edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. The saga continues. The increased trilogy of four parts. Part 1A—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Four parts?SIMON O'CONNOR: Yeah it's the increasingly misnamed trilogy in four parts; a very bad joke. Part 1A which we haven't touched on—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well I'd just advise the member that Part 1A is the next part.SIMON O'CONNOR: Is part of Part 1? Yup. So why has he inserted the term good faith" along with "freedom of association"? I think he would need to explain that to the committee because in—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well that is part of the next debate.SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh is it a separate debate? Oh well look this is something to look forward to. Hon Member: You're ahead of your time.SIMON O'CONNOR: I know. Well something to look forward to. Well look I'm not going to take up any more time. And I'm looking forward to that being a whole separate part.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I call the honourable Minister Michael Wood. Oh he's sat down again. I call the honourable Minister Michael Wood.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'm enjoying myself so much. I can point Mr Watts to the regulatory impact statement which I think he has which provides I think some further information about possible costs. There is just a fundamental difference of views here. This legislation is proceeding because the Government has a view that it is a fundamental right of people to be able to engage in collective bargaining. We think that's important. We think it goes to important rights. We think it was wrong that those rights were taken away by a very targeted Act of Parliament at the time that that occurred. Now that might well result in some increased labour costs because collective bargaining by its definition is about addressing an imbalance in terms of bargaining power. But there is no evidence and no information we have to suggest that that will be significant or deleterious to the industry. In respect to Mr Goldsmith's questions around the pre-commencement period it's worth noting that in respect of Part 1—it's one year—we're just talking about the inclusion of the mandatory provisions in Part 1 here. And those are very basic things like the right to raise a complaint there being a dispute resolution process and those sorts of things. I don't think they're going to particularly alarm anyone in respect of the provisions of Part 1. I think those are probably the key remaining questions that I had to answer there."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I haven't seen that movie but I will get into it. Look I'm referring to the regulatory impact statement and particularly section B and the subsection which I quote says that Given labour costs make up a large proportion of production budgets any increase to worker earnings as a result of bargaining could mean that New Zealand becomes less cost-competitive destination for production companies compared to other countries."And to the question I asked earlier the Minister provided an indication that it seemed to be that there was some input in regards to feedback from where New Zealand will sit with international peers in regards to this and the Minister said that this seems to be consistent across other countries. But can the Minister just be specific in terms of the fact that—well just give us confidence that we've compared ourselves against what we would consider our partners in this space our neighbours etc. and just be categoric around the fact that the assessment has been undertaken. Because obviously the officials have highlighted this concern as well in the regulatory impact statement. And so that adds further substantiation that this is actually an issue that does need to be considered appropriately because no one wants to see us becoming less cost-competitive as a destination for production companies compared to other countries.The second aspect is just a small bit of clarification around when the Minister said that the costs to this would be low to medium. If he can just provide context in terms of range of what low to medium actually means in terms of dollars that would be very helpful."
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I think the Minister sort of missed the point of my question—I think perhaps wilfully. The point I was making was that normally when laws are changed they apply to new decisions going on from after the law been has been passed so that people know what they're dealing with.In this circumstance what is being envisaged by the bill is that a production that all been organised been set in place under rules that were clearly understood and established now are being told midway through that the rules can change and it could be very different. And it's not just applying to new decisions where companies are deciding OK where are we going to do this? Are we going to do this in New Zealand? What's the situation here?" and they see the legislation in place and they know what they're doing and so they make a decision about that. And if the Minister is right that nobody is worried about this sort of stuff well then they'll continue to invest in New Zealand.But what's happening in this bill is that midway through the rules of the game will change for existing arrangements. I would have thought there was a pretty good argument for not applying it directly to pre-commencement contracts. I would have thought there would be a good argument certainly at the least for extending it 12 months as the bill originally did so that most productions apart from presumably a very few long-term ones will have been concluded.So to moot the change under the Supplementary Order Paper which is not debated on—I presume it wasn't something that the working group debated; the group that the Minister seems to say came up with everything in this bill and clearly didn't. I'm sure they didn't recommend that but I'd be interested know from the Minister whether they did and whether there has been widespread enthusiasm for it.Secondly on the question of the industry sort of views at the moment around timing I wonder if he could just tell us whether he had received any correspondence from elements of the industry encouraging him not to pass this bill or make it happen immediately and alerting him to the fact that they needed more time. I'd just be interested to know if he could give us any indication around that.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I'm going to take a call from Simon Watts but I think you're starting to scratch around the chicken coop a bit."
SpeechHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I'm not entirely sure just in terms of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 234 relating to Part 1 of Schedule 1. It talks about contracts entered into before commencement of this Act" and I'm not sure whether this is the right part to be discussing it. I think it is but the Minister's SOP changes it so that when a screen production has occurred like all the ones that are occurring at the moment and everybody has entered into their contracts and everything's fine under the one set of rules this legislation says under the Minister's SOP—originally it said that "The terms and conditions of the … contract [would] apply for 12 months after the commencement of this Act as if the Act had not been enacted." which would mean that after 12 months if it was a long production whatever people had arranged could be unarranged or rearranged following this Act. But that was changed under the SOP to say that "The provisions of this Act … apply to a … contract from the date [that] this Act comes into force." So I'd like to know why the Minister changed it and what impact does he think it will have on current productions and what advice has he had on that—does he know what it would mean? So we're talking about the industry's perception of this country because he mentioned that everybody else in the world does this. OK not everybody else in the world is quite as remote as New Zealand. We're the last bus stop in the world and there are a lot of other places in the world that you can go to and so it's a big decision to come all the way here. International companies look at the situation in New Zealand and wonder what the environment is. If they find that they've made an arrangement got contracts signed got a budget in place and got themselves all organised and know what they're doing and know where they're going and then the Government passes a law and says that all of that can be rearranged by collective bargaining potentially in certain circumstances—and I'm not quite sure what—then that could be potentially alarming. So I'd just like the Minister to explain that and what his rationale for change was what advice he's had on what impact it will have on existing arrangements and if there is any significant impact what impact that would have on the broader confidence that the sector has in terms of planning things which are of great cost and substance."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I appreciate the question that I asked in regards to income tax was probably reasonably complex and I acknowledge that officials no doubt are beavering away and coming up with a simple response. So I want to buy a little bit of time just for the officials to be able to advise the Minister in regards to the question I raised on Part 1 clause 11(3)(a) and (b) in regards to why it's three financial years and what the implication is around COVID—and I'll keep going. There's another aspect I just wanted to seek clarification on as well just while we've got a little bit of time—and I'm sure that that answer is coming because it's pretty important—and it's in regards to clause 11(4). This refers to the comments around support services in regards to the peripheral contribution to the creation of a screen production:". Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of "support services"—paragraph (a) particularly—all seem reasonable but paragraph (b) is the one which raised my eyebrows a little bit and it's one of those catch-alls: "any other services of a similar nature". When you look at what it's referring to and I'm assuming it's referring to paragraph (a) above there are such words like "management and representation services:" and so those are pretty generic terms. Then you've got a follow-up of paragraph (b) and my question to the Minister is what is his expectation of what will be captured by paragraph (b) in regards to any other services of a similar nature? Following on from that why then is—I'm just trying to quote the linkage around that definition of "volunteer" which is then directly below that and I'm struggling just to understand. Maybe it's just the way in which I'm reading that. How the volunteer statement or the definition of what a "volunteer" is—maybe just helping me a little bit in terms of that. Is that linking to paragraph (b) above or is it just sitting there? It doesn't seem to be linked to anything in the bill. So a little bit clarification by the Minister just on those two points would be preferable."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In answer to a number of the questions that have been raised: firstly in clause 11—I think it was Mr Simon O'Connor who asked this question—yes we are referring to natural persons in that clause.The wording in clause 4 was removed. It wasn't an operative provision and further consultation and engagement with stakeholders basically said Well look this doesn't add anything. It's unnecessary." and good legislative design tends to tell us that if something is not really necessary it potentially gets in the way and creates confusion. So it was just seen as a good matter of legislative design to remove that given that it wasn't particularly doing anything.In respect of which types of productions are included and which are not this was largely arrived at as a result of that tripartite process with the producers unions and guilds who are involved who had an assessment as to which types of productions it would be appropriate to include.Similarly looking back for three financial years as I understand it came out of that discussion in the tripartite working groups as being an appropriate level time to look back and provide some useful information."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair and I must say I am enjoying and I do appreciate the Minister coming back with responses to all those questions. On this side of the Chamber we'll maintain to ensure that we're covering our new content. So we'll move to looking at—Simon O'Connor: It's a sequel!SIMON WATTS: It is a sequel actually. The NeverEnding Story maybe? Who knows! This is going to be good; I'm enjoying this.Part 1 clause 11—and I do apologise to the Minister because I'm going to give him a little bit of income tax—a little bit of income tax. I just couldn't help myself. The reason why is because I think there are few questions here that we need to explore. So it's clause 11(3)—and particularly there looking at paragraph (a). The comment here in clause 11 (3) is around the definition around company partnership individual … does not primarily engage in work relating to the creation of screen productions …" and all that's reasonable and then there's paragraph (a) which says" derived less than 50% of its … annual gross income (within the meaning of the Income Tax Act …)" etc. etc. The point that I've got a question about for the Minister is around the statement saying "from work relating to the creation of screen productions in the previous 3 financial years". Why I've got a question