edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
8. Education—Fees-free PolicyANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of EducationEducation—Fees-free Policy8. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How will the Government's fees-free policy benefit workers and employers?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Fees-free will be available to school-leavers and those who have not undertaken substantial previous study or training to become a New Zealand Apprentice or have not undertaken another substantial programme of industry training whilst on the job. That means that they will not have to pay fees for any training and assessment either to industry training organisations or directly to training and assessment providers. What's more their employers will not have to pay any such fee either so small businesses will be better off as a result of this policy as well. Angie Warren-Clark: What sort of financial difference will fees-free make for trainees and their employers?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The latest estimate I have is that around 6000 apprentices and trainees will be eligible for fees-free next year. The estimate is that they and their employers will save around $2000 in fees on average in 2018 but there is a range within that. Some of those fees being covered could be $3000 $4000 or even higher. Angie Warren-Clark: How long can trainees receive fees-free? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There's very good news here. The fees-free entitlement for those in provider-based training is for one year. However for those in on-job training the entitlement will be extended to two years so those who are doing on-job apprenticeships or training will be able to get two years of fees-free support. Hon Paul Goldsmith: How much of this new spending on free fees does he expect to go to students from disadvantaged backgrounds? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It will go to students from all backgrounds. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he confident that completion and progression rates will continue to improve across the tertiary sector?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. And unlike that member I don't think that people who are taking up education and training for the first time because of fees-free are somehow destined to fail. I think he should have more faith in New Zealanders than that.
7. Health Services—Outcomes and PoliciesHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Outcomes and Policies7. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What measurable outcomes if any will his policies deliver?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Better health for New Zealanders.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What does he say in response to the New Zealand Herald report of 3 December that despite campaigning on a real target for obesity reduction he is now non-committal on whether the Government will set a target let alone what it will be."?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'd say that it is an inaccurate report.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What does he say in reply to Newsroom.co.nz's statement of 4 December that the "Labour-led Government's response to New Zealand's surgical mesh problems is not what it campaigned on." given that he promised to immediately begin work on a surgical mesh registry if elected?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm delighted to update the member. He will know that when he was the Minister there was a great deal of discontent over the time it was taking to respond to the Government's select committee inquiry. One of the demands from that inquiry—the select committee recommendations—was that a registry be put in place. I will update the member shortly on even more promising progress.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What reports has the Minister received about the Ministry of Health's capacity to deliver measurable health outcomes?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Today the State Services Commission released the performance improvement framework review of the Ministry of Health. It paints a picture of a ministry that needs support to provide stronger leadership and governance of the health sector. There are many committed and hard-working people at the Ministry of Health and in the sector working to improve the health of New Zealanders. This Government will deliver it.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What does the Minister say in response to the Dominion Post report of 6 December which states: "He's faced pressure in the House over the direction of the new Government's health policy unable to detail any planned changes or areas pegged for change."?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I haven't read that report but it looks to me to be an inaccurate one given that in the House I've outlined our plans to reduce the cost of access to primary care."
5. Budget Policy Statement 2018—FactorsWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceBudget Policy Statement 2018—Factors5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What factors has he taken into account in developing the priorities within the Budget Policy Statement?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The starting point for identifying priorities is the need to build a strong inclusive economy be fiscally responsible and reduce debt. A major factor we have taken into account is the number of New Zealanders who have not benefited from growth in the economy—for example the 126000 people out of work and the disproportionate number of Māori who are unemployed which is nearly three times the rate of New Zealand European unemployment; the 76000 15- to 24-year-olds not in education employment or training; and the 135000 children living in material deprivation. The focus of this Government is on ensuring all New Zealanders get a fair share in prosperity.Willow-Jean Prime: What economic factors has he taken into account in developing the priorities of the Budget Policy Statement?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have considered factors such as the absence of any labour productivity growth in the New Zealand economy for the last five years and that our country's spend on research and development is just one-third of the OECD average. I also considered that GDP per capita growth was just 0.6 percent in real terms in the last years. The priorities in the Budget Policy Statement will reflect a Government that knows that growing the economy requires more than just an increasing population and an overheated housing market.Willow-Jean Prime: And what environmental factors has he taken into account in developing the priorities of the Budget Policy Statement?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've considered the importance of the environment and the economy as being seen as one and the same—in particular the need to dramatically improve our water quality and give resources to improve conservation funding which has been so drastically underfunded in recent years and to once again be a leader in the world on addressing the major issues of our time in particular climate change.
3. Women—Leadership RolesJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for WomenWomen—Leadership Roles3. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Women: What recent reports has she received on women in leadership and the impact it is having on the New Zealand economy?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. A survey of 500 businesses released this week by Westpac found women make up 49 percent of the workforce in New Zealand but only 29 percent of the leadership roles. The report found that having equal female and male leadership could lead to better economic outcomes. For example if there was an even split of men and women in management there'd be a potential $881 million boost each year to the economy and a positive impact on businesses themselves.Jan Logie: How does having more women in decision-making roles benefit workers companies and society as a whole?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The evidence showed that having more women in leadership roles acting as role models creates a virtuous cycle whereby both men and women see a greater potential for women to take up leadership opportunities. The biggest reported boost came from an increased flexibility in the workplace which increases productivity. Women leaders are more supportive of flexible working arrangements which makes it easier for primary caregivers to be in the workforce increasing labour force participation overall.Jan Logie: What did the report say was the biggest barrier to gender equality in leadership?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The top barrier cited was a perception of a lack of available female talent. This is a myth and reflects a clear bias against women that needs to change. Every day I meet exceptional women who are delivering value to businesses and to their community. Women are now earning tertiary qualifications at a higher rate than men. Businesses that remain male-dominated are missing out on a significant business opportunity as well as denying women a fair shot.Jan Logie: What advice does she have for how businesses can lift their game?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The research showed that only 40 percent of businesses had a gender parity strategy and only 26 percent were actually measuring themselves against it. Businesses need to set themselves a gender target measure it and make it part of their managers' key performance indicators. The Ministry for Women has a database that can help identify suitable women for governance roles. This Government has already demonstrated that closing the gender pay gap and increasing female representation both in the public and private sector is a major priority and I will be investigating strategies to achieve that.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Chair Williams thank you for the call following on from Minister O'Connor who is not unknown to me. We did spend some time on farms together as youths so we come from a similar place when we talk about the need for food safety. It may seem somewhat unusual that as the member for Ōhāriu—for those who don't know when you fly into Wellington in a southerly you look down on what would appear to be a largely urban electorate but between there and the coast is a quite considerable farm part of my electorate one that I spent some part of my youth in. I was found to be useful out there because once they found out I could crutch sheep I was very quickly accepted into that community. But I'd make that point to say that I have one of those electorates where a bill like this is incredibly important across the board.The Minister talked about labelling. We understand such a risk of mislabelling. Even in this very Chamber today we saw the Speaker—I'm not sure Madam Chair if I'm allowed to refer to the Speaker. I know many of the members across the Chamber do look similar. The term Stepford husbands" has been used. But the Speaker made a mistake with Messrs King and Falloon who were mistaken for each other today. It just shows how easily mistakes can be made so it's important. We saw what did happen.Perhaps going further down the bill can I just talk about one very sensible—The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill with amendment the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill with amendment the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill with amendment and progress on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m."
Williams PotoFOOD SAFETY LAW REFORM BILLIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): In the last Parliament leave was granted for all provisions of the bill to be considered as one question. Is there any objection to this approach? There doesn't appear to be.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Assistant Chair Williams noting your directions prior I don't want to lament this particular point in respect of Fish & Game and I won't traverse whether or not the win of the Bird of the Year was meritorious or not given that I was a strong supporter of the kākāpō—but that is by the by.The point that I really did want to just briefly speak to was that I'm very pro opening of democracy and I am very supportive particularly being of the cohort of the younger members of this House that has probably more of a natural fluidity with regard to engagement with electronic measures and so on and so forth and also just recognising that there's plenty of research that endorses and encourages in fact the opening of our democracy by way of digital voting.But I guess what I just wanted to quickly touch on—and I promise my points will be brief—is that there's been this big movement towards voting by electronic methods. I commend the work of the Department of Conservation endorsed by yourself as a Minister and other members of this House. My question is whether or not we are digitising democracy by stealth whether this in some way becomes a bit of a slippery slope. We're opening up the Pandora's box for other measures other ministries and so on and so forth as well to I guess replicate the measures that have been taken here.So to the Minister in the chair Tracey Martin perhaps just a couple of brief comments on whether we do think that we are opening the Pandora's box beyond the scope that is intended. I know that Fish & Game are just a minor body but it nevertheless does set a precedent and I wonder if we have truly turned our minds to the impacts that this electronic voting measure may have. Thank you.Part 4 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to respond to the questions that have been raised particularly around postal voting and online voting: at the moment only postal voting is allowed in elections. This bill will allow postal voting and electronic voting alongside each other.With regard to the honourable member Kieran McAnulty's question about whether perhaps we're not futureproofing the legislation effectively at this time there is the word and" so that it becomes optional. But I have no doubt that that honourable member will be here in 30 years' time and he can have a look and possibly then switch it around later on.This bill will allow elections to be conducted both ways. So it will not allow just one way because if we did that it would mean that people without internet access could not take part.The definition of "game licence" is the new definition replacing the second definition of "licence" that is currently in the Act—just to be clear.To go back to the reference with regard to the original Act and stamp I'm pretty sure that was the production of a product. Previously with regard to licences and being able to purchase licences online which this bill will allow you had to physically go to an outlet from which they were—I don't know—allowed to do this and have a stamp put on a licence. So this is actually giving an alternative to that hence the "services" part which is what I believe we're referring to.Just with regard to online voting—back again—online voting will be in effect only once regulations are made. These regulations will set out safeguards in respect of how online voting will operate. Some organisations already do online voting such as Fonterra. So there are some precedents already set here and obviously because it's Fonterra there are members of the rural community who are already participating I would suggest in online voting.As to what the electronic voting looks like to the honourable member I am sorry but I have not gone and ever voted in the Fish & Game council elections. But I have seen examples of online voting which is where you have a registered email address—and it would be an email address that is proven to be currently in use—that receives a document with an attachment or a link across to a secure website where you click the name of the individual or a series of names of those you wish to be elected and then you submit that form. So I don't believe it means you can take a photo with your phone of a physical form and then send it by messenger."
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I too would like to speak to Part 4 Enabling electronic licenses and electronic voting" and in particular the Department of Conservation - related amendments which would facilitate the online sale of game hunting licences and online voting for Fish & Game council elections.Clause 82 amends section 26Z of the Conservation Act 1987 and that's the conduct of the elections. There were comments made about a view being expressed that the offering of electronic voting could improve participation in the democratic process for Fish & Game councils. The amendment here is a really important one because what it is doing is clarifying that the electronic voting option is available and it is expressly authorising that there could be both electronic—i.e. online—and paper postal voting to facilitate choice for fish and game licence holders.Also while we are modernising these processes and the use of technology we're also noting that there is a modernising of the language. It was proposed in the replacement section 26Z(1)(a) that the words "ballot" and "vote" are both used and that while "ballot" is a synonym for "vote" "ballot" is perhaps a less common term and may create some uncertainty as to what it encompasses. So it was considered that "vote" should be used in both places for consistency and to avoid uncertainty and this entire section is about making it expressly clear that you can either have the postal vote or a combination of postal voting and electronic voting. I think it's appropriate too that in the drafting of the legislation they have taken it from one sentence and put it into separate subparagraphs to make that absolutely clear.A reference was made—and I was just going to make a note of caution around what happened in the controversial vote for Bird of the Year this year. I know that we're talking about Fish & Game and not Forest and Bird but there was a lot of controversy about over 100 fraudulent votes that were cast in that and I think it just highlights that there is the ability to create fake email accounts for purposes of voting like in that recent Bird of the Year competition. While I was in favour of the white-faced heron receiving those votes I do think that it does raise the serious point that we need to make sure that this is a safe system particularly if it's extended beyond the purposes outlined in this bill.Of course I must take every opportunity to also put in a plug there for my region and for Northland and the fact that we don't have ultra-fast broadband in all of our communities and we would be disadvantaged in this process. So while we are moving towards the modernisation of the technology that we use to participate in these processes—I think that's fantastic—you cannot forget about the regions and their ability to actually utilise this legislation. With that I commend the bill."
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Kia ora. Thank you Madam Chair. So to respond to some of the questions from my honourable colleagues—the Hon Stuart Nash asked two questions. First of all he wanted to know why and if we were just willy-nilly getting rid of transitional councils. Just to inform the member around about a hundred years ago we had acclimatation—climation climatation? [Interruption] Acclimatisation councils—societies. We had acclimatisation societies which then—around about 1990—were transitioning through to be the Forest & Game Council which we're talking about today. So those transitional councils were in place for less than three years. They no longer exist because now we have Forest & Game. So it's really a tidy-up around a piece of legislation for something that is no longer required. He also queried in regard to clause 86 and he went back to the 1953 Wildlife Act and said that he felt the section we were referring to had already been removed. The reality about the amendments inside this piece of legislation is that they are technical amendments. In the Act that we are amending there were two meanings given to licence" so what is happening in this piece of legislation is a piece of clarity around the fact that we are talking about game licences. So it was a bit of an anomaly or a bit of a slip-up in the Act which we are now amending and this is to tighten it up. So that's an answer to Mr Nash on that. With regard to electronic voting and the discussions around—I take on board the honourable member's suggestion. It's a hot topic. It's a hot topic at the Inter-Parliamentary Union for example—will nations move to online electronic voting and so on and so forth—and it is good to have little sections I suppose of New Zealand trialling electronic voting. I note that there's a dual voting opportunity—so some by post and some by electronic mail. I will mention however to the member—and quite rightly it is something we need to watch and see about the restrictions and the opportunities for misuse or hacking. Will people issue themselves a number of fishing licences illegally by hacking into the system? I think it's something—sorry they won't issue themselves licences I suppose. This is about voting. So will they elect themselves through some sort of illegal hacking type of voting to be on the Fish & Game Council? That's something I think the council needs to be very wary of. So while that is not a country's election—so therefore the outcome would not be as serious—it's a way that we can test these mechanisms. I pick up on the member from the Green Party's previous contribution around this particular issue and what she suggested which was hacking into the favourite bird of the year competition. I would have to point out the fact that if the ruru got 113 votes over the takahē at only 855—for a bird that can't be seen to then get more votes than a bird that can definitely be seen and that is one of our iconic birds then I think there are questions that do need to be asked around electronic voting and it's something we definitely need to keep our eye on."
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair Williams. Just to answer some of the questions put by several of the members earlier can I first just with Mr Faafoi—I think it was Mr Faafoi—he talked about whether audio links and audiovisual links were currently in use in a wider sense across departments or was there any intention to have wider use across Government departments and so on and so forth.Mr Faafoi will of course be aware that select committees in the Parliament do from time to time use audio links and did have the capacity for audiovisual link. So I can say that the Parliament not perhaps as often as it should but it does have that capacity to Skype in submitters. I also visited a remand centre recently where a young person there was by audio link involved in a family group conference with 15 to 20 other people. I think that what we're seeing is that possibly this legislation is updating some of the other departments who I'm sure have been emailing people but this is giving them the legislative parameters by which to create the policy to formalise the practice. I think that's probably a reasonable statement.With regard to Mr Stuart Nash's point about the omission of an a" before "person" I have been advised that it is drafting practice not to include articles such as "a" or "the" in titles of provisions. So that would answer that Mr Nash and actually in my copy it does not say "person" it says "persons"—"enable persons"; not my copy of the bill but my copy of the papers—just to be clear.With regard to the last question asked by the honourable member who resumed her seat Chlöe Swarbrick—no I have not had any further conversations particularly around the Oxford Dictionary definition of email address being a string of characters that lead on to a communication or any forward planning with regard to the use of social media. I totally accept what the member is saying that the digital environment continues to evolve and communications with human beings continue to evolve through different devices and through different methods. But I haven't had any advice at this stage or any suggestion that we will be say putting private messaging on Facebook or whatever else into the legislation going forward. Kia ora."
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I've been waiting a while to make what I hope are some very salient few points. It is a pleasure to speak to yet another technical bill in this House. I would like to focus my contribution on a few points.By and large the topic of debate has focused largely in Part 3 on that of notice by electronic means". I would however like to draw all of the members' attention to "evidence … by electronic means". In clause 44 the amendment to section 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 is amended such that "A person may appear before the Commission … by audio link or audiovisual link". I find it incredibly interesting that only just now we are adding and updating the ability for people to appear or provide their contributions by audio link which I can only assume is the humble telephone the telephone being that which was invented in the 1800s—very controversially obviously—by Alexander Graham Bell although that is in dispute as a matter of history.Moving along I would like to draw attention back to something that was actually mentioned by the Hon David Parker but I would like to get the Minister's input on it which is mentioned in amendment to a multiplicity of different Acts contained in Part 3 which is along the lines of sending it by email address to an electronic address. I looked up the Oxford Dictionary definition of "email" and that is "Messages distributed by electronic means from one computer user to one or more recipients via a network."Here I wish to raise the question of whether this network could be interpreted by the courts as a social media network. I note that the Hon Tracey Martin in previously addressing a question similar to this noted that there perhaps isn't contained the level of formality in the likes of social media. But I then looked up the Oxford Dictionary definition of "email address". An email address is simply defined as "a string of characters which identifies a location on the internet or other network to which an email can be sent; this information considered as a point of contact for a particular individual organisation etc."So on that point I would just like to raise that the courts would obviously be interpreting this Act and what is meant by "email" with regard to the Interpretation Act 1999 section 5(1) obviously noting that "The meaning of an enactment [is] ascertained from … text … in … light of … purpose." The purpose here as has been mentioned by the Minister is an extra tool in the tool box of communicating between organisations and those individuals who they intend to contact.So I would simply like to put it that there is the potential here for the likes of unintended consequences as technology develops and I would like to put it to the Minister that I would very much like to be enlightened on whether there has been very much consideration of the use of social media. Thank you."
Rurawhe AdrianThe CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call the Hon Stuart Nash can I say to members that relevance is becoming an issue in that the notion around access across all subparts of Part 3—it's not enough for members to simply repeat the same argument in every subpart of the part. So I'm asking members to be relevant and it's also not helpful for other comments to be made during their speeches.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Look it's extraordinary this. I think this is a wonderful bill. [Government members cheer] I find it quite heartening that I've got such a positive reaction from the Government. I find it quite extraordinary actually that we see this. This is a valuable piece of legislation there's no doubt about that very important. But it's quite interesting that the Government are filibustering their own bill albeit that it was a National bill.I think many experienced parliamentarians would wonder if they've crossed into a parallel universe coming in to hear a bill a very valuable bill being debated by and filibustered by senior Ministers in the Government albeit that it's very important this bill.Electronic interactions are absolutely essential and as the Minister in the chair the Hon Tracey Martin will know we need to move to this right across our economy and as quickly as possible while not leaving other people behind. However having all these Ministers in here giving five minutes on this you'd have to wonder Why aren't they busy in their offices?" An open question; I don't know.Hon Member: Nothing else to do.STUART SMITH: You need to engage with your sectors. Anyway I'm quite happy with the bill in its current form and the work that the Government Administration Committee did and I commend it to the House."
