edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
8. Question No. 8—HealthANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about improving cancer care in the regions?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Kia orana Mr Speaker. More good news: on Sunday I joined the Prime Minister at Wellington Hospital to announce that the Government will fund the replacement of 12 linear accelerators (LINACs) over the next three years. These machines are used to deliver radiation treatment for a range of cancers including lung breast skin bowel and brain cancers. Currently more than a thousand people a year travel from the Hawke's Bay Taranaki and Northland so that they can receive this treatment. We know that others choose not to travel and they're missing out altogether. We don't think that's fair and so as we replace these LINACs we will be putting one into each of those regions for the first time ever.Angie Warren-Clark: Why is improving regional access to radiation treatment important?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that we currently have regional variations in the standard of cancer care. We also know that one in two cancer patients could benefit from radiation treatment but currently only one in three is accessing these services. There is no question that the cost and convenience of travelling for treatment is a barrier for some people. By putting state-of-the-art LINACs into more regions we can ensure improved treatment and fairer access to cancer care in the provinces.Angie Warren-Clark: How will these replacement linear accelerators be funded?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Up until now district health boards have had to fund the purchase of these vital pieces of equipment themselves. That has forced them to make difficult choices about when to replace their LINACs and has left us with some machines that are up to 16 years old when they are usually replaced after 10 years. It is just another reflection of the underfunding of health by the previous Government. We are stepping up and we're stepping in to fund these machines directly from the $1.7 billion we invested in health for capital projects in the Wellbeing Budget with $25 million set aside for the first five machines in the current financial year.
7. Question No. 7—Social DevelopmentHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 7—Social Development 7. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: How many more children are living in benefit-dependent homes as of June 2019 compared to September 2017?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): As at June 2019 there were 176630 dependent children of working-age people on main benefit. In September 2017 there were 172301. The difference is 4329. I note these figures are publicly available online.Hon Louise Upston: What percentage of children living in poverty are in benefit-dependent homes?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The most recent statistics that we have on that are around 60 percent. Can I say that with regards to those living-in-benefit numbers we can gain a sense of positivity by the unemployment rate of 3.9 percent today. Also there are a number of children that are living in hardship in working households so the increase of 4.4 percent in wages is also a positive indication of what's happening in the country at the moment.Hon Louise Upston: Is she concerned about the increase of more than 4000 children now totalling more than 176000 children living in benefit-dependent homes since September 2017?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What I am relieved about is that we've got a Government that is responding to the needs of children living in beneficiary households. With the repeal of things like section 192 which punished children living in beneficiary households we will see increases in those particular households. The 24000 children living in those households will be better off by about $34 per week because of repealing that section 192.Hon Louise Upston: Does she acknowledge that children are better off in households where a parent is working?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: With us—with this Government—we want to work with New Zealanders who come through the welfare system to support them into meaningful and sustainable employment. For some that means working with them to make sure that they can upskill and train towards the jobs that are available. We're working very hard to do that. I think we see that with the statistics that came out today with an additional 20000 New Zealanders in work over the past quarter. It's all looking very positive and we will continue to do that work with families who come through the welfare system.Hon Louise Upston: Why are children worse off under her watch?SPEAKER: Order! Oh answer the question.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I reject the premise of that member's question.
5. Question No. 5—HousingPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 5—Housing5. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about the provision of public housing?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Kia orana Mr Speaker. On Friday I announced that an extra 2178 public houses have been delivered over the last 12 months. We exceeded our target of 1600 additional public houses this year by 578. One of this Government's first actions upon taking office was to stop the sell-off of State houses. This announcement demonstrates how much progress we've made since then with Housing New Zealand building on average four new homes a day. I'm proud of the progress we're making and happy to inform members that this represents the biggest increase to public housing in 20 years.Paul Eagle: How did the Government enable the construction and timely delivery of these houses?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Budget 2018 set aside $234 million to fund the delivery of 6400 public housing places. That means that under this Government not only have we stopped the sale of State houses but we have also set aside funding in our first Budget to ensure that the construction and completion of the houses I announced last week was progressed as soon as possible. We're also partnering with registered community housing providers to ensure we can maximise the delivery of public houses. Of the additional 2178 houses I announced those providers delivered 955 and I want to thank those providers who are working alongside the Government to tackle one of the most significant challenges facing New Zealand.Paul Eagle: Why is it important that the Government continues to invest in public housing provision?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because too many people are still struggling to find secure long-term accommodation that will keep them warm and dry. It's clear from the public house waiting list that a significant gap in supply has opened up over the last decade and we simply must do more to ensure we're getting Kiwis into warm dry homes. That's why this Government is committed to continuing to build more public houses over the coming years.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My point of order was that constituency MPs have a particular responsibility. That is something that I pointed out and I think it's very odd for the Chair to be getting themselves involved in the debate particularly after the quite derogatory comments from Mr Little and Mr O'Connor on which I sought to correct the record. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I gave you a lot of leniency in that regard actually Dr Smith. I wasn't getting involved in the debate. I was commenting on the order of the committee and the contribution you had made and I may have misinterpreted it in which case I apologise. But I don't believe I did. Part 1 agreed to.