on obviously as we all know the impact of COVID and the impact of us transitioning out of COVID and acknowledging when this bill will start that three-year period looking retrospectively is obviously going to include the implications of periods of time in which there will be very little if any production work undertaken here because of the implications around the closed border. My question to the Minister or officials in regards to that is: what consideration has been given in regards to why the three previous financial years was decided upon? How is that going to work in the context of—because it's a de minimis around 50 percent—if for example the last two years have been impacted heavily by COVID what that may have? And what if anything in terms of that will be—and I guess the question is: is there any consideration or transitionary options in regards to that specific point? I don't think it's unreasonable to foresee that as we transition out of where we are at the moment there may be some implications or some unintended consequences I guess in regards to that point of the bill. It would be helpful in terms of getting some clarity on that. Thank you."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to reiterate the question again to the Minister for him to give some examples to the committee of the premise of the low wages and who he or his officials compared that with. It's feeling a bit like a saga now—not the sort of Norse sagas we're not quite at that level yet; more a Tolkien-esque saga—that he won't actually address that question and the very premise that underpins all parts of the bill.Secondly and to get really particular—and he can get the legal beagles on to this—we're sort of switching into I don't know Law & Order sort of mode can he confirm that in the likes of clause 11(1)(a) an individual actually means a natural person? I suspect it does but let's just get into that and then explain why.Maureen Pugh: It's a bit messy.SIMON O'CONNOR: I know. I'm just trying to actually sound really like I know what I'm talking about but actually I sort of do. But anyway just to make it really clear that when they talk about individuals they're meaning a legal person. Think of that as more of a documentary question.Another question he might choose to engage with is why again in this massive opus of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) he decided to strip out the overview of the Act. It's sort of like the precursor in a Star Wars movie which gives you a bit of an overview of what's going to happen. So why has that been removed? We all know that's the exciting part of a film and I'm sure by extension the exciting part of the bill. So why in his SOP has he stripped out clause 4?Then switching now to what is clause 12 before Part 1A talking about what productions are in and not in. That's in Schedule 2 as the Minister will know but of course because he's very fastidious it relates to Part 1. It's building a little bit on what Simon Watts asked and the Minister accurately said why computer-generated games are in but I'm a little miffed as to why the likes of recreational leisure programmes for example or variety show programmes are not included. I'm not going to give specific examples; that could be seen as a shout-out. I suppose as an MP I'm allowed to do this unlike Ministers. But why we've ultimately done this split—I can understand why some live-event programmes religious programmes talk shows are exempted but one can think of examples where there is if you will a wider production of ongoing variety programmes or recreational leisure programmes which arguably could have fitted into clause 1 of Schedule 2. So it's really just trying to tease that out a bit Minister as to why we've done this.But I may if I might come back to your earlier point which was the earlier legislation. You keep referring to the Hobbit law"—it had this split. So we'd just sort of welcome a slight expansion on that."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I agree with my colleague—it's good to have the mask off to have this conversation. Yeah thank you very much Mr O'Connor. I've got a couple of points or questions I want to get into actually—raised in the legislative statement but linked to Part 1 in terms of purpose and then a question in regards to clause 10. But I guess it builds on some of the comments made by the Hon Paul Goldsmith regarding the consultation process. I would be interested to hear from the Minister in regards to the engagement process around the purpose of the bill with international providers in particular as part of that tripartite group that he has referenced. In particular to that I refer to the legislative statement where it talks about a strong and world-leading film industry maintaining competition—and I quote—between businesses offering this production." Obviously this sector is an international sector. It involves multiple players from multiple countries and one would simply assume and hope no doubt that we have included dialogue and feedback from those providers as part of the process that's been undertaken to draft this bill. So I think some clarification as to what that looks like would be very helpful.Again still related to Part 1 Section B of the regulatory impact statement is around any assessment around cost benefits revenue implications in regards to this. These players global players will be assessing pros and cons of each jurisdiction. They'll be assessing the implications of such legislation on their underlying ability to produce the film both in terms of access to workforce but also other aspects. So I'm keen to understand whether that group actually undertook any assessment peer review or comparative analysis between where New Zealand sits pre and post this legislation in regards to the context of other providers internationally. I can only assume that we would have made sure that we were still competitive in that sector but some clarification from the Minister on that second point would also be interesting.The third question and then I'll sit down—I have a large number of other questions but I'll finish for now on this one at the moment. [Interruption] I do like to make predictions—you're very much on script Simon in terms of your feedback. So I'm looking at clause 10 "Interpretation" under Part 1. I'm interested to see there that game developers are actually included in the scope of this bill. Maybe I'm just old-school but I was thinking about making movies and making films. The skill set around game developers being included in the screen industry is something I'd like a bit of clarification on. Why is that the case? It looks like an addition in terms of the way it's been drafted so a bit of context around that would be helpful. I'll leave it at that. Thank you Minister."