edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Talofa lava Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and take a short call on the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. It's been a couple of months since I stood in this House so I'd just like to acknowledge the difference that it feels standing here in an odd space and the tremendous amount of work that everyone has done to get us here today.I'd like to acknowledge the Minister Jenny Salesa for this bill. I think it's a really really great little bill. People may think that this is not earth-shattering; however the thing that this bill does is it starts to address the social norms of smoking in vehicles. It starts to address actually what I think a few of us have talked about when we've sat in cars and there's been smoking. Now I was really lucky as a child that my parents didn't smoke but my grandad did and I spent a lot of time with my grandad. So we sat in smoky cars and smoky houses and smoky offices and it was just normal and it's one of those things that was just normal at that time—just as normal as not wearing a seatbelt at the time. And I think we've seen a change in social norms. I think we've seen a social campaign that has made a huge difference to people wearing seatbelts in this country and I think that this is exactly what this legislation will be doing.There's an 18-month window in which once this becomes law there will be an education and social norm change. People will be talked to they will be educated there will be opportunities to learn it will be explained if they are driving and they are caught smoking in a car where there are children—and that'll be great. It's understanding that children don't have a choice. They do not have a choice when their parents or other members are smoking around them and this bill actually gives those children a little bit of a voice. It says that this is the opportunity for their parents or those around them to be educated a little bit more and to think a little bit about our children.So it's a great little piece of legislation. It's taken quite some time to get its way to the House over this COVID period. I remember the first reading and I remember sitting on the select committee at the time on the Health Committee. I then came off the Health Committee but I do know how much everyone in that room at that time was really committed to seeing the best piece of legislation that they could get. So it is for that reason I commend this bill to the House.
McAnulty Kieran; Mallard TrevorKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Chris Penk: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No I've been listening to this for nearly an hour now and I think it's probably half an hour since I heard an original and relevant argument.Chris Penk: It'll be grammatical.SPEAKER: Well the member guarantees he's going to give us new and relevant material?Chris Penk: Yes sir.SPEAKER: If he doesn't I'll stop him mid-turn.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.
Tuesday 9 April 2019 - Volume 737
Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second timeThe House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
VoteSOCIAL SECURITY (WINTER ENERGY PAYMENT) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Winter energy payment for winter periods in and after 2019 calendar yearA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to. Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Part 1 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Arms (Prohibited Firearms Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill be now read a second 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 second time.
Arms (Prohibited Firearms Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
10. Question No. 10—Small BusinessHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small BusinessQuestion No. 10—Small Business10. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): Yes.Hon Jacqui Dean: Has he now asked for advice on the associated costs of valuation day on the 500000 small businesses in New Zealand for which he has responsibility in Cabinet as small business Minister?Hon STUART NASH: No—for one reason: there's no decision been made; and for a second reason: that the Tax Working Group didn't recommend that.Hon Jacqui Dean: Is he concerned that the cost evaluation of a small business for capital gains tax purposes could be significant and running into the thousands?Hon STUART NASH: Purely hypothetical.Hon Jacqui Dean: If it is impossible according to the Tax Working Group report to provide a comprehensive list of intangible property for the calculation of goodwill for small business how will it be possible to calculate the valuation of a small business with any sense of accuracy?Hon STUART NASH: The Tax Working Group provided about three methods and they said a valuation over five years. I suggest the member read the report and understand it.Hon Jacqui Dean: How will he guarantee the integrity of the valuation of the 500000 small businesses across the country in the face of so much uncertainty around liable tangible property?Hon STUART NASH: As I said last week the integrity of the tax system is one of my utmost priorities.Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister gave his answer in the context of being Minister of Revenue. He was asked the question in the context being the Minister for Small Business.SPEAKER: That's probably fair enough.Hon STUART NASH: As Minister for Small Business the integrity of the Government in the way we deal with small business is my utmost priority.