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I thank the member. I'm not saying that it's outside the rules but can I just suggest to all members that after 23 years of MMP we no longer insinuate that list MPs are second-class citizens. I don't think it's helpful.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry I'm in the middle of a sentence. If you wouldn't mind holding your breath until I've finished it. I don't think it's helpful to the order of the committee.
Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you to the member Jonathan Young who's just resumed his seat. Again I think the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee did some excellent work and while it's a non-controversial bill I think there's some tension around the commercial availability test. I think it's useful that I back up some of the words of the chair of the select committee just to make sure that we do have it on the record that both the Government and the select committee are in complete synchronisation with each other on this because I still think that there may be some efforts to reinforce the point of some of the copyright holders.I think that when the select committee looked at this and also officials some of the points that those copyright holders made we—myself and the select committee—do believe that publishers and authors will still be incentivised to create the accessible format copies whether that be Braille or audio. I understand from officials that producing a book in an audio or Braille format can cost up to tens of thousands of dollars and this means that authorised entities and print-disabled people would be motivated to seek copies that are already commercially available. Purchasing a copy in an accessible format would likely cost less than producing an accessible format copy themselves. Again this issue was raised with the select committee and it noted that most countries including the likes of the United States and the European Union have removed the commercial availability test and at this stage no evidence of that being a disadvantage to the likes of authors or publishers or copyright holders has been found to date. I'd also like to reinforce that the select committee noted that there is a requirement in the bill for authorised entities to take all reasonable steps to notify the owner of a copyright work of an intention to make or import an accessible format and the select committee also said that this should incentivise cooperation between authorised entities and copyright owners themselves. Again echoing the sentiment of the select committee chair the overall aim of this is to assist the nearly 170000 New Zealanders who do have issues with accessing accessible formats if they are print-disabled. Without taking any more time of the committee I think getting through this committee stage will allow them to use the Copyright Act in a way that will advantage them. Thank you very much Madam Chair.Part 1 agreed to. Part 2 agreed to.Schedule agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
SpeechJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Can I just thank the Minister for his comments and can I thank members of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee for what I thought was a very thorough process in looking at the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill Of course you know the intent of this bill is to enable the possibly more than 168000 New Zealanders who have difficulty accessing printed material who have some disability around that so that they can enjoy and participate in the aspects of life that many other New Zealanders do enjoy particularly when it comes to university studies and advancing their opportunities. I think the Minister has been very good to canvass the issue the most substantive issue which was the commercial availability test. We did have considerable discussion around this trying to find the balance between the interests of those copyright holders and those people who need to access in a timely fashion those written works especially when there's time constraints around perhaps university studies.What we felt was that if we remove the commercial availability test as many countries around the world who ascribe to this treaty have already done that in itself creates the incentive for those authors of those works to ensure that they actually do have works available to those people who have some impairment. Obviously the authors of those works have a commercial interest and we don't want to deny them that but we think there's an opportunity for them to respond to the needs of New Zealanders particularly those 168000 if not more who have a print disability.Can I say thank you very much to the officials. This was not a controversial piece of legislation. As we know the Marrakesh Treaty was concluded on 28 June 2013 and entered into force on 30 September 2016. So we essentially do want to advance this through the House in a timely manner in order to create that availability for those people who will respond and appreciate being able to access different formats to copyright works. Thank you very much Madam Chair. I believe that members of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee were unanimous in their support of the adoption of this piece of legislation. Thank you.
Clark DavidPart 2 Amendment to Psychoactive Substances Act 2013Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Just a short contribution to describe this part of the bill. Currently substances capable of inducing a psychoactive effect that are not classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act are captured as unapproved psychoactive substances. These are regulated under the Psychoactive Substances Act.This section will specify that substances scheduled under a temporary class drug order are not captured by the definition of a psychoactive substance.