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm delighted the Minister's taken calls and I thank him for that. I'm going to reiterate my earlier questions because even though they draw from the impact statement they very much apply to Part 1 and actually arguably to all parts which is the premise of the bill—that those in the screen industry are paid low wages. And that could well be true. I honestly do not have a list in front of me of what these people are paid so I would welcome some examples including from Marja Lubeck who is the expert in all things and I suspect is not paid accordingly the millions she should be.Secondly the Minister's premise which also reflects into Part 1 are the industries that it was compared to and I think it would be very useful if the Minister could assure the committee of what industries his officials compared the screen industry to. So that's reiterating those questions.A third question is somewhat in response to his timing. We on this side of the Chamber are very aware of his exceptionally large Supplementary Order Paper. The issue is not whether it was a month or obviously moving out to three months; it's the fact that he's bringing the whole legislation in now when arguably we have a screen sector in crisis and so to that end I would ask him again—in the whole point of Part 1—what conversations if any his officials had with Amazon and have they indicated their reasons to him for why they were leaving? And was part of that a concern about the very legislation that he's bringing to the House right now?I turn now—I'm on a bit of a roll and I'm enjoying having my mask off—to clause 11 Meaning of screen production worker". Can he give me and the committee some assurance of just how widely this goes? Honestly the best boy the gaffer all of these make sense but does the caterer or say the security guard who's protecting the production get included? I'm not trying to be silly. This is something I don't fully know and I just want to know how far that goes because if we agree with his purpose—and we don't—that he's trying to keep this limited and this goes far too wide are we going to see in effect collective bargaining pushing through into those sectors? So that would be really interesting to see. I have another question around clause 12 but I think for the meantime if that's all right I'll leave it there."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): I move That the question be now put.
Luxton Jo; O'Connor GregJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There hasn't been any new material but at this stage I'll look with hope that one of the two speakers—Mr Bennett.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Mr Chair. The Minister has said in the House a number of times now that this is to protect our reputation. Last year the Minister said that in effect this trade puts $33.7 billion in trade in animals and agricultural products at risk. However the Ministry for Primary Industries thought the reputational impacts were real but difficult to quantify. So I would like to ask the Minister: has the Minister gone to our trading partners and asked them what their view is on this trade in terms of them buying our products? Now if I look just at one example China alone took about $20 billion of our goods in 2021. Most of that was dairy meat and wood. And China is also rebuilding its dairy herd because they reduced their herd in a culling programme in 2015-2016 by 50 percent but now they're trying to rebuild it so they can rebuild their ability to produce milk domestically. So that is obviously a big trading partner an important one. Has the Minister gone to any of these trading partners and our biggest ones and asked them rather than just putting a finger in the air and being like I feel like it could affect our reputation."? Has he gone and actually asked them and got some data to inform this decision about whether it will in fact affect our trade with them or not? Because that would seem to be an absolutely critical point to actually have some metrics underpinning the decision and it is one that would give some confidence that the Minister's actually making a principled decision rather than just a "feels" decision."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. The Minister said that New Zealand needs to maintain its reputation as having the best animal husbandry standards in the world and absolutely—won't find any disagreement from anyone on this side of the House.The question is why has the Minister not looked at the option of improving the regulatory environment to make the sure that those ships the Minister talked about that aren't fit for purpose that shouldn't be carrying our animals around the world can't be used to carry our animals around the world instead of just banning everyone from doing it and so making sure that only the best operators can come to New Zealand and ship these animals?And I go back to the question I asked before about the regulatory impact statement which said that the first option was to allow for trade to continue but with stronger regulations through maintaining strong animal welfare standards and enhancing New Zealand's long-term trade relationships. What advice did the Minister get on that recommendation? What discussion did the Minister have with rural New Zealand about that recommendation? What advice and discussions did the Minister have with the trade groups about that recommendation?Because Minister that seems like from my point of view an extremely good idea—to actually allow for trade enhance New Zealand's long-term trade relationships create stronger regulations to make sure the cowboys and the ships that shouldn't be transporting our animals around the world can't do it and maintain strong animal welfare standards. So I would generally be very interested in the Minister answering about what advice and discussions the Minister had about that recommendation.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thanks Mr Chair. Thank you very much; I'm very grateful. Minister just to clarify. I'm not sure if you're aware and maybe you can enlighten the House what the value of an animal was—let's theorise here: what a two-year-old Friesian heifer in calf going overseas was worth versus sale in the domestic market. I'll offer you this: it was probably about $350 to $500 difference per head. That sort of money is gone per animal out of this or the cessation or nullification of this trade.Minister again how do you reconcile that some in this industry have invested close on $1 million in livestock-carrying vehicles trucks stock crates and trailers? They're gone. They're gone; they've subsidised a large portion of their income through this trade.There's one thing I think you really owe this House an explanation of: you have offered that our reputation is key. Now I think we all agree with that; no umbrage there. But how do you reconcile that the Australians can continue under a gold standard and somehow are you insinuating that their gold standard is less meritorious than the continuation of the trade for us to that gold standard or should we just simply remove it? So in other words what I'm asking Minister: do you think their gold standard is beneath currently where we sit? Because I think we deserve an answer.
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. There was a very slight hesitation there Mr Chair! Look thank you Mr Chair for this opportunity to resume this debate. Last I spoke on this bill the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill in this debate I alerted the Minister to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 204 in my name in which the National Party put forward a proposal that we would insert new sections 48A and 48B which outlines effectively that the director-general must review requirements to meet animal welfare standards for the export of live cattle within three months of this section coming into force.Now the logic behind that is that we are very firmly of the belief and we believe that the industry supports us—and actually we believe that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) supports us—that actually with the right regulation this can become a world-leading industry whereby the safe humane transfer of livestock can occur thus putting New Zealand at the forefront of this international industry and setting the standard importantly globally for other nations to follow. Unfortunately the debate was interrupted so I never got a response from the Minister as to whether or not he had considered SOP 204 because we think it actually gives a number of opportunities for the Director-General of MPI to firstly review the legislation review whether or not it's fit for purpose and importantly review what opportunities there are to restart this export industry.Unfortunately as I say Supplementary Order Paper 204 has apparently not been considered. So I want to turn the Minister's mind to Supplementary Order Paper 205 in my name where if he weren't to consider whether or not the director-general should carry out a review and look at a permissive or exemption-type regime perhaps they could start to look at another requirement whereby we would be allowing for a permissive regime for exporters to be able to apply for approval of animal welfare certificates. When I spoke in the last debate we talked about the fact that the National Party would put up opportunities for certification for exemptions for permissions—all of which have been shouted down unfortunately but the reason we are going to continue to prosecute this case is because we believe MPI has been lobbying for at least two years for a regulatory framework to regulate to license and therefore to enforce.We know that this ministry knows that this is a viable option. We know that this ministry is working with a number of New Zealand exporters. We know that they accepted the recommendations brought down by the Heron report that followed the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 in 2019. Unfortunately for the ministry thus far it has not had the levers so to speak to pull to enforce these kinds of permissive regimes. So we do ask the Minister: of any of the Supplementary Order Papers that he's going to consider would he consider No. 205 and look at the possibility of bringing in a regime that would allow for applications for approval of animal welfare certificates?
Cameron Mark; O'Connor GregMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Minister for the opportunity to further debate this piece of abysmal legislation. In 2009 Minister and this is as much a question as a statement farmer confidence surveys were started by Federated Farmers from 2009 to the present day. It has never been so low in the recent survey—never been so low. Farmers are being faced with a myriad of legislative changes including the live-animal export ban. I just want to rattle them off and you can cut in at any time when you're taking into consideration the $261 million that this bill and its revenue seems to remove from the primary industries: significant natural areas; He Waka Eke Noa; an emissions trading scheme; winter grazing; freshwater farm plans—contextualise that Minister with $261 million leaving the industry—a ute tax and goodness gracious knows what that means; animal welfare reforms. Goodness gracious yet again a whole lot of unknowns. Again contextualise that Minister if I may: $261 million.I used these words the other day: I wager anyone—this is near on half a billion dollars leaving the industry. You worked incredibly hard to secure a free-trade agreement with the EU. Well I argue half of it's gone with the implementation of this piece of legislation. There are chronic staffing shortages Minister in the primary industries. Yet again $261 million is leaving the primary sector. How on earth Minister—we canvassed this last week and yet you chose not to answer directly—does the primary sector reconcile that fiscal loss? This is a lot of money and an industry with absolutely no confidence. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ah Nicola Grigg.
