there is provision here that the captain of the incoming craft is required to provide information to the passengers and I assume that that means that that is then imputed to the passengers that they then have the knowledge requisite to make the declaration or not. So just given that I'd be interested in the decision to settle on a strict liability offence which doesn't require that intention of committing the offence and also how that's related to the decision in terms of the penalty regime and the fines that can be imposed and the level that's been set.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. It's good to see the Simons working in the Chamber here tonight. Hey look to acknowledge the member Steph Lewis—obviously National continues to support the bill. There are questions about the use of the Parliament's time around this but overall it's a good idea.I suppose I just want to look in your clause 7—this is around penalties—so I have a couple of questions if I might to Ms Lewis. Does she feel that the $1000 fine and $5000 fine is sufficient? How did she arrive at those numbers?But more importantly who ultimately is responsible for committing this offence? Because as the member will know if we jump back to clause 4 inserting new section 17AA it's saying here that the person responsible is in charge of the craft but I'm not sure it's very very clear. Because when I think of a commercial aircraft it's the captain which is perfectly fine—except the captain of say Jetstar or Air New Zealand is not the one setting the policies. So is that now with Air New Zealand Greg Foran and friends? Or—and I'm not trying to be silly—is it the board? You know the Air New Zealand board: is it Theresa Gattung and friends? Or is it the purser? Because often it's the air crew not the captain who are providing the information. So for me it's just not actually clear who's in charge of the craft—or to phrase it perhaps a different way the captain might be in charge of the aircraft but she or he is not actually the one responsible. Does the member think that the law as proposed is clear enough?
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): So I'm wondering will the New Zealand Traveller Declaration be used as a tool to collect the information that's proposed by this bill as needed to be collected? We understand—we've heard from finance Minister Grant Robertson in the past few days—that even though the New Zealand Traveller Declaration's not required for the purposes of tracking and tracing passengers to control COVID-19 it will become the declaration to replace all other biosecurity and customs declarations. So can the member Steph Lewis confirm whether there is a role for the New Zealand Traveller Declaration to be used as part of the administration of the collection of this information that this bill seeks to collect?STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): In short this bill doesn't propose to collect any information. This bill is about providing information to passengers to educate them about what they can and cannot bring into New Zealand that may or may not provide a potential biosecurity threat to New Zealand biodiversity and our food and fibre sectors. As I mentioned in my previous answer which the member may have heard we are seeing technology rapidly evolve at the moment. There has been an indication that we are moving towards a digital border system and there is absolutely scope to include the provision of information about our biosecurity laws here in Aotearoa New Zealand to passengers potentially through that app. That is a call for the Minister to make.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for clarifying that Steph Lewis. Will there be a requirement for inbound passengers who have taken part in the PowerPoint or whatever the digital form is that the information is proposed to be shared in—will they be required to complete an acknowledgment that they've completed the training for example? Will there be a form that they fill out to acknowledge that they've read listened or viewed and understood the information they've received; if not how does the member propose to confirm whether the information in fact has been received and understood by the people intended to receive it?
SpeechSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the members for their questions. Please be assured that there are already very robust processes in place as the committee was advised by the Ministry for Primary Industries—in particular regarding small craft and yachts. Say you are sailing from Fiji to New Zealand over this summer break that we're all looking forward to. There's already a requirement that the masters provide a full declaration for biosecurity clearance before arriving in New Zealand. Small craft are also inspected upon arrival in New Zealand and so that sets out that process in full. The members might also be interested to note that one of the other reasons for excluding small craft is because the bulk of the small craft—in particular aeroplanes—that would have been caught by not having a cap include flights like air ambulance flights. It would have included defence force flights for example or search and rescue flights or even donor organ retrieval flights—all of which were not intended to be captured by this bill. In addition to that cargo ships also have a robust process in place. In terms of the member's question around cruise ships: again there is already a really robust process in place for our cruise ships that has been occurring for a long time even prior to COVID. What happens is that the videos and announcements are played over the speaker and on TVs about half an hour typically prior to arrival in New Zealand and the disembarking of the vessel. In terms of how those then become translated the reason for moving the specifics around what information is required to be provided to passengers and the form in which it's required to be provided into the regulations is to take account of the fact that technology is rapidly evolving. What we're seeing is that more and more airlines and cruise ship providers are bringing out their own apps to provide to passengers that will have that ability to provide a greater number of translations to get that information across to incoming passengers arriving in New Zealand.