Woodhouse MichaelCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Paula Bennett's amendment deleting clause 6 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 291 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Madam Chair. Without for a moment wanting to challenge your ruling the question is an interesting one because clause 6 as a whole still hasn't been considered and regardless of whether there was merit in the Minister's SOP the member Paula Bennett's amendment is not subordinate or consequent on that decision. We still haven't made a decision about whether clause 6 should proceed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We've just agreed to amend clause 6 and the Hon Paula Bennett's SOP is to delete it so it's inconsistent. The committee has just agreed to amend clause 6.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): My question is this: had that amendment not been agreed to would that have defeated clause 6? The answer to that is certainly not.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I don't know how much time you'd like to spend on hypothetical questions. You're welcome to contact me later. We have agreed on an amended clause 6. The Hon Paula Bennett's SOP is out of order.
SpeechJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice instructing the Justice Committee to consider out-of-scope amendments or amendments relating to electoral donations. That motion would read: I move that it would be an instruction to the Justice Committee that it consider and if it thinks fit recommend amendments relating to electoral donations. DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the members have heard that leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that? There is objection so it is not granted.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table the minutes of the Justice Committee on the electoral law inquiry at the time that this letter was considered and specifically the issues around the extension of the terms of reference of the select committee.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just take a bit of advice here.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Speaker could I be of some assistance? Because I had previously sought the advice of the Clerk. It is normal that both the minutes and the letter that you've just sought leave for would remain confidential to the select committee until the select committee inquiry into the election had been concluded of which this item of correspondence—DEPUTY SPEAKER: But the issue is that—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Having made the decision to put the leave to the House on the letter that has been sought by my colleague Clare Curran it is only fair that you also put leave to the House for the minutes on the same issue.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was just checking on the status of the minutes. They are available to all members through the committee system. Tabling them in the House—but they're not publicly available. Anyway it's in the hands of the House. The House has decided as Dr Smith points out to table the letter. Is there any objection to the leave being sought to table the minutes? There is objection.
SpeechHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table the letter that was sent to the Justice Committee on 4 December 2018—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we do know the document that you are reading from. I trust it has been released from the select committee.Hon Clare Curran: Well it clearly hasn't been read by the members on that side. I seek leave to table it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to table that document from the select committee—Hon Dr Nick Smith: A point of clarification—could the member clarify for the House that the letter was to the Labour Party chair of the select committee? It was not a letter to consult with the National Party. Could the member clarify who was the letter addressed to—which member of Parliament?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I think if we put the leave and the letter is tabled we can all have a look and see that. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Rurawhe AdrianASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members I think after the debate on the first reading of this bill we missed the Clerk reading the first reading so I think we'll do that now.[Clerk announces first reading]
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Referendums Framework Bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).The reason for this is that it is important that the Electoral Commission as part of its preparations for the 2020 general election has certainty. It is therefore important that this piece of legislation be passed to the greatest extent possible by early 2020 so that the Electoral Commission can do their planning and get that all arranged.The motion that I've just moved allows the committee great flexibility when to meet but also to meet outside of Wellington. It'll be interesting to see how much interest there is in the Referendums Framework Bill. I think most people entrust members of this House to get the mechanical provisions of these sorts of things right. There will be some input from those with an academic interest in getting things like the conduct of referendums correct. I think most academics will agree that because there is no convention and no single way that referendums can be conducted that we do want to take the opportunity to get this right. So this motion allows a good amount of time to receive submissions to hear submissions to hear from experts to hear from members of the public and then to get the framework bill right.As I foreshadowed in my speech on the first reading what I am very keen for once this legislation is passed and we've got through the referendums to which it will apply is to consider what we need for a standing piece of legislation on the conduct of referendums because we have multiple pieces of legislation. We've had multiple ways of conducting these in the past and I think it would be good for the purposes of consistency and for our democracy and the values that we represent to make sure that there is one set of rules that we apply so everybody knows that when the issue of a referendum comes up whether it's the citizens initiated referendum whether it's a Government-sponsored referendum whether it's a referendum that comes out of a motion of the House—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll just remind the Minister that this is a very narrow debate.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry. So it's about making sure that when in considering this bill the committee gets to hear all of those questions as a set up perhaps to what might happen in the future. But for the purposes of the Referendums Framework Bill it's important the committee has the flexibility and the time to do a thoroughgoing job given that we and the Electoral Commission need the certainty for planning of the election and the referendums that go with it for 2020. So on that basis I invite the House to support the motion.
