edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Walters Vanushi; Dean JacquiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Kia ora koutou Madam Speaker and it's a pleasure to take a brief call on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill which supports the implementation of a digital arrival card. I don't have a happy history with paper-based arrival and departure cards. There's a simple reason and if you know anything about Sri Lankan surnames you may be able to guess it. My full name is actually Vanushi Sitanjali Rajanayagam Walters and I spent many years in my 20s attempting to work out how to fit that on the limited characters by resorting to two characters per box and other fun techniques. All jokes aside this is a change that will have a significant impact in terms of streamlining our arrivals process in New Zealand but to be fair the existing legislation actually already permits a digital arrival card to be developed. What this legislation will do will smooth-line that to allow changes to the time when information can be provided. It also provides for offences to enforce the system although those offences are very much qualified and no doubt the select committee will do some work looking at the scope around those provisions. But there is of course another concern that I hope the select committee will look to which is the issue of accessibility. My colleague Todd McClay from across the way—there you go I've got a Hairy Maclary" in there for you as well—spoke about why there was need for paper-based systems to exist at the same time as online systems. The simple reason is reasonable accommodation. So we're just ensuring that anyone who's not able to access the online space can still have that option of a paper-based system. Lastly I understand that the Privacy Commissioner has made some comments about what should be in primary versus secondary legislation in this regard. I have a special interest in this point as a member of the well-known Regulations Review Committee and I would just say that there are arguments that the detail that the Privacy Commissioner was speaking to shouldn't be in primary legislation but it should be in secondary. I also note that the Minister of Customs is required to present a copy of the chief executive's rules to the House and the House can disallow the rules and of course under Standing Order 327 of the Standing Orders—which I'm sure everyone is very familiar with—individuals in the public space can always raise a complaint about any secondary legislation with the wonderful and diligent folk around the Regulations Review Committee table. I am looking forward—although I'm not a member of the select committee that this is going to—to reviewing some of those submissions in this regard and perhaps just a final invitation for those who have been excited to hear about the Regulations Review Committee for the first time this evening: perhaps they might like to find us on Facebook and keep in touch with our fascinating work. Thank you Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Penny Simmonds—five minutes."
Dean Jacqui; Omer IbrahimASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. Members when the Speaker left for the dinner break the House was considering the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. Yep Ibrahim Omer.IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I would like to take a call on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill.At the time of digitisation at the time of globalisation when the flow of people and goods through airports and the ports is quite common we need to make sure that our system is updated and up to date. This bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to provide for clearer arrival information obligations to help with customs-related and border management matters.The changes in this bill support the digitising of the paper arrival card. While the digital arrival card can be implemented using existing legislation changes are necessary to improve the enforcement and the functionality of the system. In particular the bill does the following: it provides an explicit obligation on arriving passengers to provide prescribed arrival information; it creates two new offences: one for failing to provide prescribed information and one for providing arrival information that is erroneous material in particular. It also creates a new regulation power to set the time when the customs information must be provided and exempts people from needing to give information—that's people rescued at sea for example. It also provides a power for customs to collect certain information administered by other agencies to verify compliance.Now this is not to say that things will be perfect—of course there will be people who will be worried about these changes especially digitising the paper arrival card. To switch to a digital card may cause concern but the public clearly see the requirement of the bill. I just got back from overseas a few weeks ago and on our arrival everyone fills the paper in manually. But there are even countries who are poorer than us Third World countries where sometimes you see all their paperwork is digitised and up to date. So we need to be doing everything we can to make sure that our system is functional and up to date. Thank you.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill this afternoon.Nāku te rourou nāu te rourou ka ora ai te iwi.[With my food basket and your food basket our people will live well.]Most people know that whakataukī but the importance in today's context is coming together: my food basket your food basket; together our people will live well. And when it comes to this particular bill it's an opportunity for us to collaborate for the benefit of all of our people—in this instance for the benefit of Māori.Can I acknowledge my Justice Committee colleagues for the work that you've done on this particular piece of legislation—it is important. One of the goals one of my goals—and I think people will share this sentiment—is that we want people to vote however and whenever they wish to exercise their right to vote. They should have the opportunity. What's good today is that we haven't talked about just one vote. We shouldn't be afraid of some of the opportunity that this piece of legislation presents to us because that good old argument that one person one vote" which is pulled out at times you know effectively means that people do have the opportunity to contribute their vote