edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I would like to just commence this reply contribution by thanking members from across the House for their contributions on this first reading of the bill. I was delighted to hear contributions from across the House that in most cases I think understand and get the point of the bill with the exception of the Green Party contributors who clearly still do not quite get the purpose of the bill. The bill is aimed at merely managing providing the two district councils—two district councils—with an opportunity to create their own mangrove management plans. That is simply because the current system has not been able to achieve anything like the outcome that the citizens—the human beings the people who inhabit the coastal areas around the Thames-Coromandel and the Hauraki districts—need to have to ensure that their amenity values and their way of life are preserved and maintained.This is a good bill. I wanted to just comment on the contribution of Ron Mark from New Zealand First because he asked a question about why this bill does not go further geographically than beyond the boundaries of the Hauraki District Council and Thames-Coromandel District Council. The simple answer to that is that this is a local bill initiated and promoted by those two district councils. If this bill is passed at first reading and it does go to the Local Government and Environment Committee then there will be an opportunity I would suspect at that point for a wider discussion about the bill's application to district councils and territorial authorities outside the two areas that are promoting the bill. So just in conclusion this is a bill that is not about a scorched earth policy towards mangroves. This is about simply giving the two district councils an opportunity to create through a formal process that will involve public participation and scrutiny their own mangrove management plans. I think it is a good bill. I am pleased that the two councils have brought it to me to bring to the House and as the local member for Coromandel I support it and I commend it to the House.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I am making a very brief and certainly non-filibustering contribution on this Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill in the name of my colleague the very fine member for the Coromandel the Hon Scott Simpson. I want to begin by saying mala herba cito crescit—it is an ill weed which grows apace—and mangroves certainly are an ill weed. I spent a good few months in my very first job after school combating the mangrove swamps of Northland on behalf of Golden Bay Cement Works Ltd and I can tell you they are a noxious weed. They do certainly grow apace and I think this is a very sensible measure. I want to commend the local member but also Mayor Goudie and Mayor Tregidga for bringing it before this House.I would like to see consideration in committee to possibly extend it to other areas where appropriate but we know that other areas in many cases—as the member Scott Simpson outlined—are doing a better job certainly than those within the Waikato Regional Council area. It is a very good bill and it deserves further consideration. Thank you.
Hayes JoJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a brief call on the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill. I visit the Coromandel or actually Thames quite often. I have family who live up there and it is hard to believe when you look around that area that back in the 1940s it was sandy beaches there. It has been taken over by mangroves. But this bill is not about eradicating all mangroves; it is about management. It is about empowering those councils to be able to manage how mangrove plant plantations are going to survive up in the Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki districts. So when some of the Opposition members say that we are going to wipe it out—no. It is called a management plan and it is a plan that will empower those district councils to be able to manage what they perceive as a weed that is overtaking their shorelines and their beaches and actually interfering with some of the recreational and fishing events in those areas. I want to thank the Hon Scott Simpson the MP for Coromandel for bringing in this bill and for being a voice for the district councils up there on the coast. I am looking forward to it coming to our select committee because I think as others on my side of the House have said we need to get it and have a good look at it and listen to some submissions around it and then bring it back to the House for further readings and for Royal assent. Without any further ado I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Rurawhe AdrianNEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCIL (WAITARA LANDS) BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to recap on the basics of this bill. I want to again acknowledge all of those interested parties that have acted with dignity and also with a lot of passion as well. I want to say to the House tonight that this is not a Treaty bill but it is related to the Te Atiawa Treaty settlement and would not have come about except for a heads of agreement between the New Plymouth District Council and Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust. Through that it has created a process to address the long and outstanding issue of the Waitara lands—of course the Pekapeka Block which was the very first piece of land to be confiscated in the New Zealand Wars. It is great that we have the opportunity to see this bill have its second reading but as I said in my previous contribution the two hapū Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua have still to give final sign-off on this bill but they have agreed that it would have its second reading. As I understand it they are very close to making a decision after proper consultation with their people. So I wish them all the best in that endeavour. It is not exactly what they asked for—what some of the members of those hapū asked for at the Māori Affairs Committee—but as I have stated previously the changes are of a magnitude that not only provide them the opportunity to purchase and receive further lands within the Pekapeka Block but also provide the means by which they can do that. That is a critically important part of what we have in front of us today.This is a vastly different bill to the one that was first brought to the House. It is a much better bill. I once again recognise the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for his leadership in this process and Jonathan Young as the sponsor of the bill. Nō reira e Te Whare ko te tūmanako kia tae pai ai ki te mutunga o tēnei āhuatanga nō reira tēnā tātou katoa.[Therefore the hope is that the conclusion to this situation is arrived at. So acknowledgments to us all.]