Yule Lawrence; Rurawhe AdrianLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the motion be agreed to—be put. Those in favour say Aye—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Sorry sir could you just repeat the question please? I'm not quite sure that it was agreed.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I move that the motion be agreed to and those in favour say Aye—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We were in a vote. [Interruption] You will have to wait until the vote is finished. Those against will say No. The Noes have it. A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you Mr Chair. Just to answer the questions posed by the last two speakers around Subpart 9 Amendments to Insolvency Act 2006" could I just point out to the members the amendment in clause 69 which amends section 143 of the Insolvency Act to permit a bankrupt—to permit a bankrupt—to "attend before the Assignee … by audio link or audiovisual link if the Assignee and the bankrupt agree." As a previous debt collector I think it's very important the points that Dr Deborah Russell the member previous to the one who just resumed his seat has made with regard to those who are experiencing insolvency. While we might all think that they deserve their insolvency when we hear of people going bankrupt or becoming insolvent there are those who become insolvent through the deeds of others. I believe this amendment is particularly important from the perspective that if you live say in a town such as Warkworth where there is no public transport and where there is no way to get yourself to perhaps Takapuna unless it is at a cost to yourself—for which as the member pointed out there are no funds available—there is often a council office or a sort of working governmental office that may have the technology that allows this audiovisual link to take place at no cost to the person who is becoming insolvent. So I do think that this is a very important measure. But with regard to the question around email and quite rightly with regard to that person maybe having to strip themselves of all their assets to meet the criteria but also just to live on a day-to-day basis the email address is being added as an extra tool for trying to communicate with people in these circumstances. The Official Assignee will try to use a range of communication channels to contact this individual. In some cases a bankrupt may move to an undisclosed physical address or otherwise try to avoid being contacted—and fair enough. They may move into a car as many people in New Zealand unfortunately have had to do in the last nine years. Their email address may be the only remaining way and they may use the library services and so on to actually continue to access their email. So I just want to reassure the member. This is merely another tool in the tool box of a department particularly around those with regard to the Insolvency Act 2006. This is not a once only and not something that hasn't been considered for those people who are attempting to not be found. Many opportunities will be tried; eventually everybody is found."
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you Mr Chair. Again as the convention has been since the last Parliament I'll answer the questions directed to me by the member. Just very very quickly—no I cannot explain to the member how a fax actually works. That would be Dr Megan Woods or somebody with a scientific bent. But what I can tell the member is that the device itself was actually invented before the telephone. So it's been around for a very long time and it is still—Hon Member: I didn't know that.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It was. Dr Google actually has explained that on the internet.The other thing too is I need to correct a statement I made before with regard to the number of people who still use facsimiles. In the 1970s there were 30000 people in the United States who used facsimiles. This year there are 18 million. So you can see that the reason we have retained the comment about using a facsimile inside this piece of legislation while at the same time updating it to new digital environments is still very relevant and I do want to compliment the member on the fact that he recognises there are rural communities still on copper some still on dial-up speeds or very close to dial-up speeds where a facsimile is still part of the method of communication. Kia ora.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Just a very short call to answer the questions from the member David Clark—very reasonable questions I think.The question around couriers was particularly—I did ask actually specific questions around my staff. Not naming any particular courier company but I think we've all experienced something that has left one place and his never arrived at where it is supposed to arrive. So quite rightly just by having a department say that it was properly addressed when it left here is no guarantee obviously that it is going to reach the other end. Certainly the protocols and procedures around how this legislation will be implemented in a practical sense by departments are being developed.You quite rightly point out that there are tracking services on a courier package which would provide the proof for any department that it had been received by the person it should have reached. I do remind the member of mail—snail mail—and that there was a time actually in this country where Government departments sent out letters. And as the Minister for Seniors—with a different hat on—I know that we still do. There was no guarantee either at that time that it was received. New Zealand Post was very very competent but things happen. I do believe that that will be worked through as the procedures are developed. It has been raised and it's now on the record.With regard to text messaging Facebook private messaging or Snapchat I think it will be a long while before Government departments start to—well I hope it's a long while before Government departments start to Snapchat you or private message you on your Facebook page to tell you that if you don't make that appointment or this appointment something bad is going to happen to you. I think that's just too informal at this stage—not saying it won't be in the future but that's too informal at this stage. And I think that was probably—those were the major areas of questioning that the member had.Just around the courier service similar to what we've had with the letter mail service—Hon Dr David Clark: Multiple means of communication?