and have a say in the democracy of New Zealand.This bill is about fairness. It's enabling all people—and all Māori in this sense—to have a choice about which roll that they want to be represented on at which particular time. And I want to acknowledge my Ngāti Whitikaupeka whanaunga Harete Hipango for your contribution in the House this afternoon and the acknowledgment of sometimes the complexities of being a Māori in politics and those challenges and choices that you have between both the Māori roll and the general roll. I in fact have been on both rolls—that I have both started on the general roll went on to the Māori roll because I wanted to support my friend Kelvin Davis and then in turn wanted to come back to the general roll and stand for the seat of Northcote. Indeed with that you have a support base that I think follows you and that mobilises particularly Māori to stand up and make their contribution.So this particular choice is important and I commend this bill to the House"
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you and kia ora Madam Speaker. It's always wonderful to see cross-party support of important issues like electoral matters. I just wanted to acknowledge my colleague across the floor Rawiri Waititi for his work on his member's bill which is coming up tomorrow but actually also for his insightful comments just now. It is important that we're always—cross-party—looking to identify measures within our electoral system that need discussion and potentially maturing and evolution. So looking forward to having those conversations and for this bill going into committee stage as it goes through the next phase.I was a member of the Justice Committee who considered this bill and before it went into select committee I read the 2017 Electoral Commission report which highlighted this very issue and spoke of as a number of people have referred to the fact that 6000 voters each year attempt to change electoral rolls. But in an election year that number increases significantly to 19000 people and many of those people aren't then able to change electoral rolls.We did have over 120 submissions in relation to this bill. One of those was the Council for Civil Liberties who made the case that when people aren't permitted to change which roll they are on it significantly decreases the likelihood that they will vote at all. There were a number of really insightful submissions that we received in that regard. We also received submissions from Local Government New Zealand who said that: Accurate and up to date electoral rolls are vital to achieving our vision for Aotearoa to be the most active and inclusive local democracy in the world."The last submission that I'd like to share—there were many that were fascinating—was one from Graeme Edgeler who spoke about the reasons why people shift and want to change rolls. He said that he wasn't always a supporter of allowing people to change rolls but he changed his mind. And he said sometimes there are ideological changes in terms of why people decide they want to shift and sometimes they're just practical. He gave this example he said: "someone of Ngāpuhi ancestry might have chosen to go on the Māori roll because being on that roll enables them to have a say in who represents the Ngāpuhi rohe in Parliament through their vote in Te Tai Tokerau. But if they moved to Hamilton to live and work they may consider it wrong that they would be voting to determine who would represent Māori who whakapapa to Waikato-Tainui and Ngāti Raukawa and the other iwi who have rohe within the boundaries of the Hauraki-Waikato electorate. Forcing this person who chose to go on the Māori roll as an exercise honouring their whakapapa to later vote in a way which may undermine their mana is wrong and the law should not require it."There are very valid reasons why we've proposed these changes; there's utility in them for a fair democracy for Aotearoa. I commend this bill to the House."
Davidson MaramaHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens of course support this the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill given that this bill gives Māori the ability to change roll types at any time—except of course when a by-election is held. This particular goal has long been a Green Party policy it is part of my colleague Golriz Ghahraman's Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill and so we're really pleased to see this come before us and acknowledging my colleague Rawiri Waititi's bill that has also recently been drawn.I mean we've heard some stories in here about how important it is for Māori to have always had that choice. And I did just want to put on the Hansard from the Greens' perspective that it was the Electoral Commission's report on the 2017 general election that recommended that voters of Māori descent be able to change roll type at any time as this would better meet the needs of Māori voters." And my colleague Mr Coffey just gave us one example of many many many stories that highlighted the flaw of not enabling that mana motuhake for Māori voters to be able to choose and switch those rolls not just bound to particular time frames in the electoral cycle.So this bill clarifies that changing that roll type—you know with the checks there—may also be exercised by special vote under the Electoral Act and that means that Māori can change rolls on the day that they vote if they get to the voting place and realise they are on the wrong roll. And this is exactly what we heard—my colleague here Rawiri Waititi is shaking his head in agreement. We were receiving stories of exactly that situation happening all around the motu.So I'm really pleased to see us improve our access to democratic processes including in cleaning this part of the legislation up. This is just common sense and something that is long overdue. I'm proud to stand and give a short speech from the Green Party supporting this bill today. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Dean JacquiBill to be reported without amendment and divided into the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and the Apple Transitional Export Quota.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and reports it without amendment and divided into the following bills: United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
O'Connor Damien; Dean JacquiHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move Supplementary Order Paper 277 dividing the bill.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.
Watts Simon; O'Connor DamienSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm also providing an opportunity for the Minister just to seek some guidance in regards to the last question. The question I have is in regards to Part 5 clause 34 and particularly around the obligations relating to fresh apples. And you may think Well that's an interesting area to get into" but I grew up on an apple orchard actually; so there's the context for the question a little bit. But the point really is in regards to clause 34(2)(a)(i) which is in regards to the three-year period. I'm looking for a little bit of context from the Minister just in terms of their landing on that period of time and any consideration in regards to alternative periods of time that may have been appropriate and the impacts on that industry.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Thank you very much. In terms of apples what we decided here is that the industry would manage its own transition. The arrangement and the negotiation that we have is very very good. There is a three-year transition arrangement. So we're bringing in a separate piece of legislation here to ensure that that can happen and be managed by the industry. That's why we're doing that.In terms of the geographical indicators (GIs) as I say I referenced a couple that we have had to acknowledge in scotch. And in terms of reference to the EU they're no more important other than the EU has been very protective of them—and from a position of 2000 down to about two or three which we now have to honour. The situation is not quite the same in the UK. They don't have as many GIs. They have some—we have to acknowledge those—and this trade agreement will allow us both sides of the agreement to pick up value from them."
McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): On that to the Minister—and noting his suggested difference between this agreement and the EU one whereas it's more important to the EU than us and I suppose therefore less important to the UK—are there any industries or sectors or products that he thinks geographical indications (GIs) wouldn't be helpful for? And will they be excluded for any decision under this agreement or in GIs for the future or does he think GIs across the board in agricultural products and food production add value to New Zealand producers?
McClay Todd; O'Connor DamienHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Chair thank you and thanks to the Minister. A question probably: I note in the legislation it's not in here because it doesn't need to be but actually in the agreement that was reached when it comes to the issue of geographical indicators the GIs there was agreement that we might do it one day in the future but that actually in as far as the agreement is concerned it wasn't delivered on and it wasn't important.The Minister has said previously that GIs offer opportunities to New Zealand producers to gain extra value for what they produce overseas because of reputation and name; it gives them some protection. In fact GIs are an important part I suppose of the EU free-trade agreement and a lot was made of that.I'd like to ask the Minister if he still stands by his views that geographical indicators are important for New Zealand producers give protection and can drive greater value for New Zealand producers of wine and beef and many things and if that's the case why that isn't in this agreement and yet it is in the EU agreement?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Look thank you very much. They are really important and obviously more important in the EU than in the UK but none the less we still had issues like scotch and we've got other acknowledgments that we've got to work through on geographical indicators (GIs) with reference to the conclusion of the EU trade agreement.It will be more important and more valuable for New Zealand as we move forward to establish provenance such as we have with Marlborough sauvignon blanc and Central Otago Pinot noir. So we're starting to develop those GIs and we will continue to work through the process of I guess marketing those to greater value and hopefully over time over the next century they'll be as valuable as the EU claim for their own ones.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Look thank you very much. I'll take the opportunity to just acknowledge the Opposition's support for this and point to two things. I would like to thank officials who worked tirelessly on this and Brad Burgess in particular who was located in Ireland; he was able to get firsthand to the UK and help them sometimes. But there were a lot of officials some of whom are behind me here who worked tirelessly on Zoom to get this progressed. So thanks to them once more.On the copyright issue it's an interesting evolution as a nation. We're always concerned about copyright and the fact that getting access to material from overseas—so the sooner the copyright finished then I guess the cheaper it was to access that. We've now turned what is a defensive position to an offensive one where actually the production of cultural material from New Zealand going out to the wider world—this will enable our artists our authors and those people to get longer protection and returns for that and I think that's a really positive thing.Can I just finally acknowledge the UK Ministers involved and Liz Truss who's been through I guess political turmoil—I acknowledge her enthusiasm to get this free-trade agreement done. Anne-Marie Trevelyan who was also Minister of trade was an enthusiastic advocate supporter and mover to get this through the House and I just hope that they can support it. If the Opposition would like to see this signed this year the Government certainly would as well but we are dependent on the UK process.