9. Question No. 9—HealthANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress if any has been made implementing the policy of free primary care for 13-year-olds and cheaper doctors visits for community services card holders that came into force on 1 December?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Making it easier for families to get the care they need when they need it is a priority for this Government. I'm pleased to inform the House that more than 99 percent of enrolled 13-year-olds can now access zero-fees GP care. This policy was a feature of the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and Labour and as of 1 April across New Zealand approximately 96 percent of community service card holders and their dependants who are enrolled with a general practice visit their doctor at low cost and won't be charged more than $18.50 a visit.Angie Warren-Clark: What are the benefits of free and low-cost doctors visits?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that last year cost was a barrier for nearly 600000 New Zealanders when they needed to go to the doctor. That means people have put off seeking the help they need and for many that would have resulted in them getting sicker and sicker and ending up in hospital. I'm proud that this Government has stepped up and made it free or cheaper to go to the doctor for around 600000 New Zealanders.Angie Warren-Clark: Are there any regions where all general practices have opted to provide lower visits to patients with a community services card?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member means lower-cost visits to patients with a community services card and if that's true—Angie Warren-Clark: That is what I was asking.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —it is true—the answer is yes. All general practices in Northland Lakes Tairāwhiti Bay of Plenty Hawke's Bay Whanganui Hutt Valley Wairarapa West Coast and South Canterbury district health board regions—all general practices in those regions—have opted to provide lower-cost visits to their eligible patients with a community services card—more good news.
6. Question No. 6—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent data has he seen on the number of people entering the teaching profession?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The latest provisional figures from the Ministry of Education show that the number of beginning primary school teachers increased 13 percent last year while the number of beginning secondary school teachers increased 6.6 percent during that same time period. This is a very welcome increase in the number of people training to be teachers after a 40 percent reduction in the number of teacher trainees between 2008 and 2017.Jan Tinetti: What other trends has he seen in beginner teachers?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Another very positive development is that we are seeing an increase in the number of primary and secondary school teachers employed into permanent full-time roles rather than fixed-term roles. The number of beginning teachers employed into fixed-term roles has been a significant challenge for many of those teachers in trying to complete their registration; so the fact that they are now moving into permanent roles making it easier for them to finish their registration is very welcome. Retention of beginning teachers is also very high: 90 percent in primary schools and 82 percent of secondary school teachers had stayed on three years after starting. That's for those who started in 2014.Jan Tinetti: What work has the Government done or has under way to attract people into the teaching profession?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a number of initiatives under way to get more people into the teaching profession including addressing the issues that our current teachers have been raising by removing national standards. We've identified over 45 opportunities to reduce red tape for teachers. We're developing an education workforce strategy. That's on top of the $40 million investment that we made in boosting teacher supply which includes among other things free refresher training more support for beginning teachers and an expanded voluntary bonding scheme.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I'm very pleased to stand up and take a brief contribution in this debate. I particularly acknowledge other former elected members of local government who are in the Chamber. It's difficult to know where to begin with this debate because that must be about the worst line-up of Opposition speeches I've heard in this Chamber and I sat on that side of the House in some pretty ropey statutes amendment bills debates late in the evening.One interesting claim that was made was that allowing for councils to base their decisions around the well-beings of their communities is going to lead to some kind of rates blowout. We heard that repeatedly. It was clearly one of the talking points that members on the other side of the House had. Well interestingly enough I found some figures on the average rates increases in the years between 2014 and 2017 under the current regime. And guess what—guess what. Under the current regime which does not take account of community well-being the regime put in place by the previous Government rates increased at five times the rate of inflation. Yet here we are with members on the other side having the temerity to suggest that a regime that simply allows local government to look after the well-being of its community members on the basis of its knowledge about their communities is somehow fiscally irresponsible when that is the track record of the legislation that those members are defending. Where was the fiscal responsibility and the high dudgeon calls about it then? Where was that? We didn't hear a dickey bird. Five times the rate of inflation! I would have thought that some of those members including the previous speaker Denise Lee who was a member of a local authority at that point might have been a little more informed of that point.The fundamental point about this bill is that it's about a respect from this House to our colleagues in local government. It's about respecting the fact that elected members in local government know their communities. On that basis I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Tēnā koe. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's been an extraordinary exercise to sit here and listen to other members of the House completely miss the mark on this bill. Of course there is more than roads rates and rubbish as the prior speaker said when it comes to local government. But let me outline two issues where you've completely missed the mark. I should know because just a short 18 months ago I was a city councillor in the super-city.Here's the two issues where you've completely missed the mark. One is how ratepayers feel and the other is your timing for this legislation. On the first this is how ratepayers feel—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Can members refrain from bringing the Speaker into the debate thank you.DENISE LEE: Yes I can. This is how the opposite side of the House should view how ratepayers feel. There is a serious lack of trust in local government and specifically Auckland Council right now. I wish the other side of the House luck for introducing something where they will interpret it as wide-mark budgeting untargeted spending and expenditure creep. And on the topic of development levies that scattergun approach to development levies and the spending of it on swimming pools and museums—when you get your house in order when a local government council gets its house in order then you can go to topics like that. The other bit of advice—my second issue that I take real exception to is the other side of the House's timing. The Productivity Commission—you've kicked it off. The commission's final report is due in November this year looking at drivers of local government costs and instead the other side of the House is doing this now? It does not make sense. You've completely missed the mark around how people—[Interruption] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe):Order! Order! Members everyone settle down. You've got about three minutes left to go. Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate. And that's interjections. If members don't know how to use the personal pronoun you" correctly don't use it at all.DENISE LEE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will finish by saying that the other side of the House their timing is off. They're not understanding the drivers of local government costs and they're certainly not understanding the lack of trust and the lack of respect and undergirding foundational trust that does not exist in many councils around New Zealand specifically Auckland Council. If you did that then you'd be waiting for a different era in which to introduce the well-beings."