New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill — Second Reading
Motions — World's Indigenous Peoples—International Day
Davis KelvinWEDNESDAY 9 AUGUST 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSWorld's Indigenous Peoples—International DayKELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): I seek leave to move without notice or debate a motion on the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that notice without debate. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.KELVIN DAVIS: I move That this House note that today is the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples—a day that celebrates the world's 370 million indigenous people—and that the House affirm its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Motion agreed to.
Tuesday 15 August 2017 (continued on Wednesday 16 August 2017) - Volume 724
Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 105New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 107 Noes 12.Waiata
Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading (continued)
Voting — Correction—Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill
Sepuloni CarmelVOTINGCorrection—Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement BillCARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave to correct the vote that we cast for the third reading of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. There does not appear to be any objection.CARMEL SEPULONI: It is 29 votes not 31 votes.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is 29 votes in favour.CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you.
Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Hayes JoJOANNE HAYES (National): Ki a koutou ngā whānau ngā hapū o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa nau mai haere mai.[To you the whānau and iwi of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa welcome come hither.]I stand to take a very short call on the third reading the final reading of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. I too was one of the Crown representative MPs who came for the signing of your deed with the Minister and with my colleague Nuk Korako. I came out to Ōtangaroa Marae the day before to find the actual place that we were coming to and it was a beautiful day and the evening was just as beautiful. The next day we came out and it looked like Hurricane Husqvarna Chainsaw" had come to your shores because we had seen some trees that had been cut down.I suppose that for me showed the determination of the many people who are part and parcel of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa who did not like what was happening within the claim bill itself and started to continue to show their objection. I say "Well good on you." because you know when you get a bill—and it has got to be a hard-fought bill—there will be people in the iwi who will not want to support it. They will want to have their voices heard. When I saw that tree down that somebody had neatly cut into little bits on the side of the road to let our Crown cars through I looked and I thought: "Well good on you. Good on the whānau who actually continued on and fought for the people who wanted this bill to go through." So I want to take my hat off to you those who were in dissension on the bill and those who continue to carry on—the descendants of Kahukuraariki iwi and tribe members and family members. So I just want to say thank you.I want to say too to the mokopuna of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa that today is basically the day that your mātua your koro your kaumātua have done the work in behind for and today we see the handover to you—the future of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. You will lead the iwi into wherever it has good futures and happy futures for you. And I say to you: "Kia kaha kia māia kia manawanui."As I close my korero to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa I want to say: "Go well be well and invest well in the future of all of your people." Kia ora koutou."
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): E rau rangatira mā e ngā iwi kia ora mai tātou.[To the esteemed ones and others to the iwi acknowledgments to us all.]It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging the Minister and his team the Office of Treaty Settlements the negotiators and the select committee for their diligence.As the MP for Whangarei Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa sits not in my electoral responsibility but in my regional responsibility. I am very pleased that today they become another Northland iwi to settle. Today they show iwi on their boundary how to progress. This settlement today endorses the process and the representation of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa in the eyes of this Government. This settlement process has been robust. I believe the settlement process has been robust: 7 weeks of ratification process; four ratification hui; voting for 10 weeks and 5 days; advertisements in local papers national papers on local radio and in email lists; 2426 voting packs were sent out with 750 returned—for a participation rate of 30.9 percent which sits mid-range for Treaty settlements and for post-settlement governance entity participation. The Māori Affairs Committee heard 18 submissions and brought deep bipartisan parliamentary exploration to the settlement process. Their decision was: Keep moving."I also acknowledge the challenges over many decades especially Stony Creek Station—as has been mentioned here by my colleagues today. But I believe that if every party here today wants Māori to progress if every party here today wants Northland Māori to progress and if every party here today wants Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa to progress then when the 12th speaker finishes and the Speaker in the Chair says "All those in favour say Aye" do not refrain. Do not tilt at leadership but be leadership. Raise your voice in unison with us. Say "Aye". Say "Aye" to the historical account to the acknowledgment and to the apology. Say "Aye" to the cultural redress. Say "Aye" to the financial and commercial redress and say "Aye" to a new future for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. It is a privilege to stand and commend this bill to the House. Kia ora mai tātou."
Wednesday 16 August 2017 - Volume 724
Maritime Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading (continued)
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12.Bill read second time.
Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 104New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 30; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 14.Bill read a third time.
12. Schools Auckland—CapacityMELISSA LEE (National) to the Associate Minister of EducationSchools Auckland—Capacity12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made in relation to increasing capacity at Auckland schools?Hon TIM MACINDOE (Associate Minister of Education): Last week the Hon Nikki Kaye and I announced that an additional $18 million from Budget 2017 will be invested to provide 30 new and replacement classrooms at four Auckland schools including eight classrooms at Ōwairaka District School in the Mt Albert electorate in which the member is based. This is on top of the $21 million for 41 classrooms that we announced in June and further underlines the National-led Government's major commitment to investing in infrastructure.Melissa Lee: How does this announcement contribute to the Government's plan to increase student places in Auckland?Hon TIM MACINDOE: This $18 million will provide an extra 460 student places for the region. This announcement is part of a suite of Budget 2017 announcements which in total will see 4000 additional student places created in Auckland. As part of our commitment to accommodate Auckland growth we are on track to deliver 21000 new student places for Auckland by 2021.
10. Homeownership—HomeStart Grants and RatesMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionHomeownership—HomeStart Grants and Rates10. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What level of support has been provided to first-home buyers under the Government's KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme in its second year and how many New Zealanders have been assisted into homeownership?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): KiwiSaver HomeStart is just going from strength to strength. In the last year 15400 first-home buyers received a HomeStart grant with grants of $75 million. This is up $10 million on the previous years and shows we are on track to assist 90000 first-home buyers over 5 years as promised in election 2014. Even more significant is the growth in KiwiSaver first-home withdrawals. This has increased from $200 million a year to $495 million a year to $655 million in the last year. We all know that the most difficult hurdle for a first-home buyer is pulling together a deposit particularly when we have such low interest rates. So far KiwiSaver HomeStart has contributed $1.4 billion towards first-home owners' deposits.Matt Doocey: Is it correct that every quarter since the last census in 2013 homeownership has got worse; if not what does the latest data show?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Some members have made the claim that homeownership has got worse every quarter in terms of the household survey but I would point out that Statistics New Zealand says this about that data series: the owner-occupied proportion applied is reduced each quarter based on the trend between 1991 and 2013 and is not based on any new data beyond the 2013 census. CoreLogic data is collected every quarter on actual home sales. The proportion of first-home buyers has consistently increased every quarter since KiwiSaver HomeStart was introduced from 18 percent 3 years ago to 21 percent. The combination of high rates of new home builds flat house prices and the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme shows that New Zealand has turned the corner on improving homeownership.
8. Emissions—Divestment from Fossil FuelsJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesEmissions—Divestment from Fossil Fuels8. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by the former Minister's reported statement that oil exploration was a long-term game and New Zealand had to press on?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes. The transition to a lower emissions economy needs to be managed smoothly and the reality is that oil and gas will be needed for many decades. In fact the International Energy Agency is forecasting that oil and natural gas will account for almost half of the world's energy needs until at least 2040.Julie Anne Genter: Given that she accepts there is going to be a transition to a lower carbon economy why is growing the coal and oil industry in New Zealand still one of her priorities particularly when the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has just divested $950 million from the sector due to the risk of these investments becoming stranded and worthless?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because according to the International Energy Agency oil and natural gas will account for almost half of the world's energy needs until at least 2040 which is quite some years away yet.Julie Anne Genter: Is she aware that the Rockefeller fund the Norwegian superannuation fund the universities of Wellington and Otago the Anglican church of Aotearoa the University of Glasgow and 746 other major institutions are all divesting from fossil fuels to avoid a loss and to prevent climate change and does she not think that maybe National is on the wrong side of history?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am reliably informed that today I am the most green MP in Parliament apart from Dr Kennedy Graham. I can tell that member that individual investors will make their own decisions just like she will.Julie Anne Genter: Given that the Superannuation Fund chief investment officer Matt Whineray said yesterday that he was dumping oil and coal companies for commercial not ethical reasons why is her Government continuing to back these same companies—is it for ethical reasons?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually it is because of the International Energy Agency's prediction that oil and gas will continue to be used for at least half of the world's energy resources until 2040 which is quite some years off. And just as that member will be no doubt flying back to Auckland very soon using those same resources I think it is wise to actually have some on hand.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table an analysis that shows that 80 percent of all existing coal and gas fossil fuels in the ground cannot be burnt.Mr SPEAKER: I just need the source of the analysis please.Julie Anne Genter: The analysis is from 350.org.Mr SPEAKER: Well if it is available on the web members can search for themselves. There is no need for it to be tabled.
7. Health Services—First Specialist Assessments and AccessSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—First Specialist Assessments and Access7. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that First Specialist Assessments have risen by 148000 over the last nine years and what other improvements have been made to the health services over this time?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. This Government has lifted the number of first specialist assessments from 404000 per year in 2008 to 552000 in the 2016 year an uplift of 36 percent. Every one of the 20 district health boards (DHBs) has contributed to this 148000 lift in access to specialists under National which compares with an extraordinary drop of 2000 between 2001 and 2008. In addition elective surgeries are up 50000 which includes an increase in the number of orthopaedic surgeries from 18200 per year to around 25000 per year an overall increase of 37 percent. However there is always more to be done.Simon O'Connor: Can the Minister advise whether this increase in first specialist assessments has been seen across most specialties; if so what specific specialty increases has he seen?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I can confirm that this increase of 148000 specialist assessments has been seen across nearly all specialties including an increase of 11600 orthopaedic assessments a lift of 15500 more ophthalmology specialist assessments and 8500 more ear nose and throat assessments per year. That is the result of hard work by our health professionals across all our district health boards and an example of how targets increased focus and increased resourcing have improved access to health services for New Zealanders.Dr David Clark: Does he think it is acceptable that any member of the public should be forced to spend their retirement nest egg on a life-saving operation that is normally expected to be delivered by their local DHB?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I think was really unacceptable were the 700 people who were sent to Australia for basic cancer treatment between 1999 and 2008.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very direct question which I do not believe was addressed.Mr SPEAKER: It was not; it was very much an opinion question and I invite the member to look at Speaker's ruling 195/6. If you ask an opinion question like that you are likely to get an answer that does not particularly satisfy the person who asks the question.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: You shouldn't ask the question if you can't do it properly.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need that sort of advice from Dr Jonathan Coleman.