Prime Willow-Jean; O'Connor GregWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Is there any objection? There is no objection. That shall be the case. The question is that Parts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
O'Connor GregUNITED KINGDOM FREE TRADE AGREEMENT LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill. I remind members that it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. Members we come to Part 1.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Speaker. As those who have spoken at the first reading of the bill have noted in among their substantive comments on the bill the National Party supports the relatively short period of time that the select committee will be accorded for this work.I do want to state for the record however on our behalf that we are agreeing for the reason essentially that the Minister has said; namely that it is necessary in order for the bill to be reported back to the House and then passed through its remaining stages in order to be meaningful given the particular time constraints inherent in the licensing regime.Of course if the bill had been introduced at an earlier stage then the same effect could have been gained with something closer to a standard period of time in front of the select committee. So I make those points for the record not in the spirit of churlishness I hope but nevertheless acknowledging that having less time in front of a select committee is generally not regarded as a good thing. Albeit that in the circumstances taking the situation as a whole we do support it being reported back on 17 November—I think I'm right in saying just over a week from now—for the reasons as I say that have been outlined already.
Wood Michael; Dean JacquiHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I move That the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 17 November 2022 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.The reasons for asking the House to agree to a shortened select committee process are the same as the reasons why the bill is needed at all—this is to address the problem of licence holders having expired licences and being unable to comply with the Arms Act 1983 through no fault of their own. It is in the Government's view essential that the bill is enacted as soon as possible but it remains desirable for it to undergo select committee scrutiny albeit briefly. To enable the Justice Committee to meet the deadline that we are setting the motion also includes the usual arranged permissions to meet at times outside of the parameters normally allowed by the Standing Orders. I wish the Justice Committee well in its work and hope that these proposals enable the bill to be advanced expeditiously to the advantage of the public.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take the final call before this bill the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill goes to the Justice Committee which is a hard-working committee of this House. I absolutely have faith in our ability to have robust and detailed discussion about this bill in the time that has been given to us.The first quick point that I want to make is how a regulatory system that works and is robust for arms in New Zealand is really important but a part of that is the faith and confidence in the regulatory system of the people who use it. This bill is about giving the people who use it faith in a system and giving them time to renew their licences in the appropriate way. It's a small and practical step which does that and increases people's confidence in it.The second point that I would make is that when it goes to select committee—I agree with Mark Mitchell that we need to get it back to the House swiftly. He said that the time allotted was appropriate and I think it is. Where I think we can agree around this House is that we would welcome submitters on this bill particularly around some of the very technical points. It's a very short bill and it only makes two real changes. But one change that I would encourage submitters to give us their views on is the technical amendments around the enabling of police to issue notices and documents to an electronic address effectively being email addresses. The committee would do well to consider how that would work in the regime. For that reason I commend it to the House.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Thirty years ago this House passed a piece of legislation that unfortunately created a situation where every licensed firearm owner essentially had to renew their licence at the same time. This has created a peak which is difficult to manage for the police. That peak hits in a few years' time. Meanwhile the rolling problem of COVID and the pressure that it put on our Public Service and the new and more stringent provisions for checking licence holders—the reasons for which have been so eloquently set out by my friends and colleagues Mr Omer and Ms Pallett—have created a situation where we needed to do something to break that wave that coming wave into manageable swells.This piece of legislation will effectively bridge the gap and that is something we need to do. I'm always amused to discover that my colleagues across the ditch otherwise known as Her Majesty's loyal Opposition the National Party have only come to the realisation that this 30-year-old piece of legislation creates this problem since they themselves became the Opposition. And in the nine years previously of course it was no problem at all apparently and certainly not one that they were going to be bothered to fix. We however are going to fix it. It's a simple administrative fix that is going to allow a bridge. It is worthwhile and I commend it to this House.
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a very short call in favour of the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill.My electorate Ilam actually has a border which is approximately one block from Al Noor Mosque and I have constituents who were victims of that appalling terror attack. And so I like many in this House am really aware of the need for diligent and robust processes with regards to firearms licences. But it is clear that demand is outstripping the police's ability to process these applications—which does need to be a diligent process. There are many reasons for that and some of those do sit with the findings of the royal commission of inquiry and that has led to delays. So what we are seeing here is creating an ability for us to ensure that consistency of legality runs past the expiry of these licences. I do commend it to the House.