Rurawhe AdrianHOUSE IN COMMITTEESPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill the Screen Industry Workers Bill and the Plant Variety Rights Bill.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Members a petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Donna Bridgeman requesting that the House require Kāinga Ora to immediately purchase land and construct new permanent rental accommodation and emergency housing in Kāpiti.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: New Zealand Productivity Commission Statement of Performance Expectations 2022/23.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. No bills have been introduced.
Salesa JennyWEDNESDAY 31 AUGUST 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Māfimafi kuo mau ta'imālie 'i ho'o 'ofá. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu. Ke ke malu'i 'a e Kuiní mo tataki mai mu'a 'emau ngāue 'i Fale Aleá. Ke fai'aki 'a e poto faka-'Otua – 'a e 'ofá mo e 'ulungāanga malu ko e 'uhí ko e mo'uí mo e nofo melino 'a e fonuá. Pea 'oku mau kole 'a e ngaahi me'á ni 'i he Huafá ho'o 'Aló ka ko homau Fakamo'uí. 'Ēmeni.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Wednesday 24 August 2022 - Volume 762
Rurawhe AdrianSPEAKER-ELECT: Tēnā anō tātou katoa. Thank you very much for your kind and generous words. I will try to live up to everyone's expectations which is probably a dangerous thing to say out loud given that there's probably 119 expectations quite contrary to each other. However I do stand and greet you all. Thank you very much for having the confidence in me to be the Speaker of this House. Nō reira we've already had one waiata—let's have a waiata to finish things off properly.WaiataSPEAKER-ELECT: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 2.41 p.m.
SpeechDr GAURAV SHARMA (Hamilton West): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to join everybody first of all in congratulating you as the new Speaker-Elect and hopefully the Speaker. When you gave your speech it was really refreshing to hear about fairness to hear about bringing value to the House and changing some of the issues that are present in the House. It almost seems like you should be an independent rather than aligned with any side!In the last 1½ years there have been quite a few changes. I was sitting on that side and the gentleman sitting next to me was in the Speaker's Chair the former member of Parliament for Hamilton West. I just want to acknowledge Mr Trevor Mallard who is now leaving as the outgoing Speaker of the House.Some of the people today mentioned integrity and transparency in their speeches. I just want to say that two weeks ago I contacted the former Speaker and I went to talk to him about some of the issues I was having and whether I could get legal support in my case. But the Speaker said Well you know if you raise anything about a Labour colleague—any challenges—it would be the end of your career." And then the Speaker ended up going to the Labour whip's office right after that to tell them that I had actually laid a complaint against the party and the whips. I just want to—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.Dr GAURAV SHARMA: I'm just stopping there.I just want to say Mr Speaker I hope—SPEAKER-ELECT: No no. I stand; you sit. Kia ora. That is not the purpose of this debate. You're raising issues that this House is not dealing with at this moment. If you have nothing further to add to what you've already said—if you indicate to me—have you finished?Dr GAURAV SHARMA: No but I won't touch that point. I just want to say—SPEAKER-ELECT: No no. So you're not finished?Dr GAURAV SHARMA: I'm not finished.SPEAKER-ELECT: Yeah well sit down then. I will interrupt the member again if he goes off track. This is about the newly elected Speaker.Dr GAURAV SHARMA: Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to say that I hope that you would be a neutral person as the Speaker of the House and would show the fairness that you've talked about and will listen to all members from across all sides. That's all I hope for and wish for. Once again I just want to congratulate you on your new role as the Speaker-Elect. Thank you."