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. You'd think listening to the National Party and indeed listening to that last speaker Jian Yang who asked the question Should we apply fiscal discipline to local government?" that we were somehow stripping away any sense of responsibility economically or fiscally from local government. That is not what is contained in this bill at all. If the Opposition were to take the time to read through this relatively small piece of legislation—it's pretty quick to read through—you would find that the purpose of local government is being reinstated as and I quote "to promote the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of communities". That is absolutely the opposite of taking away fiscal responsibility. It is there clear as daylight. Instead what we're saying is that we want to ensure that the framework which local government is operating in is autonomous and that they have the responsibility and the ability actually to implement decisions that affect their local community that are not prescribed by central government. Who do we in this House think that we are? It is a core fundamental principle of this Parliament of parliamentary supremacy that parliaments cannot bind future parliaments. So who do we think we are if we as a Parliament can bind local governments' hands and say that they cannot address the needs of their local communities? Who do we think we are? We are not so constrained. I'd also like to address the fact which has been raised by a number of speakers so far about fiscal responsibility because what we've seen over the past few decades is that the mandate of local government has crept. They have had the finger pointed at them a lot and been told that they have to do more with less. Their responsibility their mandate has crept but the coffers have not grown. Local governments are relying on rates and relying on things like dog licensing fees to pay for the services that their citizens expect. To benchmark this against international examples it's the case that in New Zealand local governments get about 11 percent of Government spending. They get discretion over about 11 percent of Government spending. Internationally it's 30 percent. So the point that I'd really like to drive home tonight to both members of Parliament and those members of the public who may be tuned in to Parliament TV and enjoying themselves I do hope with this lively debate is it is time for local government elections in October of this year and that accountability fiscal or otherwise that the Opposition is talking about will be brought to bear through the magic that is democracy. The Greens proudly stand in support of this piece of legislation and would like to commend the Minister in charge Nanaia Mahuta because this is an incredible step in the right direction towards recognising that the well-being of our communities the mental health of our people is seen and reflected in far more than the books."