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh certainly. So multiple means of communication: I agree. There is logic and some reason to the issues you have raised. This is why—you're quite right—the committee of the whole House is so valuable not just to the development of the legislation but that the members of the department the staff there pick up these conversations they pick up these nuances that are raised by members of Parliament—very valid conversations around pieces of legislation—and they can inform practice further downstream.I can appreciate that. Before you were going to send something by courier it may be that you send an email. The courier with a tracked device is a follow-up from that. But I still say that there is always the rebuttal presumption that has been entrenched inside the legislation. There is a defence there and logic must prevail at the end of the day. Kia ora.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It is a delight to rise to speak on Part 3 of this bill. In particular I want to raise perhaps some questions for the Minister in respect of the amendments to the Companies Act and particularly the notice that must be served by email.Actually for the Minister I note that there were seven submitters in respect of Part 3—the Commerce Commission the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa and the New Zealand Law Society submitted on the implications that the amendments to the service provisions might have.As a recently former practitioner that was often required to communicate with various Government agencies by a range of different means it is indeed useful to see that forms like facsimile are no longer the only means by which to communicate and receive notice and those types of things. But there is a point that was just raised by my learned colleague the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway and my good friend from the East Coast Mr Gareth Hughes just in respect to when email notifications are received. This is indeed the point that the Law Society was relatively concerned with in regard to whether or not (1) the recipient had authorised the release of information to themselves as an individual and then (2) whether or not it could be gauged adequately that they had indeed received that information.I do note that the committee came back with some relatively sound responses and discussed the two main scenarios for non-receipt: primarily that the communication wasn't delivered at all—and I think my colleague Mr Hughes canvassed that relatively well—or it may have been delivered to the wrong address. I know for myself and there are a couple of Millennials in the House that we've had email correspondence for most of our lives now I think to a degree. We do go through email addresses constantly as we progress through our lives and our careers.I guess my concern or my note with this very sensible legislation was just ensuring that emails that were received—the definition sorry that I wanted to just turn to was: used by the recipient. For example in my case and I'm sure the case of many of our members here you tend to have a few accounts that are open and active but that you don't necessarily monitor at all times. I know for myself I've got about four email addresses linked to my cellular device but there are probably about another three that I don't actively monitor. So it's not just the spam provisions that I'd be concerned about if notice was sent to some of these email addresses. So I'm just wanting to get some clarification about I guess the committee's response to how you would gauge whether or not an email address is in fact used by a recipient.The second point—I note that of course the Commerce Commission was absolutely in favour of these provisions because they are in fact common-sense decent provisions that do tidy up an area of law. They do in fact address—I think it's 17 statutes and tidy them all up bring them into a modern state. But it is an onerous obligation on all members in this House that we ensure that when we tinker with the law that it is in fact done—[Time expired]
Woods Megan; Tolley AnneHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): That's right. I look forward to your contribution Mr Brownlee on hearing that. Mr Speaker it is my absolute pleasure to take a call on this Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. This of course was a bill that went before the Government Administration Committee in the last Parliament which was ably chaired by the honourable member next to me the Hon Ruth Dyson.Mr Speaker this is a cross-agency omnibus bill that seeks to amend and update 17 Acts to enable digital interactions between individuals businesses and Government. It is an important piece of legislation and modernising 17 pieces of legislation at once is no mean feat. This is an area where we have to consider that we do have modern legislation that is fit for purpose and legislation that can see us through to a future because making sure that we do have our electronic interactions absolutely right is critical to what our future is going to hold.In Part 3 this is actually about the giving of evidence and notice by electronic means of this. There are some very important issues that are in this part of the bill. The idea—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Part 2.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Part 2—I thought we were on Part 3.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. Part 2—stay up with it.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Part 3. It is Part 3. So that Mr Brownlee is on page 2 of the descriptions in the explanatory note in the commentary. So bear with me and I will talk you through it bit by bit. So this is the giving of evidence and notice by electronic means. This is amendments to the Fair Trading Act of 1986 being one of those 17 pieces of legislation that is going to be amended. The select committee here has recommended inserting new clause 61A which does amend that. The section allows the Commerce Commission to require a person to supply information or documents or to give evidence. Empowering the Commerce Commission with additional powers is a pattern that we are seeing necessary across Government. Only today our Government signalled the need to give the Commerce Commission market study powers so it can look into the very important issue of fuel pricing. We must ensure that our Commerce Commission is equipped with the right powers to ensure it can do its job and make sure that we do have market places that are competitive and that are delivering fairness.Mr Speaker the other part that this does is the proof of email and delivery of a notice sent by courier and this is also an important part of what we need to do. This is an important piece of legislation and I look forward to hearing more from fellow members about it. Thank you.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank the member for her contribution but I point out that I am first of all Madam and secondly I am in the Chair.Hon Dr Megan Woods: It's hard to get used to it.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I do appreciate it is hard to get used to. OK we are on Part 3.