Food Safety Law Reform Bill — In Committee
Doocey Matt; Borrows ChesterFOOD SAFETY LAW REFORM BILLIn CommitteeMATT DOOCEY (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of the Food Safety Law Reform Bill to be debated as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Mr Deputy Speaker I would like to reiterate what previous members have said about you and thank you for your many many years of service to this Parliament. I thank you for your contributions towards maintaining and upholding the professional standards of this House.I would also like to thank Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch who was in the Chair earlier. For me the most frequently used phrase from Mr Tisch was probably: Come back to the bill." So to come back to the bill we support this bill. This bill is the outcome of a mandated 2-year consultation process from 2015 to 2017. The review and indeed the bill is very important.The telecommunications market is changing. New technologies are changing our lives and consumer behaviour and business models are changing and shifting as a result. In the old and gold days probably the first thing in the morning was a newspaper or a talkback radio show etc. but those have gradually been replaced by online news or social media such as Facebook Twitter or for most Chinese people WeChat which is said to have more than 400 million subscribers worldwide. Therefore Wi-Fi broadband and connectivity in general and how effective or powerful that connectivity is has become a kind of world benchmark or a kind of international standard to help gauge where a particular region or country is placed in the world.Against that particular background we have had the mandated 2-year consultation process. Broadly speaking this bill among other measures establishes a new regulatory framework that will introduce stable and more predictable regulation for ultra-fast broadband (UFB) UFB fibre and streamlined regulatory processes to enable a rapid response to any competition problems particularly in the mobile communications market. The review is now completed. Stakeholders such as Chorus 2degrees Vodafone New Zealand the Telecommunications Forum etc. have made valuable submissions on the review. There will be a further opportunity to submit on the provisions in the bill during its examination by a select committee following the formation of a new Parliament after the general election. We look forward to that.This is a first reading so the bill will not get passed until the 52nd Parliament. In respect of the fibre agenda this National Government has not achieved much in progressing the agenda and by the way we have not heard anything about rural broadband or any plans in that regard. So tens of thousands of New Zealand homes are no better off than they were 3 years ago or even 6 years ago in terms of their connectivity and rural New Zealand in particular has been really let down by this National Government.Like with the infrastructure that has caused the traffic congestion in Auckland that we are facing on a daily basis New Zealand lags significantly behind the reality of the world in terms of the fibre agenda. We are a great nation but there is so much work to do to make this country better and fairer and hopefully 23 September will make a huge difference. So let's do this. Thank you."
Hayes JoJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a brief call on the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. For the first part of the previous speaker Gareth Hughes' speech I totally agreed with him—the second part not so much but I did agree with him in the fact that you know if somebody makes a mess in our waters then they should be made to clean it up and we should be able to get compensation. I am pleased that this is what this bill is amending the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to do.The second part of the bill addresses the alcohol and drug use in the commercial maritime sector. A few years ago I used to work in the seafood industry on the training side of things and I met a number of fishermen. Yes they like to have their drink and things like that but one of the training providers actually introduced alcohol and drug testing among some of their students. Whilst it was all up in the air and he was told that you should never do that and all of those things against testing people on some of those fishing boats what it did was it actually increased safety on those boats for the workers because working on a fishing boat in a fishing factory can be quite dangerous especially in seas that are tossing.When we start to look at this particular bill and the drug and alcohol testing I am actually all for it. I think we need to make sure that the people who are operating these big vessels—and they are huge vessels. I have had a go—I went on a simulator while I was working for the seafood industry and I can tell you it was really quite difficult on a simulator. It was a container ship and yes it was the cliffs of Dover that I was trying to manoeuvre this big ship through and it is quite difficult. When you start to add alcohol and drugs to the staff the captains and skippers who are actually in charge of these boats it can be quite difficult. So I totally support drug and alcohol testing and maybe not just as a drug and alcohol test every now and then; maybe make it a little bit more compulsory as people go on duty. I mean they have gone through most of the alcohol and drug testing for a number of our industries that deal with people and with product and I do not see why this cannot be part and parcel of this regime as well.So without any further ado I have stood to say my piece on this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Yang Jian; Tisch LindsayMARITIME TRANSPORT AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed.Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak briefly in support of this bill the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. It is about maritime safety issues and it deals specifically with the alcohol and drug use issue in our maritime commercial sector. Just recently it was reported that a ship's captain was found more than five times over the legal alcohol limit while he was trying to bring his logging ship to dock in Northland. It highlights the issue of alcohol in our commercial maritime sector. Consuming alcohol and also using illegal drugs could adversely affect people's behaviour and performance. It was reported a few years ago that nine of our 17 deceased commercial fishermen returned a positive result for drugs and alcohol. That again highlights the issue of the problems in our maritime commercial sector.This bill will strengthen our drug and alcohol management regime in the commercial maritime sector. Commercial maritime operators will be asked to conduct random testing of their staff carrying out safety-sensitive activities and these specific requirements will make sure that our operators will make every effort to make sure that the operations are safe. This in turn will strengthen the safety culture in our maritime sector. This is the importance of the bill.Then the importance of the safety issue in the commercial maritime sector is that—a few years ago we experienced the Rena oil spill incident. That was one of the most significant environmental disasters in New Zealand waters. New Zealand is well known for its clean environment and this clean environment reputation has added much value to our various industries including tourism the food industry and even international education. We have vast coastlines and also exclusive economic zones. It is particularly important for us to make sure that we have really genuine safety in our maritime commercial sector.On the other hand shipping is a particularly dangerous industry and that is widely recognised but we are able to make measures to reduce the risks and also to make sure that all the operators behave in a responsible way. So this bill will ensure that our maritime commercial sector will operate in a safer way and that is why I will support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Gareth Hughes—5 minutes.
Ball Darroch; Carter DavidDARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak very briefly to the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. I am speaking on behalf of Denis O'Rourke. Although there are quite a few things within this bill that make sense and are logical and that New Zealand First would support we will not be supporting it through this reading. That is for a very important reason. It is that New Zealand First is a party that listens to our people in our regions and you cannot get more regional than the Chatham Islands.I think it has been mentioned before that while I was not sitting on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the time every single submission that came through on this bill opposed the provision in the legislation that states that foreign-flagged ships would be able to go to ports like the Chatham Islands. Specifically the people from the Chatham Islands and organisations from the Chatham Islands and representatives of those organisations came in and they actually gave quite a compelling submission.It has been covered before—and previous members have stood up and spoken on it—the fact that the size of the Chatham Islands the population of the Chatham Islands and the very nature of the island itself would not be able to sustain the multiple ship routes going to their port. The amount of investment that the organisations and the people of the Chatham Islands have actually put into their shipping company and the surrounding organisations—Mr SPEAKER: I do apologise for interrupting the member's contribution but in accordance with Standing Order 360(3) I call on Dr Kennedy Graham to make his valedictory statement.Debate interrupted.
Maritime Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I too Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch would like to acknowledge you this afternoon. I am assuming you are sitting not on your feet—yes you are. So I will carry on thank you.Iain Lees-Galloway: It's an oldie but a goody.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well he mentioned it in his valedictory so I thought I would make the most of it.The last speaker Iain Lees-Galloway was not very convincing was he? He was not very convincing when he talked about his opposition to random testing of drugs. He talked about the difficulty in measuring the drugs but then he gave the example of alcohol where it is quite clear and transparent and where we are able to measure and quantify the amount of alcohol—for example in the bloodstream of a driver. Whether one is impaired or not is not that relevant. The point is that we can measure it and we can set limits and we can decide whether or not that person is able to operate a piece of machinery for example on a boat and whether therefore he or she is able to or not able to operate it. It is the same for THC the same for methamphetamine the same for a number of drugs one can measure independently.Of course random testing is necessary and there should be no concern about having random testing because the Opposition should be concerned about the safety of those people in the boat or in the balloon or in the car or in whatever vehicle—particularly marine vehicles which we are talking about here today. They should be concerned about the state of the operator. Random testing is nothing new. We are able to do that in the workplace; why should we not be able to do it on a boat? Why should we not be able to do it on a boat to ensure that those who are using heavy machinery particularly are safe to do so for the benefit of themselves and for the benefit of those travelling in that vehicle? So I just do not get the logic of the previous speaker Mr Iain Lees-Galloway opposing the bill.The most striking—this is in the report—information was the lack of evidence of a systematic problem with drug and alcohol impairment in the marine sector. So what? So what if there is no evidence? The point is we should be able to test and be able to be sure that there is none. That is the point. We should be able to test and be sure that there is none and random testing enables that to occur to a high level of satisfaction and confidence by those who matter—that is the employers and the employees and the passengers in the vehicle.For that reason I am looking forward to more debate with the Opposition members and I hope at some point they support this bill as we do on this side.
Rurawhe Adrian; Borrows ChesterADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Can I first of all in this speech—which is likely to be my last contribution to the 51st Parliament—acknowledge you Mr Deputy Speaker and acknowledge your retirement. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe.I am happy to take a call on the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill in its third reading. As I said in my first contribution in the first reading I wondered about whether the measures being taken through this bill and the magnitude of the response were appropriate for the issues that were being addressed. Having seen the report from the Law and Order Committee—and I support the contributions of my colleagues Mr Little and Mr Sio on this as well—Labour still supports this bill. I think the issues did need a response but I wanted to go back to my first contribution and pose that question and obviously on this side of the House in the Labour Party we believe that it needs to be done.Reflecting on everything that actually went on with this if he was not so illegal and so daring you could almost say that what this man did—and I have not mentioned his name yet—was not only daring but tenacious in a way. It is a great shame that he put his skills to this and tested the whole system proving I think that something needed to be done. The sad thing about it is that if it was not only so illegal but devastatingly dangerous it would be laughable and I think my colleague Kelvin Davis made a statement at the time it happened that it was almost farcical. So I am really pleased that New Zealand is able to now put a piece of legislation in place that allows information to be shared amongst those agencies and those departments that really need to know what each other are doing. I think that is a definitive improvement on the way that things can be done for issues like this.I remember reading some of the submissions through the select committee stage—and I want to acknowledge the Law and Order Committee—but I remember one in particular that stood out because of its concerns about how far the sharing of that information would go. I think those were valid issues at that time but I am satisfied that the select committee has considered all of that information and now we get to the stage of debating the bill as approved by the Committee of the whole House. I think it is incumbent upon members of this House—and it is good to hear that most of the members and parties in the House are supporting this—to actually consider seriously those issues and I believe we have. So hand on heart I am happy to support this bill in its third reading and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ian McKelvie.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand and support this very important piece of legislation. As we know from previous speakers this bill came about through that event when Mr Smith/Traynor escaped the jurisdiction of New Zealand. That sparked an inquiry because of course it was of great concern and as the member who previously spoke Mahesh Bindra said it was something that we did carry some sensitivity about in terms of our Corrections and our border control systems.It is good to know that when the inquiry came back and highlighted some vulnerabilities that needed to be addressed there was a very quick response from the Government. The Government accepted in full the majority of the 39 recommendations and then a number of refinements across agencies were already under way prior to that report coming back. So there was attention and even though this bill has taken a number of years to come through the House probably people would say Rightfully so." because in terms of monitoring and biometric data we have been very careful in the Law and Order Committee to ensure that there is a good balance. The Privacy Commissioner came in and addressed the committee as well and you know it is very important to get the fine balance right in these areas. We want the public of New Zealand protected. We want to have fool-proof systems. Yet we need to ensure that this level of surveillance occurs only in those limited situations that are necessary with those limited people whom we deem need to have this measure of surveillance.Corrections implemented 13 recommendations after its urgent review after this event such as making the temporary release process more rigorous and there were some very good measures taken. So while this bill did take some time to go through the House can I assure you and the public of New Zealand that there were immediate responses to this situation that made it incredibly difficult for that sort of incident to happen again. But we need to futureproof legislation. We need to make sure that legislation is updated and this is what this process has been about.It is very import to note that this response has been supported right across the House with the exception of the Green Party. I am not sure why they continue to hold their support back on this particular bill. I am very pleased. I want to just finish very briefly to let other members of the committee speak. The Law and Order Committee did a very good job I believe well led by Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi a very good chair. It is a very collegial committee on most matters and in this matter when it comes to protecting the public of New Zealand I believe indeed we worked well together to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion in this bill. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Bindra MaheshMAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): Madam Temporary Speaker. The TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Ah Mr Bindra. MAHESH BINDRA: Madam Temporary Speaker King this is your first call I think and it is to be given to a small Opposition party member so congratulations on that. Now it is Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take this very brief call on the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. I first acknowledge the hard work put in by the Law and Order Committee members from both sides and also the able assistance given to us by the select committee staff and also by the advisers. Maureen Pugh has been a very valuable member of the select committee. However I do not agree with her when she describes Phillip John Smith as a gentleman. He was far from it. He is a hardened manipulative criminal and that is what he deserves to be called. So we call a spade a spade unless it is a shovel. Coming back to the bill we note that we had a few concerns and we had a few queries and we were quite satisfied with the explanation that we got for those queries. One of those was on the validity of the information that would be shared by various agencies and we were assured that the agencies that will be coordinating with Corrections will be able to hold that biometric information for only the period of the sentence of that criminal. So that was one thing that convinced us to support this bill. The other thing is also that when Maureen Pugh said that Corrections acted very quickly I think that was a bit too generous. Corrections took 24 hours to realise that the criminal had escaped all the way to Brazil then it took a further 48 hours to inform the police—that much we have been told—and then the police acted on it only after the criminal was found in Brazil. So he was brought back after it had resulted in international embarrassment for us. We were thoroughly embarrassed in the international arena and then this Government took about 3 years to fix that fault. So after 3 years this is what we see now. It is a reasonably sound piece of legislation. We have contributed to it. We have supported it in its various stages and we will continue to support this bill.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand in support of the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill in its third reading here today. This bill is in the name of the Hon Amy Adams and it comes about as the result of an inquiry into the matters raised around the escape of Phillip John Smith or Phillip John Traynor who did manage to find himself a passport acquire for himself a passport and leave New Zealand while he was on temporary release from prison.Out of that inquiry it was found that there was inadequate sharing of information between various agencies—as well as that some of the operational processes were a wee bit lacking. And so this gentleman was able to find himself free of the country. So the inquiry made 39 recommendations which were accepted in full by the Government—the majority of those recommendations—and it came to support the 13 recommendations that were also enacted immediately after the incident happened. Corrections moved very quickly to adjust its processes so that these temporary releases were made more rigorous and filled the gap that was obviously found wanting.This is an omnibus bill and it amends a variety of Acts and strengthens a variety of requirements that must now also be made before a Minister can make Orders in Council. The bill also streamlines how the agencies must work together to identify these offenders and ensure that their sentences are carried out properly. It moves away from simple name-based recognition and into a variety of other details called either the biographical or the biometric information. Biographical information means simply the name address date of birth place of birth and gender. Biometric information includes either a photograph a visual image such as iris scanning and some of the technology that is becoming more regularly used in other jurisdictions. It also includes other distinguishing features such as tattoos amputations and birthmarks etc. Those agencies now are required to share this information and those agencies that are called accessing agencies are the Department of Corrections Department of Internal Affairs Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment Ministry of Health and district health boards New Zealand Customs Service and New Zealand Police. And the holder agencies are all of those agencies including the New Zealand Transport Agency.The public does expect their Government to be able to share this information for the purpose of keeping everyone safe and for preventing these types of abscondments from justice. We are aware now that the border alert processes are significantly improved as a result of the tightening-up of some of the processes and there are now 11000 more people under the management of Corrections who are to be stopped should they try to leave the border. This bill contributes to this Government's policy of delivering better public services by reducing crime and reoffending and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.
Wednesday 24 May 2017 - Volume 722
Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be read a second time.Ayes 107New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time.Name changed to Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2).
Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 60New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a third time.
Oral Questions — Question to Ministers