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): When we consider this bill the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill a key question we should ask is should we apply fiscal discipline to local governments—should we apply fiscal discipline to local governments? We on this side of the House will say yes and that is why we did local governmental reforms and amended the Local Government Act 2002 seven years ago. Our Better Local Government reforms achieved a lot. The reforms provided clarity around the role of councils stronger governance and improved efficiency and also more responsible financial management. That's what we achieved through our local governmental reforms seven years ago. We believe that ratepayers need to be assured that their council is spending their money wisely. This is their right and for that reason local government needs to focus on services which matter to ratepayers and they need to deliver high quality services to their ratepayers.Labour however has decided to reverse National's reforms and re-insert the four well-beings. An immediate consequence of this will be the rise of rates because councils will not be restrained in untargeted spending. So this is an immediate consequence—and not only that; we will also see the rise of development levies because development contributions will again be levied on developers for infrastructure such as museums libraries and swimming pools. So as a consequence of that section prices will go up because developers will of course pass on their development contribution through section prices. And who will suffer? First home buyers—first home buyers. So that will be a blow to the Labour-led Government's effort to provide affordable housing. So this is yet another poorly thought through Labour-led Government policy.We urge the Minister to defer the bill. The Productivity Commission is conducting an inquiry and we should wait until the inquiry is completed and the findings and recommendations are considered. Then we will see.Business New Zealand share our view. They say in their submission the bill should not proceed at this stage at least until the inquiry into the drivers of local government cost and its revenue base concludes. The inquiry could propose changes to the Local Government Act including different funding options. So we do have people there asking the Minister the Government to defer this bill. However the Labour-led Government will continue to push this to go through so I oppose the bill.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to stand in opposition to this bill. I would like to acknowledge the previous speaker the Hon Peeni Henare. He is normally good on his speeches but I am disappointed with his speech today and what he has said. This side—the Opposition—is in opposition because that coalition Government has been increasing the taxes time and again and this bill is no different. It is going to increase the rates it is going to increase the developers' contribution and that is going to increase the prices for the houses for first-home buyers. That Government has been advocating for first-home buyers but what we see in this bill is that the development contribution which will be increased will be definitely passed on through the sections and the houses which will be built will be more expensive than what they are today.What we have seen in the past: this Government has been helping the councils to increase the rates and to increase the taxes. We saw a regional fuel tax implemented in Auckland and that has been passed on to the consumers. It is pinching them. What we have seen in the past year: a $50 increase in the rents across the country. That is again pinching the back pockets of the people.The previous speaker mentioned that he has talked to a lot of businesses. I would like to quote from some of the submissions made by the businesses to the Governance and Administration Committee. During the select committee process we listened to 34 submitters out of 131 submissions and what Business New Zealand said in their submission opposing this bill was that the bill should wait until the Productivity Commission submits their report and the Government should wait for it. That is going to happen in November and this bill which was reported back last year in September has been waiting for a second reading. They're talking about the well-being. They didn't talk about well-being for almost eight nine months. Suddenly they have woken up and are talking about it.What the Local Government Business Forum has said in opposition to this bill: again they said the new mechanism is going to increase the rates of the section. They also said there is still a lot of unnecessary council activity and overexpenditure which needs to be addressed. We were hoping that this Government will be looking to those areas rather than passing on new taxes new contributions to the people. That is not what we want to do; that is why we are opposing this bill in the second reading.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. This bill if it should pass will undo some very good work undertaken by the previous Government to focus councils on better governance more responsible financial management and improved efficiency. In 2012 we undertook some local government reforms which focused councils on their core roles of providing local infrastructure local public services and local regulatory functions at the least cost to households and to businesses. These four well-beings reinstituted into that Act will undo that good work. It will permit councils to a much broader remit on what they choose to spend hard-working ratepayers' money on with very diffuse sorts of justifications for why they might do that. Should this pass into law there will inevitably be rates rises as councils feel validated and indeed empowered in untargeted spending. It will take away the discipline from Better Public Services and Better Local Government efficiencies. The development contributions element is at least as bad if not worse. It simply permits the council to target new-home buyers first-home buyers to pay a greater share of facilities infrastructure reserves that the council might have decided that they want in the area and which should be more appropriately levied across the broader ratepayer base. But instead it allows levies to be charged for such facilities and amenities which isn't the case under law today. And what will happen—will absolutely happen with those increased development contributions—is they will be passed on to the homebuyer. And so if we have first-home buyers—and there is at least general agreement across the House that we want greater supply of housing; we want housing to be more affordable for first-home buyers—then then putting in legislation that will see an increase in developer contributions that will be passed on to those first-home buyers cannot possibly help them with housing affordability. On top of that the law—the legislation—would permit those same territorial authorities to levy businesses' development contributions for amenities that have got nothing to do with their businesses their business purpose and may not even be in the general or immediate vicinity of where those businesses are. It's simply a means for some greater taxation by stealth: putting in and enabling and empowering councils to basically get into the back pockets of New Zealand ratepayers householders and businesses. It isn't a good approach. It will undo the hard work we undertook to make sure that councils were appropriately focused on delivering the right sorts of services and infrastructure to ratepayers and businesses most effectively and particularly cost-efficiently for them. We oppose this bill.