Omer Ibrahim; O'Connor GregIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm grateful to speak on the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill. This is a very technical bill that specifically remedies some of the issues in the gun licensing regime.Today though I want to start with as we debate this bill here today: the Christchurch mosques terrorist is appealing his conviction today. This must be a very hard day for the whānau and families of the victims and survivors so my heart goes out to them. This man is always going to be a convicted terrorist no matter what he does.Back to the bill: one of the things the terror attacks taught us is that we must have a robust gun licence regime at all times and allowing the law-abiding people to renew their licence on time is a part of this process. We all know that after the royal commission report the police have been following a more stringent approach to firearm licences. We just need to allow them to keep doing that.In 1992 this regime changed from the lifetime licensing to 10 years and now this has created an issue. Every 10 years there will be a peak and a line of people who want to renew their licence and that creates pressure on the system and the police; it also frustrates people as well. So if a new licence is granted after the expiry date the renewal will take effect from the date of the issue; it's not going to be an old expiry date. So this is going to have less impact on the people who line up to renew their licence. Also it will allow the police to issue a recommendation electronically which saves a lot of time and energy and the resources of the police.Why we support this is because this will allow licence holders who are struggling due to the peak to renew their licence on time. It will allow the police to implement a priority-based triaging system. So it is a good deal as a lot of speakers alluded to. Hopefully it's going to lift pressure off the police and also going to be good news for the people who are already frustrated. So it's good news it's a good bill and I commend it to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Joseph Mooney and this is a split call—five minutes.
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is a technical bill. It is one though as others have mentioned that does raise some certain concerns for us as the Green Party. It is one that addresses existing issues that are real which is the backlog in applications for gun licence renewals. That has come about in part over the past 2½ years due to COVID issues and we do want to hold that. A face-to-face aspect to this licensing system is important and has been the cause of delays in a lot of cases; that's understandable. But it is one where we do wonder as my friend who has just resumed her seat Vanushi Walters has raised whether there is a need for a sunset clause. We do wonder if renewing or allowing extension of licence holder applications without that process needs to be something that happens only now. We want to continue to uphold the rule of law while people are holding a licence and have been validly waiting for their renewal process to happen but one that we don't want to allow going forward because things like the face-to-face review process are important.It is reassuring that there is a review coming up. It's also reassuring to know that the work programme for the Government on gun control is continuing. We have had some good progress on Green Party kaupapa when it comes to things like banning semi-automatic gun ownership in response to the Christchurch terror attack. We've had progress when it comes to making gun licence applications and that process but also the threshold for that process more stringent. That is the direction that the Green Party would continue to encourage the Government to go in rather than to allow this bill to form a foundation where we make it more lax. There is a valid need for renewals to go through a proper process and so the delay and the backlog remains concerning for us. But to allow those licences to lapse without a legislative safeguard of the rules-based process would also be wrong and probably more detrimental which is where the balance lies for us in supporting this bill to allow those licence holders to remain within the law and for the Government to continue to process them with some of those high-level aspects to the process like the face-to-face interviews. But the review really is where this lies for us. It will need to be something that's reviewed; it can't be that we just allow lapsed licences to continue.Having said all of that it is a technical thing. It is for people who are already in the system who have already made their application for a renewal and we know that those applications will in fact be processed. We continue to support the Government and encourage the Government to look harder at the process of obtaining gun licences to make the community more safe and to make it harder and harder for gun licences to be issued where they should not be issued and to keep us all safe from gun violence. Thank you.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I will speak to the reasons for this bill today. Other speakers have spoken to those 1992 changes which are part of the reasons why we have this bill in place. But actually as Mr Brown pointed to there are other reasons as well including the flow-on from the COVID-19 impacts and the inability to process applications—in particular the face-to-face interviews which were required as part of the vetting process. And what we've seen recently is the flow-on effects from that coupled with what we saw from the 1992 changes which were of course those 10-year periods for renewal. In addition there has in sequence been the reduction in vetting capability and that's partially due to the employment conditions for the vetting staff—which have changed—as well as a constrained labour market in particular in this space. So it is the conflation of those multiple issues that has led to the Minister bringing this bill to the House now. Because this is a Government that is responsive to that conflation of the set of issues; this is a Government that is responding to the calls from our sectors who use guns very lawfully in our community. My colleague Mark Mitchell spoke very well about that and I absolutely agree wholeheartedly that this is a tool in many ways for conservation protection and there are a lot of groups out there using them in very responsible ways. Again this is an area where we need some action; we are responding.My colleagues in the Justice Committee will know me as a person who does at times raise the question about whether we ought to be putting sunset clauses in relation to certain clauses such as this bill puts forward given it appears to be an interim measure while we clear the backlog. However as colleagues have noted there will be a statutory review in 2026-27. And even if we were to put in a sunset clause it will possibly go outside the period of that review. So I believe it's entirely appropriate that we've landed where we have but I am a member of the Justice Committee and I do look forward to hearing from community members with all views on this bill. I commend it to the House.