Appointments — Parliamentary Service Commission
Hipkins ChrisAPPOINTMENTSParliamentary Service CommissionHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That under section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Michael Wood be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission.Motion agreed to.
Speaker's Rulings — Parliamentary Questions—Official Information
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSOral Questions—Official Information ActSPEAKER: Members last week during oral questions reference was made to an opinion of the Chief Ombudsman on grounds for withholding official information. I want to take this opportunity to remind members that the Official Information Act 1982 does not apply in the House and questions to Ministers should not be treated as requests under that Act. The House has established its own rules for replies to questions and its entitlement to information exceeds that under the Act: Speakers' rulings 142/1 and 177/6. Ministers are required to give an answer to a parliamentary question if it can be done consistently with the public interest—Standing Order 386(1). It is solely for Ministers to determine the public interest when answering a question—Speakers' ruling 196/5.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koutou. I am so proud and honoured to be able to stand up and mihi to Sir Brian Lochore and all of his family and all of the communities and people whose lives he has touched through being one of the greatest players to wear the All Black jersey. I was asking my whānau this morning about particular memories as a rugby-mad family that they had of Sir Brian and my brother reminded me about the first 1987 Rugby World Cup—I think it was hosted by Australia and New Zealand—and then I remembered watching that team. That was when I fell in love with our All Blacks team right back then and to remember that it was under Sir Brian's leadership it is a pleasure to be able to speak on this today.I wanted to spend some time acknowledging him as a kaitiaki as a conservation leader going back to his Wairarapa farm; I was really so pleased to look at some of the quotes that he used to have around making sure that the way that he was doing farming was going to protect land in perpetuity for biodiversity.There was a quote here where he mentioned that he wanted to get in touch with people. He said push them my way when you hear about [farmers] if they're a bit reluctant to yield up that half acre of Kahikatea" and he was able to lead and hold discussions on a leading way of being able to farm land soil and water to protect our conservation heritage and hold dear everything that New Zealanders are proud of. So I wanted to make sure we acknowledged him not just for his being a rugby great and a giant in rugby but a giant in conservation and a giant in being a kind man that people remember fondly. I leave with acknowledging Pam their children and also his eight grandchildren because I know how special the bond is for mokopuna and grandparents. Kia ora. Motion agreed to."
Motion — Obituary—Sir Brian Lochore
Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): On Saturday New Zealand lost one of our most highly respected sporting legends. It was Brian Lochore who was a valued former All Blacks captain and number eight who played 25 tests in number and another 43 games for a national side captaining the side in 46 matches of those 68 matches in total and leading the way through a golden period of All Blacks rugby I know many New Zealanders and their families will have fond memories of watching Sir Brian play and do us proud on the international sporting stage.On the field he was known for his strategic mind maintaining combinations throughout competitions. He had the respect of his teammates and was a tremendous motivator. He was a tough man but he was also very fair. He demanded the best from himself and expected others to follow. His proud service to rugby of course as the Prime Minister has just said wasn't limited to the field. After coaching his beloved Wairarapa Bush as they quickly climbed up to the first division within the space of a couple of years of him taking over the reins he became an All Blacks selector in 1983 and was appointed coach in 1985 guiding his team through one of the most tumultuous periods in the game's history in New Zealand during his three years in charge but culminating in Rugby World Cup triumph in the inaugural 1987 tournament. In 1995 he was appointed as the squad's captain and campaign manager for the World Cup in South Africa and later worked as an adviser at the 2007 tournament in France.As the Prime Minister has noted his service to our country was recognised in both the knighthood and in 2007 he rightly received our highest honour the Order of New Zealand. On Saturday Sir Brian lost his battle with cancer. Losing a great New Zealander like this reminds us that rugby is more than just a game; it's part of our values and identity as a nation. Sir Brian forged that link between rugby and this nation in so many ways be it in his work at the grassroots of rugby his lasting support and contribution to organisations such as the land conservation group the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust and for his decades of dedicated service in Wairarapa and Masterton. A loss such as this should bring us together to celebrate Sir Brian Lochore's legacy and be thankful we live in a country that produces such world-class athletes and inspirational legends such as him.