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): The bill has been very well traversed here this evening in the House so I don't want to go over too much detail but I do want to start by acknowledging all the amazing health practitioners out there. I'm lucky to have a few in my family. My three sisters are a nurse a social worker in occupational therapy and a parents carer and a GP and I'm actually fortunate enough to be married to a psychologist—not for her though. I just want to acknowledge our health spokesperson Michael Woodhouse for the excellent work and contribution he's been making to our party as health spokesperson over the past year. I was just reading through the notes from the Health Committee. Mike Woodhouse has made a huge contribution in that area. This is largely a procedural bill which tidies up 14 provisions in the Act which is otherwise working well which is evidenced by the practitioners out there at the moment. Many of the amendments proposed in the bill arise from the two reviews of the Act. They were completed a few years ago in 2012 and 2009. One of those I just want to touch on: clause 27(1) which would basically widen it so that any person can make a complaint and that that's followed through not just by the Health and Disability Commissioner and the relevant authorities; clause 27(2) which inserts a provision specifying that one function of authorities is to promote and facilitate basically the delivery of health services; and also lastly—and in particular—this bill amends those provisions to clarify that responsible authorities can receive and act on information from members of the public. I think this is a very important point because often you'll have patients that go to see a doctor or a GP and often there's a huge imbalance of power and some patients are a bit less likely to complain to the relevant authorities. I think this tidies it up and for that reason I commend the bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I think the best way to describe this bill would be Who guards the guards?" As the previous speaker Tim Macindoe pointed out we generally have some faith in our medical system but it's a system that has changed considerably over the years. Even I can remember house calls. I remember the local doctor being just that—the local doctor part of the family someone that was very much the person you went to. You wouldn't really consider—maybe the odd locum but you had your own doctor.Now we go to medical practices and probably we're pretty lucky if we get to see our own doctor. If we're prepared to wait we may but generally we'll be offered an alternative. It just means that we're in a system that's probably become more depersonalised and as we do that of course at the same time there's all sorts of pressures from drug companies. Every night our television is full of ads for something as diverse as Viagra for heart remedies for hair remedies—all of which puts pressure on the medical profession. That's just one part of the medical profession because of course this bill relates to 23 health professions which are regulated which are overseen by 16 authorities and this bill is about those 16 authorities who oversee those health professions which are regulated. It's very important that they are the guards and that they are the ones that we rely on so that when we do go off to the doctor and more importantly and more often probably we are sending our dependants off to those doctors someone is overseeing it. One part of it here deals with members of the medical profession who may get themselves in a little bit of an issue with the law—even something like drink-driving. It just goes to the authority to make sure it's being dealt with and if they are dealt with—they are convicted of drink-driving for example—it's actually quite flexible because it also means that they can enter into some counselling or treatment. It doesn't necessarily have to go straight to the nuclear option. So as I look through this bill and as someone who will be—probably maybe sooner than most—needing the medical authorities I know that someone is overseeing it. Every five years that body which does oversee it—the health practitioners Act—they will actually be being reviewed and how important is that to make sure that the profession which we all rely on and that our families rely on is being overviewed and that the guards are being guarded. So I commend this bill to the House."
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker thank you. It's wonderful to see that peace and goodwill has broken out across the House this evening—certainly making great progress.Simeon Brown: Always happens when Tim speaks.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Ha ha! Let me congratulate Parliament's newest father since he's taken a seat beside me.New Zealanders generally have great confidence—and with very good reason—in our health system. I think that we are generally very well served and have every reason to feel grateful for the fine efforts of members of our medical profession. Unfortunately however as we all know there's been the odd rotten egg in the system over the years who has otherwise dented that very impressive reputation for our medical profession. So while this bill is largely a procedural one it is nevertheless an important measure in helping to ensure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their profession. None of us would want to be in a position where we knowingly went to see a doctor or were admitted to our hospitals or other aspects of the health system and weren't going to be treated with the highest skills of competency and professionalism.Previous speakers in this debate have outlined most of the bill's main components so I'll just take a short call and focus on a couple. It is worth noting if people have just tuned into this debate that it is a bill that springs from two significant reviews I think in 2009 and 2012 so it's evidence based and borne out of considerable research and experience. The bill amends provisions in the principal Act to clarify that responsible authorities can receive and act on information from members of the public about the practice conduct or competence of health practitioners. I think members of the public need to have that assurance that if they have a concern there is a means for them to air that concern and for it to be taken seriously and acted upon and I'm pleased to see that that is here.It also amends provisions in the Act to improve the efficiency of processes including allowing responsible authorities to delegate to a committee their power to appoint a professional conduct committee and giving responsible authorities discretion as to whether to refer notice of minor offences to a professional conduct committee. Again that's a little bit wordy but certainly a significant and important requirement. Fine to give notice—it amends provisions to allow a responsible authority to require a health practitioner to be examined by an appropriate health practitioner other than a medical practitioner which is already allowed where the authority considers the health practitioner is unable to perform the functions required for his or her profession because of some mental or physical condition. Sadly there are some who have previously been competent who for various reasons become less competent and we need to ensure that there are mechanisms to pick that up.So these are all sensible measures. I don't need to delay the House any further. I'm glad to see this bill making progress and look forward to hearing that it is enacted.
Warren-Clark Angie; Rurawhe AdrianANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a short call on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill. I'd really like to acknowledge the Hon David Clark for bringing this bill. It's been many many years that there's been review after review and actually as this Government has done and the Hon David Clark has done we've brought this bill to the House and it has its final reading tonight.I would also like to acknowledge our chair Louisa Wall and indeed the entire Health Committee. We work in a really collaborative way and this is an important bill. I'd also like to acknowledge the number of changes that we have brought in this bill that the member Louisa Wall had outlined for us. I won't repeat that very large list but a very good amount of changes and quite significant to the practitioner community.This bill essentially brings the principal Act which is the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act of 2003 into the electronic age. It essentially enables the use of electronic addresses it enables practising certificates to be issued online and you know when there are thousands and thousands of these certificates it's actually cost cutting and cost saving and that's really important for our health practitioners.The amendment also supports our consumer and patient confidence in the profession so that if something does go wrong besides the health and disability complaints process there is this other mechanism which is available. The bill also outlines the process when there is a serious risk of harm to public safety—that an immediate or temporary suspension is able to occur and it's really important while these matters are being investigated that they're very time limited and there is natural justice to be observed because the person is of course not convicted.The other part that I particularly like is where a practitioner has been convicted of an offence—that they have the option to attend counselling or therapy etc. So that offers some compassion the ability to manage maybe some relatively minor criminal offending which ordinarily may have ended their career.So with that very small very short contribution I would just like to finally thank the officials for their hard work and I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Tim Macindoe—five minutes.
Hayes Joanne; Williams PotoJO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. It is a privilege to stand and take a call on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill in its third reading. So many people to acknowledge in this bill—first of all my own party the National Party for the work that went on in 2009 with the Director-General of Health's review and also the strategic review of the Act in 2012. All the hard work in behind getting this bill to where it is tonight happened back then and I'm really pleased to acknowledge the Hon David Clark Minister of Health for bringing this bill to where we've got it tonight in its third reading. I want to acknowledge the Health Committee. Although I'm not a member of the Health Committee I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall and Shane Reti for their work in behind ensuring that we came to a great conclusion tonight with all parties supporting the bill as it goes forward.The Act provides mechanisms for ensuring that health practitioners are competent and are fit to practice their professions and that's really key in this bill because there have been over the years a number of I suppose consumers—patients—who have had a rough ride with some practitioners. I'm pleased to see that clause 27(1) actually widens the opportunity for the public to be able to voice their—if they have issues around health practitioner practice and competency. So I'm really pleased to see that in this bill.I was also delighted to hear tonight from the Minister around the cultural competency part in this bill and his words around ensuring that this bill is responsive to Māori health needs. I guess it's a great step forward in this bill that we see a section on cultural competency and it's also a great start for addressing and reducing Māori health inequalities. I say it's a great start because there is a lot more to go on within the health sector around addressing Māori health reducing Māori health inequalities. I guess also around announcing that within this bill was also the area around workforce development supporting health practitioners through cultural competency workforce issues. So I guess around the area where there's collaboration workforce development in this bill I would like to be confident that cultural competency for health practitioners will be something that will be a strong focus in their workforce development.There is so much in this bill. The committee as I've said have done a wonderful job in bringing this bill to the House for its final reading and as one of the speakers tonight on this side of the House I too support and recommend and commend this bill to the House supporting it all the way to Royal assent.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.
Wagner NickyHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. National supports this bill at its third reading and it's great to see it finally coming through the system because it's been a long-time work in progress right back since 2009 and also it delivers on the review of 2012. Of course this was all National Party work so we absolutely support it. The bill's all about providing a mechanism to ensure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their professions. It's really essential that these mechanisms work well. It's essential so that the public not only have confidence in but they can trust their health practitioners they can have confidence in their skills in their abilities in their practices—what they need in terms of working with patients—but also they can have confidence and trust that they will behave professionally at all times.To that end I think one of the most significant changes in this bill is that it amends the provisions in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act so that responsible authorities can receive complaints and information from members of the public: complaints about practice perhaps conduct and competence. It's really important that that direct access is achieved and it's been something that consumers have been demanding for a length of time. It's particularly important to family members. When something goes wrong and families feel the health practitioners have not acted competently they feel very concerned that they haven't been able to voice their complaints and this change will make a significant difference to that end. I think this new kind of responsiveness in the Act will improve the transparency of the process but also the faith that the public can have in the quality and competence of their health practitioners.I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge the commitment of health practitioners in New Zealand and also the quality of their work. I think this bill amends the Act so the mechanisms make New Zealanders feel absolutely confident and trustful of their health practice practitioners. If something goes wrong there is a mechanism there that they can rely on that will give them a good result so they can be comfortable that they're going to be well looked after. So I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak in this the third reading of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. I sat on the Education and Workforce Committee which deliberated on this bill and I want to thank all of the submitters who came before us to share their views on how the ACC scheme can be improved. Of course ACC is a world-leading no-fault scheme which trades on the concept of fairness whether New Zealanders have an accident at work playing sport in a vehicle or at home. So it is appropriate that in this House we have agreement on both sides about making improvements to continue to keep this Act working well for the New Zealanders that it serves.In listening to the submissions to the select committee it was clear that there were a number of issues that fell outside of the scope of this bill and so amendment has not been made but we did undertake to those submitters that we would ensure that their views would be listened to by the Minister in future and that there is in fact room for future amendments to the scheme beyond the scope of this bill.Of course what this bill does is make largely sensible changes which had been identified through the National-led Government's time and were in the pipeline. There was a particular process that I want to commend to this House that was used to find those improvements and that was having a regulatory systems work programme overseen by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment which saw a number of small but important changes that could be made to keep regulatory duplication gaps errors and inconsistencies out of the way of ensuring that the services intended to be provided are.So in conclusion these are changes that ensure fairness for those who are injured near retirement age and that streamline the complaints process to remove confusion. They are important changes and National supports them. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. I'm very pleased to take a call on the—Stuart Smith: Ten minutes Jo!JO LUXTON: —third reading of this bill. I don't think I need to take 10 minutes because what I have to say is short and concise and straight to the point.First of all I'd like to thank the committee chair Parmjeet Parmar for her chairing of the Education and Workforce Committee through this process. I'd like to thank the members of the committee who've done a really good job shepherding this bill through this process through select committee and here into the third reading. It's been a pretty collegial group around this particular piece of legislation.This is a short bill. It doesn't change—Kieran McAnulty: A bit like Bidois!JO LUXTON: —any of the core parts of ACC—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I can hear you Mr McAnulty.JO LUXTON: —but just skims around the boundaries of it. What this bill does is it provides better consistency it's more streamlined and it provides better continuity for people.What I particularly like about this bill though is for example when you have a couple who have been married and the partner has been fatally injured shall we say—it's very very hard for someone to lose somebody they love particularly if that person may well be the main income earner in the family. So if that person is to pass away this bill does allow the spouse to have a maximum of up to five years of weekly payments of compensation regardless of their age with regard to around 80 percent of their spouse's income which is extremely important particularly when I think about people as they are getting older into their twilight years. To lose a spouse is extremely hard but at least in this situation it does provide a little bit of certainty around income stability I guess in a way.Here in New Zealand we really value the family unit. So when you've got a person who is posted overseas for work and they do take their family with them they now have the comfort of knowing that should something happen to a family member while they're overseas when they do return to New Zealand that family member will be covered under our ACC—and it is going to be retrospective. Prior to that that wouldn't have happened and so now that person who may be posted overseas has the security of knowing that their family members should they be injured whilst overseas will be covered by this piece of legislation.So I won't go on for too much longer. I just want to say that I'm really pleased to commend this bill to the House.