Waititi RawiriRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Pere atu taku pere ki te Hauāuru ko Ua Haumēne ko Mere Rikiriki ko Tohu Kākahi Te Whiti o Rongomai.Ko Mere Rikiriki ko Wiremu Rātana.Tōia mai Te Hauāuru ki runga Pōneke Te Kooti Rikirangi. He hōnore he korōria he maungārongo ki te whenua he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa āmene.E Ihoā e te Karaiti me te Wairua Tapu kia tau anō hoki ō manaakitanga ki runga i tētahi o tātou Māngai i tēnei rā.Inā anō hoki te whetū mārama ka ara anō ki te uru e Ihoā e tō mātou Atua.Nō reira kia tau anō hoki ō manaakitanga ki runga i a ia ki runga i a tātou i tēnei rā kia tāria anō hoki ai te whakatutuki i ngā mahi kei mua i a ia.Tēnei anō hoki e inoi ki tō mātou Atua te hunga kei roto i tēnei Whare te hunga kei waho e whakamoemiti atu kia whakataiapangia tēnei o tātou i tāu mana whakaora hei ārai atu ngā whakawainga o te ao a te kikokiko a te Rēwera a te upoko ariki a te kiriweti me te porohae a te whiu a te tangata i runga i tō mātou Atua ki runga i a ia kia noho ko koe te Atua kei mua kei muri kei tētahi taha kei tētahi taha o a ia i ngā wā katoa.Tēnei anō hoki mātou te inoi atu ki a koe i runga i te ingoa o tāu tama Ihu Karaiti ko tō mātou kaiwhakaora.Ko koe te Atua e ora ana e mana ana i ngā tau mutunga kore korōria ki tō ingoa tapu āmene.[My bell rings in the West where Ua Haumēne Mere Rikiriki Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti o Rongomai reside.There is Mere Rikiriki and Wiremu Rātana.To those from the West welcome to Wellington here is Te Kooti Rikirangi. Honour and glory to God peace on earth goodwill to all people amen.May the blessings of the Lord God Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit also be upon this Speaker of ours today. The bright star has risen again in the west oh Jehovah our God.May your blessings be upon him and upon us all so that the tasks set out in front of him can also be completed.Thus we inside this House as well as those outside pray that he may be protected by your healing powers to ward off worldly temptations and the devil against self-importance impatience and jealousy and those who chastise our Lord so that you Lord may surround him on all sides at all times.And we pray to you in the name of your son Jesus Christ our saviour.You are the God who lives and rules for eternity may your name be glorified amen.]He Korōria hareruiaKi a Ihoā o ngā manoKi te kāhui ariki wairuaKo te Māngai e tautoko maiTe ĀrepaTe ŌmekaTautokotia mai te rōpū neiPiri Wiri TuaHāmueraKa puta ka ora e [Glory hallelujahTo Jehovah our GodTo our spiritual guardiansWith the Mouthpiece in supportThe AlphaThe OmegaPlease support this groupThe CampaignerSamuelBy them we shall survive]E te Atua whakatuwheratia mai ngā kūaha o te tika ki a mātou ō pononga i tēnei rā mā mātou anō hoki koe e whakamoemiti e whakakōroria ki tō ingoa tapu āmene.[Dear Lord open the doors of righteousness to us your disciples on this day so we may praise you glory to your sacred name.]
Davidson MaramaHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Mr Speaker-Elect thank you. I first want to turn and farewell a man who has held down one of the hardest jobs in Parliament. As Speaker of the House Trevor has demanded better for us all here in Parliament not just in the Chamber today but fighting for the living wage for cleaning and catering staff valuing their mahi and their right to live better lives; making this place much more family-friendly; and for dogs—hear hear—[Applause]—thank you Prime Minister. But also he's not been afraid to hold us to account playing a key role in the Francis Review the interventions which were absolutely necessary to ensure that this would become a safer place to work for us all. He has called the Government out on late parliamentary written questions and he's pushed hard for the accountability of Government at select committees. He's steered the precinct through the challenges of the COVID pandemic setting up a virtual Parliament—hooray!—and operating with just skeleton staff here onsite.I'd like to recall one of my favourite memories of Mr Trevor Mallard. Here in the House when I was a new MP he graciously slipped me a note from the Clerk's staff after I'd been here for a small wee while saying Marama Marama you're a strong speaker"—chur for that by the way—"but you don't need to read from your notes. It would be really good if you could allow more freedom of speech in your debate in the House." In your honour Mr Trevor Mallard I've made sure that I would read every word of my speech in your part today. By the way Mr Mallard I had been in the House for two days when I got that note from you.Mr Mallard farewell and good luck and thank you for your incredible work.I turn to you now e te Speaker-Elect. Ki a koe Adrian Rurawhe. What a day for you; what a day for Te Ao Māori. It was really beautiful and special to catch up with you Mr Speaker-Elect in Tokoroa on Friday to talk about the honour it was for your people for Taranaki for your whānau for Rātana Pā for the ones you love the most; as were the words that you put in your powhiri this morning.I note that there are I don't know 400 and something rules that you already have confessed not to know individually and expertly but my goodness Mr Speaker-Elect those rules are nothing compared to the challenge that was laid to you at the pōwhiri today for upholding kaupapa Māori tikanga in this House. I wish you the best of luck in trying to align that accountability that only a speaker of Māori would understand in that job. I know and I can say with every confidence that having that lens of kaupapa Māori tikanga in this place would be better for all of us. So I welcome the expertise that you bring into this area.I did want to acknowledge the history and the legacy that your whakapapa brings not the least your grand-uncle Haami Tokouru Rātana grandfather Matiu Rātana and so many more. Mr Speaker-Elect it is with aroha and pride that the Green Party welcomes you. Kia ora."
Luxon ChristopherCHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you Mr Speaker-Elect. On behalf of the National Party I would like to also offer you our warmest congratulations on your election to the Speakership. We wish you all the very best for a role that we know will be challenging at times but you have gained the experience to stand you in very good stead. You've been a member of this House for eight years and you've served faithfully as one of its presiding officers since the end of 2017 first as an Assistant Speaker through the last Parliament and then as Deputy Speaker. And now you'll take up the mantle of becoming the 31st Speaker of this House and its second Māori Speaker.Adrian it's not surprising you have been elected to this office having come from your legacy of respected leadership across Māoridom the Rātana church and here in Parliament. And while this is only my first term I have observed you closely in this House and I'm looking forward to seeing how you bring your combination of personal humility but also massive professional determination to ensure that this House and our democracy functions well.Despite being the modest person that I know you are I do genuinely hope you allow yourself a moment to reflect on all that you have achieved and contributed thus far and I hope that you will properly celebrate this significant milestone with all your whānau and all your friends that are here as well and really enjoy today. It's really important.We know that you will bring integrity you'll bring balance and mana to the office of the Speaker and we look forward to working constructively with you in the interests of fairness and upholding the dignity of this Parliament. And that is why we have never seen a need to propose an alternative candidate.Can I also acknowledge the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard and his contribution to Parliament over three decades as both a member and a Minister. I think it's safe to say that he and I are fairly different. I'm the newcomer from outside this place and he's the inveterate parliamentary scrapper. On the one hand I think you've made this place much more family-friendly and personally I have to say I found you very generous with your time explaining the protocols of this place to all of us as new MPs in the class of 2020 and myself personally.But it is also well known that National has disagreed strongly with you on many of your actions and statements over your time as Speaker and that you have lost the Opposition's confidence. But we would like to still acknowledge your service and we are looking forward to seeing you put your renowned tact and deft diplomatic skills to good use in your new role and we wish both you and the Irish nation very good luck.Mr Speaker-Elect congratulations to you once again. We wish you all the very very best and we are looking forward to working with you.
SpeechRt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Mr Speaker-Elect mā te Māngai o Ihoā te Māngai o te Whare e tautoko. [The Mouthpiece of God will support the Speaker of the House.]I begin with a phrase that will be close to home to you Mr Speaker-Elect. Translated it means: may the mouthpiece of Ihoā the temple of Rātana support and guide the mouthpiece of the House. I can't think of a better way to sum up the proud history and mana that you bring with you into this role something we are all now privileged to be the benefactors of.It was a few years ago now that I remember having a conversation with our Speaker-Elect about the possibility of taking on a role in the offices of the House. It was fair to say there was some hesitancy. In my mind this was the first sign that you were perfect for the role. Since that time the House has had the pleasure of seeing the many skills that you bring to this position and I want to acknowledge the outgoing Speaker for the fact that he saw fit to ensure that you had the ability to sit in this House and preside over it and transition into the role that you now have. There will be an opportunity to pay tribute to the outgoing Speaker on another occasion.While all of the skills that you displayed in this place during that time are valuable I place great priority on your ability to perfectly balance a light touch and a firm hand. But perhaps the most prized asset of all in a Speaker is integrity and that is the word that those closest to you would use to describe you as a person and now as a Speaker. Perhaps one of your colleagues—Minister Sio—said it best when he described you as a gentle giant but also that you shouldn't be mistaken for anything else but firm fair and very considered. Everyone across this House knows or will soon know that there is an honesty and conviction of belief that the Speaker-Elect applies to everything he does. I believe this House can be assured that there will be a fairness in the application of the Standing Orders and consideration of procedures that enables all parties and their views to be considered with openness transparency integrity and—according to you—brevity it sounds.The Speaker-Elect also takes on this role having already demonstrated that he is a strong voice in Parliament for the people of Te Tai Hauāuru for Māori and for New Zealand and of course it is historic that in taking on this position he becomes only the second Māori Speaker. I know your grandparents Matiu and Iriaka Rātana and great-grandfather T W Rātana would be proud just as your Labour whānau are proud. I can assure you we will remain proud no matter how many occasions we may be reprimanded by you. Congratulations and we wish you well Mr Speaker-Elect. Kia kaha e te Mana Whakawā o te Whare.