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianURGENCYHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the first reading and referral to select committee of the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill.This is a technical urgency. The bill was introduced last Thursday 3 November and it was also circulated to other parties last week. Had last Thursday been a House sitting day the bill would be available for first reading today. Unfortunately the House was not sitting last week and hence urgency is required in order to provide for a first reading today. We want to do the first reading today in order to allow for a very short select committee and for this bill to be passed before the end of the year to give certainty to firearms licence holders.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.
Rurawhe AdrianSPEAKER'S RULINGSReply to Written Question—Unparliamentary RemarkSPEAKER: Members it has come to my attention that the reply to written question No. 38016 from the Minister of Health contained an unparliamentary remark directed at Dr Shane Reti. Replies to questions must not contain discreditable references to members or offensive or unparliamentary expressions—Standing Order 396(3). This is not the first reply from the Minister to contain such a remark. As a result I intend to award Dr Reti five additional supplementary questions to ask of the Minister of Health this week.If any other further such replies to written questions come to my attention I will award a larger number of supplementary questions to the National Party to ask of any Minister. A written answer is primarily a matter between the Minister and the member. Where a member considers an answer inadequate or when overdue I expect the member to follow up with the Minister in the first instance. However I intend to continue my predecessor's practice where an answer contains unparliamentary language. In that case I will intervene as soon as it comes to my attention because it is not fair to expect a member to try and obtain a reasonable answer in such circumstances.
Rurawhe AdrianTUESDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: E te Māngai o ngā Anahera Pono e te Tokotoru Tapu ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā manaakitanga kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.[To the Mouthpiece of the Faithful Angels and to the Holy Trinity we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Tuesday 18 July 2023 - Volume 769
Therapeutic Products Bill — In Committee—Part 5
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden's amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 379 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 5 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 5 agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden's amendment to clause 120 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 380 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 385 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Therapeutic Products Bill — In Committee—Part 4
Therapeutic Products Bill — In Committee—Part 3
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments to clause 67 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 3 as amended agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments to clause 14 and 59 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10. Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments to clauses 14 61 and 62 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere. Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendment to clause 16 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10. Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendment to clause 16 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10. Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments to clause 60 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 373 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere. Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden's amendment to clause 65 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 382 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere. Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri. Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Therapeutic Products Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 1 agreed to.
Therapeutic Products Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere 1.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Noes 48New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Spatial Planning Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Spatial Planning Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Natural and Built Environment Bill — Second Reading
12. Question No. 12—EducationCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 12—Education12. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her actions and policies?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes.Chris Baillie: Does she believe that spending $1 million on an attendance awareness campaign was good value for money when it was not expected to have a direct quantifiable impact on attendance rates"?Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.Chris Baillie: Does she believe spending $1.3 million on a new maths and statistics curriculum was good value for money; and if so how will "expressing the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles" teach 7-year-olds basic numeracy skills?Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.Chris Baillie: Does she believe that spending $74 million for 82 new school attendance officer roles is good value for money; and if so how many attendance officers have been recruited to date?Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.Chris Baillie: How can the public have confidence in her when she prioritises wasteful spending on vanity projects over basic things like making sure the next generation of New Zealanders knows how to read and write?Hon JAN TINETTI: All of those aspects and initiatives that the member has talked about are making a big difference to this country and to our young people. They are wonderful initiatives; wonderful programmes."