Tolley AnneELECTRONIC INTERACTIONS REFORM BILLIn CommitteePart 1 agreed to.Part 2 Enabling use of electronic identity photograph for identification documents and public registersThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 Giving evidence and notice by electronic meansThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to part three clauses 43 to 79.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Madam Speaker?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Megan Woods.Hon Gerry Brownlee: To the rescue!
Ross Jami-Lee; Tolley AnneJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The previous speaker Ruth Dyson was referring to the member for Bay of Plenty's coastline. I know she was just winging it but actually this bill isn't about coastlines.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well that's very interesting but it's not a point of order. Is anyone taking a call? All right. We will put the question for Part 1. The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour of Part 1 say Aye; against No. The Ayes have it. The question is that Part 1 stand part.We come now to Part 2 clauses 26 to 42. [Interruption] My apologies.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter to schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill — In Committee
Dyson RuthPart 1 Amendments to Maritime Crimes Act 1999Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted and actually quite a bit surprised to have the opportunity to take a call on the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill which we support. I haven't been involved in the committee stage of this debate which is of great regret to me but I have been perusing the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which I think is SOP 5 and I'd invite the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Twyford to perhaps make a contribution to that SOP because as with the previous legislation that we have been discussing the Labour Green and New Zealand First parties move their support on the basis of the amendments made in the SOP rather than to the primary legislation. It's not quite as dramatic as the amendments to the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill but it is quite significant.This bill is of course in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters rather than the previous Minister Julie Anne Genter. But again it's a bit of a reminder of the strength of our new Ministers in this Labour New Zealand First and Green coalition Government that we can have quite separate party leadership being demonstrated in the particular legislation that we're debating now. So I know that there will be several other speakers wanting to take a call on this legislation. I hope they're ready to take a call.Todd Muller: And she looks around.Hon RUTH DYSON: Well—Mr Müller isn't it?Todd Muller: Muller.Hon RUTH DYSON: Sorry Mr Muller. I would challenge that member to take the next call because he generally does make a considered contribution in debates. I think he's from an area that has coastline around it—is that right? You are not from Manawatū landlocked? Where is the member from?Hon Member: Bay of Plenty.Hon RUTH DYSON: Bay of Plenty? There you are there's lots of water around there and I would think this particular discussion would be of interest to him. So as I've said I encourage the Minister to take a call just primarily to summarise the SOP because that is a part of this debate that we haven't yet had an opportunity to consider. The select committee has obviously considered the original legislation and the submissions. In the meantime we have had a change of Government and I know that some members haven't yet accepted that as being the outcome of our democratic election but it has meant that this legislation is now able to be seen in a supportive way by the Labour Party by New Zealand First and by the Green Party. That is on the basis of the SOP and I look forward to further debate on that soon.
Ross Jami-Lee; Williams PotoMARITIME CRIMES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There's no Minister in the chair. The Government is supposed to supply a Minister in the chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Could we have a Minister please? Thank you. Members we now come to the consideration of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.