Obituaries — Hon William Robson Storey
Ardern JacindaMOTIONSObituaries—Sir Brian LochoreRt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to mark the passing of Sir Brian Lochore.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move That this House mourn the passing of Sir Brian Lochore a member of the Order of New Zealand a Knight Companion of The New Zealand Order of Merit and an Officer of the Order of the British Empire and acknowledge his enormous contribution to New Zealand rugby and to the wider community. Sir Brian is one of the most admired figures in New Zealand and world rugby having achieved fame and respect as a player captain and later as a coach manager and selector. He first became a star lock for Masterton and Wairarapa and his legacy and commitment to grassroots provincial rugby lives on in the Heartland Championship's Lochore Cup. It was in his 68 games for the All Blacks—46 of them as captain—where he cemented his place in international rugby history and folklore. Sir Brian led the All Blacks to a 4-0 home series defeat of the Lions in 1966. Under his leadership the following year they were undefeated in 24 games on a tour of Great Britain France and Canada including tests against England Wales Scotland and France. Among his many well-deserved honours was becoming an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to rugby football on the Queen's Birthday Honours List 1970 upon his retirement from the All Blacks. Sir Brian's involvement in our national game did not end with his playing days. He coached Masterton and Wairarapa Bush before guiding the All Blacks to win the inaugural Rugby World Cup in New Zealand in 1987. He was also our campaign manager at the 1995 World Cup and a selector when we won the cup for a second time in 2011.However what's most impressive is how far his reach extended beyond rugby. The many national and community roles he held include former chairman of the Hillary Commission for Sport. He was made a Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to sport and the community on the Queen's Birthday Honours List in 1999. Many have commented on how despite his extraordinary achievements he remained a very humble man who was proud of his farming and rural upbringing. He was also well known for offering a helping hand to many people and community groups in need both on and off the rugby field. He was fittingly appointed to the Order of New Zealand our country's highest honour in celebration of the 20th anniversary of the institution of the order on 6 February 2007. He was the quintessential New Zealand sportsman and he will be dearly missed and it is fitting that his funeral will be held at his beloved home ground in Masterton on Thursday.To Sir Brian's family—especially to Pam—his friends his community we acknowledge your loss and we celebrate the life of a great great man.
Mallard TrevorOBITUARIESHon William Robson (Rob) StoreySPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 2 August 2019 of the Hon William Robson (Rob) Storey QSO who represented the Waikato electorate from 1984 to 1996. He was Minister of Transport Minister of Statistics and Minister of Lands from 1990 to 1993 and Minister for the Environment from 1991 to 1993. He also was the chairperson of the Transport Committee from 1993 to 1996.I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.Members stood as a mark of respect.
Mallard Trevor; Williams PotoTUESDAY 6 AUGUST 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.PRAYERSSPEAKER: To acknowledge the fact that it's Cook Islands Language Week I've asked the Hon Poto Williams to recite the prayer today.Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Te Atua Mana te akameitaki atu nei matou iakoe no toou takinga meitaki taau i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata te akamaara nei matou i te ariki vaine e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou uriuri anga manako kia rave matou I ta matou angaanga i roto i teia ngutuare na roto i te pakari te tuatua tika e te akaaka no te meitaki e te au o to matou basileia Niu Tireni. Amene.
Thursday 14 May 2020 (continued on Friday 15 May 2020) - Volume 745
COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 — Finance and Expenditure Committee Inquiry—Referral
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be amended by replacing Finance and Expenditure" with "Epidemic Response Committee".Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the Finance and Expenditure Committee inquire into the operation of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 and report to the House no later than 27 July 2020. Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 1.21 p.m. (Friday)"
Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill — Second Reading
Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a first time.
Customs and Excise (Tobacco) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Customs and Excise (Tobacco) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.
Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 5 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet 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 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Speaking to the amendment I've only a few points to make. Parliament is no longer suspended. The Business Committee agreed to the creation of the COVID committee while Parliament was suspended while there wasn't question time and while there wasn't parliamentary scrutiny of executive action and all of those events have now passed. The other point I would make in correction of what the member who just took his seat Tim Macindoe said was he said the powers" of police to enter a dwelling house. It's not correct. There is only one power to enter a dwelling house and that is breaking up a gathering—Hon Tim Macindoe: It's splitting hairs David.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well it's not splitting hairs because the prior power that was already in force prior to this latest bill narrowing the powers had much broader powers of warrantless entry into a dwelling house. Indeed one of the comments that I have seen since that bill was passed was that the now narrower power of the police to enter to break up a gathering—i.e. a party—is not much different to the power of a council officer to go into a party and take a stereo. I have nothing else to add."
SpeechRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Speaker I rise to take a very brief point on the motion and to speak to the amendment that's been advanced by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I do this in an attempt to point out to the Minister particularly the workload that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is currently under. We have from memory three pieces of legislation which we're working on and as an example of the programme next week—being a recess week—the Finance and Expenditure Committee has already resolved to meet on Monday next week on Tuesday next week on Wednesday next week on Friday next week and on the following Monday. So I think the Minister needs to be fully aware of the workload that's been presented to that committee with the current legislation and in asking it to now accept another role that could adequately be done by another special committee the Epidemic Response Committee—I genuinely ask him to consider that in light of the workload to this House that's before the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise in support of the initial motion and the amendment to it. It's certainly the case that the urgently passed legislation was extraordinary that the powers it introduced were extraordinary and the sense of fear and anxiety that it has put through New Zealanders—who now understand what it means that the police theoretically can now warrantlessly enter your home if they suspect you're having a birthday party with 11 kids present—is palpable and it's being talked about up and down New Zealand. I think the idea of having a continuous select committee process rather than a 90-day review—bearing in mind that in 90 days Parliament will no longer be sitting having adjourned for the election all going well—is a good idea. That 90-day review which would be extended beyond 90 days in this instance is inadequate. Having a sense of continuous monitoring by a select committee is the right way to do it. In addition I think it's absolutely the case that sending it to the Epidemic Response Committee—as proposed by the Hon Gerry Brownlee—is the right thing to do. Because as you've just heard from Michael Wood—you know politics is filled with chameleons and just sometimes you see a flash of their true character and Michael Wood just gave us one of those flashes—the Government can't be trusted with anything other than eternal vigilance. His true character is that he'll get away with whatever he can. That's his moral compass and that's why it's critical that the Epidemic Response Committee—which is chaired by a member of the Opposition and has a majority of Opposition MPs—is actually able to be scrutinising the exercise of executive power under this bill: because you can't trust the current lot in their entirety.So I hope that the motion succeeds. Bringing some sort of select committee I guess authority into this is critical. But sending it to the Epidemic Response Committee where we're able to have an oversight which has some Opposition dominance is arguably even more critical. Then we know that this won't be just a rubber stamp and effectively a marketing exercise on behalf of the Government but actually a representation on behalf of the non-executive part of Parliament on behalf of the people holding this power to account. So I think it's a very commendable motion from the Hon David Parker a very commendable amendment from the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I think that this motion and amendment should both pass and I think people up and down New Zealand will be very happy to see that happen. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill — Third Reading (continued)
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I stand briefly to speak in favour of the bill. All New Zealanders are aware that the current period and circumstances that our country faces are unprecedented. It's the view of members—certainly on this side of the House and I think more widely—that it is appropriate for the Remuneration Authority to take those matters into account when it sets the remuneration not only for members of Parliament but for other people for whom it has responsibility. We think that this bill balances that imperative with the fact that we do need to sustain an independent process for the setting of higher pay for members of Parliament and for other people as well. So it's a good bill in that respect. I do just want to briefly address—and I actually do this out of respect to the member—the concerns raised by Mr Seymour in the course of this debate. The point I'd simply make—and I don't make it with chagrin but I think it's an important point—is to say that if members wish to participate in the business of the House including questions about whether leave is sought members need to be in the House to do that. That is something that is incumbent upon all members and the processes of the House in that regard were followed appropriately. I note that members and parties have other mechanisms as well to engage in the decisions of the Remuneration Authority. The Remuneration Authority at the outset of this process sought submissions from members and from parties and is seeking further submissions at the moment about how the terms of this bill—soon to be Act—might be applied to its decisions. So I'd just point out to the member that there are still mechanisms available for him to make his points known in terms of how the Remuneration Authority might make its decision and it would be entirely possible—whether it happens or not I couldn't say—for the Remuneration Authority to make a decision that is consistent with what that member wishes to see if his arguments are strong enough when he makes a submission to them. This is a good bill. It ensures that members of Parliament and other people whose pay is set by the Remuneration Authority have their pay set in a way that is consistent with the economic shock of COVID-19. It ensures that we retain the independence—the important independence—of the remuneration-setting process and I'm pleased that it has wide support. I commend it to the House. Bill read a third time.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Thank you Madam Speaker. The Green Party is supporting this bill but ultimately it doesn't fit with our policy. We have a longstanding position regarding MP pay that it should be tied to the dollar movements in the median wage up and down and this bill does not achieve that. We think we missed an opportunity for a more systemic and fair review of MP pay. It's vitally important to us that we recognise the value of people working both in the Public Service and the private sector that we raise incomes for those who have the lowest incomes and that MPs and Ministers do not receive such high levels of pay that they become out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. We think that our pay should be linked fundamentally to what's happening for ordinary New Zealanders. But we will support this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I'm conscious that we only have a small number of matters to complete the Order Paper but we're fast approaching the lunch break. So I seek leave for us to continue sitting and extend it into the lunch break until we complete the matters on the Order Paper. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well all business of the House. KIERAN McANULTY: All business in the House—I apologise I misspoke. All business in the House—whew! ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That was close. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
SpeechHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will support the bill. I agree with the Hon Dr Nick Smith the last speaker that in the scheme of what we are looking at in the scheme of the Budget that has just been announced the money that we are talking about in the scheme of a country is not that great. I also agree with the member that nobody wants to use such—well urgency lightly. But also I've never seen what just happened here before—just in my time I've never seen the Leader of the House move that we not have first reading second reading or a committee stage. But the reality of the reason why the majority of the House agreed to that was because it's pointless discussing this. It is pointless taking time for us to go backward and forward and backward and forward about what we as politicians know to be true which is that New Zealanders are going to be hurting and we should actually take a cut too. It is a temporary piece of legislation and as Dr Smith quite rightly pointed out the public may not understand that we don't set our own salaries. The public asked that of us some years ago. They said that there's a conflict of interest when the Parliament can decide what they're going to pay themselves. So therefore the Remuneration Authority does that for us and strangely enough that means we have to ask them and give them the power to actually take money away from us as well. Now I'm sure many of the public might like the Remuneration Authority to have that power for a much longer period of time. But it is time-limited and I guess the only thing that New Zealand First hopes—like the rest of I believe this Parliament hopes—is that the pain that the New Zealand public will feel will be time-limited as well and that as we come together to try and rebuild our economy outside the other side of COVID-19 this is just one of the smallest little bits that we can do in this House. Kia ora.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This Remuneration Authority bill is appropriate for the times and it has National's support. It's appropriate that senior elected officials whether they be members of Parliament or whether they be mayors councillors or a whole range of commissioners that serve various roles note that ordinary New Zealanders whether they're in their ordinary jobs or are people with their businesses are taking huge economic pain in the wake of COVID-19 and for that reason it is appropriate that others including members of Parliament share in that burden personally. Can I also say National supports the principle that the Remuneration Authority independently set the amount. I think we get ourselves into real difficulty when people set their own salaries. Members of Parliament are in that unusual situation as are mayors and councillors of being responsible for public expenditure and I commend the bill for providing the power for the Remuneration Authority to be able to reduce salaries in the very unusual situation that we are in. But actually for the decision to rest with the Remuneration Authority I think we go down a slippery slope when we have the salaries of elected officials effectively being determined by themselves.The last point I'd make is National does unusually support the passage of this bill through all stages—as you've seen—under extraordinary circumstances. The reality is that this is a temporary bill; it's not a permanent one. We all accept that COVID-19 is an exceptional type of circumstance once in a generation and perhaps once in a century. So for that reason the passage of such legislation that's got a finite period and that's directly related to the national emergency is appropriate to carry through. The last point I'd want to make is about expenditure—that is if we look at this year's Budget and the $100 billion - plus of expenditure the amount of savings associated with a relatively small group of people is very minuscule in the big picture. But if I have a concern it is that the Government has gone for an approach of just spraying money almost as though the quantity of money is more important than the quality. While it is appropriate that members of Parliament mayors and other elected officials share in the burden there is an extra obligation on Government which National will be vigorously pursuing and that is ensuring that every dollar that is being spent in the Budget is well spent and I worry that the emphasis is on the quantity of the spend rather than the quality. So I simply wish to indicate National's support for the legislation.
Jackson WillieThird ReadingHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: I move that the COVID amendment remuneration bill be read a third time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): No you need to say the name of the bill correctly. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry Madam Speaker. I move That the Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Remuneration Authority (COVID-19 Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading