edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
10. Question No. 10—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 10—Health10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his actions and policies around the meningococcal outbreak in Northland and the meningococcal vaccination?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes and in particular the swift response to declaration on 8 November of a community outbreak of meningococcal W in Northland.Matt King: Why did the ministry not act on the serious concerns raised by the Northland District Health Board as far back as May this year when they requested a meningitis vaccination campaign?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government has acted swiftly on expert advice. The technical advisory group concluded that there was a community outbreak of meningococcal W in Northland on 8 November and recommended a targeted vaccination campaign. The Ministry of Health and Pharmac quickly secured 20000 doses of vaccine in the face of strong international demand. Vaccinations will start next week. That's a swift response in anyone's book.SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to ask Matt King to ask that question again.Matt King: Why did the ministry not act on the serious concerns raised by the Northland District Health Board as far back as May this year when they requested a meningitis vaccination campaign?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the premise of the member's question.Dr Shane Reti: How does he respond to serious concerns expressed at the northern region GP conference on 19 May this year where the specialist presenting said The thing that irks me is a very successful vaccine already exists out there. Our Ministry of Health has been very quick to sit on their thumbs. I honestly fear for this winter."Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The conversations that took place throughout this year when concerns were raised were appropriate. The ministry and representatives from Pharmac and district health boards have looked to ensure that they were prepared should an outbreak be declared and indeed they have moved swiftly once an outbreak was declared.Dr Shane Reti: I seek to table the article in New Zealand Doctor that reported the conference 6 June 2018—it's behind a paywall Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."
9. Question No. 9—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on mental health and addiction?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Last Wednesday I received the report of the inquiry into mental health and addiction and this morning I released it publicly. The report urges the Government to put people at the centre of its approach to mental health and addiction issues. While I'm not here to announce the Government's response to the inquiry today I believe this is an approach that would find favour on both sides of this House.Dr Liz Craig: Why has the Government moved so quickly to release the report?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There is a huge public interest in these issues. Tens of thousands of people signed petitions calling for an inquiry and the panel received more than 5200 submissions. It's important that we keep faith with those people and by releasing the report within a week of receiving it we're doing just that. The release of the report will no doubt spark a fresh public conversation about mental health and addictions. I welcome that and in particular look forward to hearing the response to the report's findings from those with lived experience.Dr Liz Craig: When will the Government formally respond to the inquiry?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It will take time for us to work through the report and to do justice to its recommendations and to do justice to the voices contained in the report. We've already identified mental health and well-being as a priority for the next Budget. We'll be working through the detail on that informed by the report. We're working through the report's 40 recommendations already and the Government will respond formally in March next year. I want to be upfront with the public though that while some things can be addressed in relatively short order many of the issues we are facing such as workforce shortages—while we're moving on them now—will take many years to fully address.
6. Question No. 6—Regional Economic DevelopmentHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Regional Economic Development6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes other than when they're wilfully misconstrued.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What terms in the $9.9 million loan to Westland Milk Products from the Provincial Growth Fund are more favourable than could be expected from a commercial loan to a company in its financial situation?Hon SHANE JONES: Yes I am aware of that unwanted verbal emission from the West Coast. The loan that is yet to be fully settled advanced as part of our economic development package in the West Coast area will run for a longer period of time than they currently have access to in terms of their major bankers.Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said on the Q+A programme in relation to Westland Milk Products' loan Now if it's good enough … to have private-public arrangements in infrastructure—and the last Government had them as well—I've simply extended that thesis" what did he mean?Hon SHANE JONES: I had in mind the Waimea Community Dam and irrigation—a $7 million grant if I recall from the Minister for the Environment and then the allocation of some capital on commercial terms. The thread that I referred to is traceable back to a seed on the other side of the House.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he consulted with the Minister of Finance over his new economic plan and in particular over the financial risks to Kiwi taxpayers?Hon SHANE JONES: I have been known from time to time to seek the views of said finance Minister. I would point out to the House however that the manner within which the regional development strategy is being advanced has both links to the work on the other side of the House but a higher level of aspiration and willingness to do robust things on this side of the House.Hon Paul Goldsmith: As he continues to extend his thesis about public-private arrangements can we see an announcement that the Government will be co-investing with private enterprise in general manufacturing supermarkets petrol stations and other businesses around the regions?Hon SHANE JONES: The options that come from the various regions come as a consequence of stakeholders recognising at long last that there is a Government that is willing to invert the tired model where lots of promises are made but no capital is available. He of all people should know my stance about Australian-owned supermarkets."
5. Question No. 5—ImmigrationHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 5—Immigration5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Under what section of the Immigration Act 2009 did he determine that a new liability for deportation existed in respect of Mr Karel Sroubek?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Section 155.Hon Michael Woodhouse: As section 155 deals with deportation liability if a visa is granted in error who made the error and in relation to the granting of which visa was the error made?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Administrative error" is a technical term defined in section 155 of the Immigration Act. In this case the administrative error was when Mr Sroubek was granted a residence permit on 6 June 2008. He had been convicted of a crime in the Czech Republic and sentenced to more than a year in prison. This meant that he was not eligible for the permit. However this is not an error in the ordinary sense. Immigration New Zealand could not have been expected to know Mr Sroubek's criminal history because he was posing as Jan Antolik at the time.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it not also true that the Minister made an error as was confirmed by the Prime Minister in oral question No. 1 last Thursday?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I made a decision based on the information available to me at the time.Hon Michael Woodhouse: If it's the case that Mr Sroubek's residence visa of 2008 was granted in error why then did the Minister proceed to grant residency on 19 September 2018 knowing full well from the 12-page summary in front of him that Sroubek by his criminal record in the Czech Republic was an excluded person?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I considered the matters before me which were a question of his liability under section 156 and 161. I weighed all the information available to me at the time and made a decision.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Minister consider it part of his job to know the Immigration Act particularly the parts of the Act which require the application of ministerial decision and if so why did he state "I don't know every single detail of the Immigration Act. I didn't look at that and say 'Aha! He should be an excluded person.' " Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because like any sensible Minister I rely on the expert advice of my officials—people who have committed their lives to knowing the Act inside and out and being able to provide expert advice."
4. Question No. 4—ImmigrationHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 4—Immigration4. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Mr Karel Sroubek?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes based on the information and advice available to me at the time. Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he stand by the statement that Karel Sroubek's estranged wife has declined to participate in Immigration New Zealand's review of his decision to grant Sroubek residency?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that on 5 November immigration officials arrived unannounced at a house that the estranged wife of Karel Sroubek was staying at known only to police as part of a police safety plan?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I'm not aware of the details of how the investigation was carried out. That is a matter for Immigration New Zealand and the police force.Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the Minister prior to 5 November have a discussion about the location of the estranged wife of Karel Sroubek with the Minister of Police or anyone from his office?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that the estranged wife of Mr Sroubek told immigration officials that she was happy to help but would like her lawyer and support person present and was frightened of the target on her back becoming bigger?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I was told that the person in question declined to participate in the investigation.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister believe the estranged wife of Karel Sroubek is a National Party informant as stated by the Prime Minister or a woman who is frightened of Mr Sroubek and sought help from the Opposition when it became obvious the Government was standing by its decision to grant Mr Sroubek residency?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I only know the matters that are relevant to the decision that I made. Those are that Mr Sroubek's estranged wife provided a letter of support for him that media reporting then suggested that there was some question about that support and that when asked to elaborate on that and participate in the investigation into those matters she declined.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Over the past few days a number of reports have highlighted the solid fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. On Friday the ANZ Roy Morgan consumer confidence index lifted 4 points to sit around its historically normal levels. ANZ said the index shows consumers were feeling pretty resilient" and that "a resilient consumer is of course good for near-term economic growth." ANZ economists said that their confidence composite gauge which combines consumer and business confidence points to GDP growth between 2.5 percent and 3 percent over the next year.Tamati Coffey: How does this forecast GDP growth rate fit with other recent reports that he's seen?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research said that they expect growth of about 3 percent a year over the next three years due to favourable conditions supporting growth. This follows publication of the latest GDP figures showing quarterly growth of 1 percent and annual growth of 2.7 percent—Hon Dr David Clark: Serious momentum.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —in the year to June 2018 about which I saw a report that represented this as serious momentum.Tamati Coffey: What other recent reports has he seen which indicate serious momentum in the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This week Statistics New Zealand released their latest terms of trade figures showing our terms of trade remain near historic highs despite the impacts of the higher international oil prices over the September quarter. In fact the September quarter reading was the fourth-highest recorded in quarterly data since 1957. Building consent data was also strong for the year to October 2018 particularly in Auckland. Statistics New Zealand said that more than 13000 new homes were consented in Auckland in a year for the first time since the 1970s. I think we can all agree with Simon Bridges about the serious momentum in the New Zealand economy."
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
Lees-Galloway IainClauses 1 to 3Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Just a brief call because I noticed during earlier debates that a couple of members signalled their interest in the commencement clause clause 2 and the changes proposed on Supplementary Order Paper 153 to change the commencement of certain sections of the bill from coming into force four months after the date of Royal assent to a more precise date 6 May 2019. The two reasons for that were it was as a result of submissions from employers; certain employers felt that it would be helpful to them to have a bit more time just to adjust to certain provisions of the bill and also that having a set date at the beginning of a week—i.e. a Monday—was more useful to them. There's nothing more to it than that.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Dan Bidois's tabled amendment deleting clause 35 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chairman. I've been listening intently to the debate and I've heard the contributions on 90-day trial periods reinstatement and rest and meal breaks. And although I have been looking for opportunities to participate in the debate I haven't yet heard anything new that I have not already previously addressed. I did hear Matt King I think get very close to admitting to breaching the Employment Relations Act. I won't hold that against him but at least it was new.The one new point that has been raised was by the member Dan Bidois which was the reinstatement of the ability to amend schedule 1A which lists the occupations the groups of workers who have access to the provisions under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act.That is because as conditions change we need to have a mechanism by which we're able to respond to changing economic conditions and if groups of workers become vulnerable or indeed if we determine that groups of workers no longer need access to the provisions afforded them under Part 6A then we need a mechanism that is faster than the legislative process. Doing that by Order in Council still requires a process. It would still require an application to be made for that application to be considered by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and it would ultimately come to me as Minister for a decision to then make a recommendation to the Governor-General to pass an Order in Council to make amendments to that schedule. But the reason is that as things change we need a mechanism which is more responsive to those changes than the full parliamentary process which thus far has not produced any results in terms of delivering changes to that schedule.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I could not resist the invitation to speak on this bill and to speak after Dr Parmjeet Parmar the previous speaker whose contribution touched on 90-day trials and big chunky employers. I'm not too sure if big chunky employers are in the bill but I tell you what is in the bill: it is a clear and very evident clarification as to what this bill is about. Part 2 clearly outlines the answers that the members on the other side are seeking from the Minister and that the Minister has on numerous occasions answered and an example of that is 90-day trials. The Minister took the opportunity to clarify independent research as to why 90-day trials were not effective on the things that the members opposite are claiming—giving young people a chance because young people never got a chance before the 90-day trial and giving those who otherwise would not be given the opportunity a chance. This independent research that the Minister has quoted on a couple of occasions now clearly refutes those claims. Also what the Minister said when he took one of his numerous contributions was that those people that are apparently being given a chance can still be given a chance—as it clearly outlines in Part 2—in a probationary period. As the Minister said the difference between a 90-day trial and a probationary period is very clear. It still gives the employer the opportunity to take a chance on a prospective employee but at the end of that trial period if they are not up to grade they provide a very clear and reasoned explanation as to why. In fact this Government argues that a probationary period is much better and much more effective at providing a young person with a chance who hasn't previously had employment experience because at the end of it they get feedback on where they're currently not fitting the bill. This Government argues that at the end of that period if the focus is on giving young people an opportunity—like the Opposition claims is their focus—then surely at the end of that period giving them some feedback and some guidance and some areas on which they need to work is more effective at giving these young people a chance. It is my view that due to the arguments put forward by this Government—and by the Minister in particular—on especially the issue of the 90-day trials surely for the people watching at home it couldn't be clearer.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. Members have raised questions about the rest and meal break provisions included in this bill. Andrew Bayly just raised the matter generally and asked about the definition of an essential service"—a very reasonable question. I direct the member to part A of schedule 1 of the Employment Relations Act. He will find the definition of "essential service" in there and—Andrew Bayly: And how encompassing is it? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well I encourage the member to have a look and if he's got any further questions feel free to come back. The member Hamish Walker asked an important question. He asked an important question: is there any room for negotiation? This is a point that has come up a lot which is: are we creating a situation here where rest and meal breaks are tightly prescribed where everyone has to take their meal break at the same time and where there's absolutely no room for negotiation? In response to that I would direct members to clause 35 in Part 2 of the bill which inserts new section 68ZE into the Act. It says "Timing of breaks as agreed (1) If an employee and employer have agreed on the times at which the employee is to take rest breaks and meal breaks during the employee's work period the rest breaks and meal breaks are to be taken at those times." So the first port of call is: work it out. Work it out between the employer and the employee and figure out what makes sense and what works for both parties. In the case of Mr Walker's example if the arrangement works for his constituent then I encourage him tomorrow morning to get on the phone or write a letter and tell his constituent that she will be able to continue doing what she's doing right now because if that's what works she can figure that out with her employer. Only in the absence of an agreement are the rest and meal breaks to be taken in accordance with the applicable provisions and again all of those applicable provisions have those terms—and I know Scott Simpson doesn't like these ones very much—"reasonable" and "practicable". Where reasonable and practicable they should basically be taken at around about the middle of the work period. But first and foremost this is something that employers and employees can work out between them and it's enshrined here in the legislation. So I do encourage members if they've been misinformed—and certainly if they've accidentally misinformed any of their constituents I strongly encourage them to get on the phone and make sure that their constituents understand exactly what this legislation does."
Rurawhe AdrianPart 2 Other amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the debate on Part 2 which is clauses 29 to 41 and the schedule.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Mark Mitchell's amendment to replace section 62A(3)(b) in clause 18 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 147 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Dan Bidois' amendment to delete clause 11 also set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Scott Simpson's amendment deleting clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. I have addressed a few times already a couple of the matters that members are raising but I do want to try and provide as much information to members as I can.Paul Goldsmith described the inherent imbalance between the employer and the employee as offensive or naive". Scott Simpson interjected that it is "ideological". It is none of those things. It is enshrined in our employment law. Section 3 of the Employment Relations Act says "The object of this Act is—(a) to build productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith in all aspects of the employment environment and of the employment relationship—… (ii) by acknowledging and addressing the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships;". That's not ideology of the Labour Party or of the Government. It is not offensive or naive. It is enshrined in our legislation. It's been there since 2000. It wasn't repealed by the National Party when they were in Government. It is acknowledged by New Zealand as a nation in our legislation; it is not acknowledged by the International Labour Organization. So when I say that many of the aspects of Part 1 of this bill are designed to give effect to acknowledging and addressing the inherent imbalance between the employer and the employee that is not some ethereal notion; it is enshrined in the legislation. We are required by the legislation to consider those matters.Paul Goldsmith is slightly confused between fair pay agreements and multi-employer collective agreements. Multi-employer collective agreements have been around since at least the year 2000—one could argue in previous forms of New Zealand's employment law as well but they have been around since the Employment Relations Act first came into being in the year 2000. They exist. A number of people are covered by multi-employer collective agreements right now right at this very moment in time and in fact the changes that this bill makes essentially take us back to the situation pre-2015—so a situation that the previous Government was happy to leave in place for six years. So I encourage the member to perhaps just school up a little bit on employment law and understand what multi-employer collective agreements actually are.Chris Penk raised a good point. He asked what happens—using the example of if a union provides information to the employer that's to be passed on to the employee and there is some dispute between the employer and the union as to whether that information somehow breaches this legislation. As with any breach of this legislation I would encourage those parties to deal with each other in good faith see if they can resolve the disagreement communicate with each other be responsive and ultimately if necessary go to mediation and use the usual processes to resolve that issue. A fair question—I hope that's an answer to it."
Wagner NickyHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 111 in the name of Scott Simpson which is to delete clause 4 in Part 1 which provides for a union delegate to conduct union activity during their working hours while retaining their pay. My story is also relevant to SOP 145 by Parmjeet Parmar which talks about discrimination against employees.The reason that I want to talk to this clause 4 is because recently I was unwittingly involved in a very unsavoury and bullying campaign by the RMTU—that's the Rail and Maritime Transport Union. Not very long ago I found a flyer in my letter box. The flyer was put into every other letter box in my neighbourhood as well. Now I don't know in this case whether the RMTU wrote that on their employer's time but clause 4 would have made that legal.Whenever or wherever they wrote it it was an appalling example of crude bullying which focused on targeting and pillorying the family of someone they didn't agree with. Now here's the flyer and this is what it says. I delete the name of the person and the company out of respect for their privacy. It says: Why the blah-blah-blah company workers are on strike. We thought you would like to know that one of your neighbours blah-blah-blah name blah-blah-blah full address details blah-blah role at the blah-blah company which is embroiled in an industrial dispute with the RMTU". Now it carries on with a pretty colourful list of the RMTU grievances.This flyer is wrong in so many ways. Firstly it's wrong because it deliberately targets and outs an employee they don't agree with to their neighbours. Secondly it's wrong because it provides their details and their home address to others. And thirdly why is the RMTU doing this? What's their motive? Why did they go to all the trouble of putting this flyer in my letterbox and all my neighbours' letterboxes? Why would the RMTU want to breach someone's privacy? Why would the RMTU broadcast details of their home address and would they like that if someone did it to them? What does the RMTU want to happen next? Do they want me to invite this person to the neighbourhood street party? I don't think so. Do they want me to give neighbourly support to this person because they know that bullying is highly damaging? Maybe but I don't think so. Or do they want me to join them in their bullying? Do they want me to let's say picket the house or put nasty flyers in their letterbox or do they want me to threaten and pillory their family? Now I couldn't possibly say and I quote the Prime Minister: "You read between the lines."So I absolutely oppose this bill because I have recently and personally experienced the dangers of increasing the powers of the unions and I support employers who would be horrified to think that anyone would run a bullying campaign like this and what's more that if this bill passes they can do it on company time and the employers have to pay. My final question is: if the employers are paying unionists for this type of union activity would that make them accessories to the crime of bullying?"
McAnulty Kieran; Williams PotoKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call Simeon Brown as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee I must remind members that we've had several arguments presented several times across the course of this particular debate. I'm looking for new material and new arguments.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to briefly speak to the point that Andrew Bayly just raised about clause 12. I did speak to this earlier but he may have missed it. There are two reasons really why we want to restore the right of unions to initiate first. One is to bring some order to the process. There have been examples of people kind of racing each other to be the first to initiate and we'd really rather just restore some order to the process. Then the second reason ultimately goes back to the point I made earlier about the inherent imbalance between the employer and the employee. Employment legislation in many ways seeks to overcome that imbalance and this is one way of doing that by putting the employee first in that process.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It is a mouthful Madam Chair. I want to very quickly speak to the points raised by Nicola Willis because if it was as she described I would be very concerned about the change that we are making. But of course it is not as she describes. An employee will receive a form when they start a new job and it allows them to indicate whether they intend to join the union and to be covered by the collective agreement or not. Their intention along with their name will be passed along to unions by their employer. However as Nicola Willis pointed out employees will have the ability to opt out. They will have the ability to opt out and if they—well members ask What if they don't?" I think people will have—[Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No it's a fair question. It's a requirement on the employer to provide the form and to get that form back and pass it on to the union if the employee has not opted out. This is very simple. I have absolute faith in the working people of New Zealand to be able to consider this form and determine for themselves and apply their own personal choice their freedom of association—their personal choice—to decide whether or not they want to join a union. Members ask "Why? Why are we doing this?" Because we want people to have an informed choice. We want them to know—Andrew Falloon: Why not opt in? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —what their options are. They wanted to know that they have—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I apologise to the Minister. Members have asked the Minister questions and he is trying to provide those answers. It would be really good if we would allow that process to happen. Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Thank you Madam Chair. We want people to have an informed choice. We want them to know if there's a collective agreement on site. We want them to know if there is a union on site and to decide for themselves if they want to join the union or not.I respectfully disagree with the Privacy Commissioner. I considered his points but I respectfully disagree with him. The opt-out gives people the ability to withhold that information from the union if they so choose. It is absolutely their choice and that is what is laid out in this legislation."
Clark DavidAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 10 to MinisterHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I seek leave to correct an answer given to a supplementary question during question No. 10 in the House today.SPEAKER: I'm going to take that as the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation in order to correct an answer under Standing Order 358. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In respect of the meningococcal W outbreak I described what I said was a swift response to the declaration of an outbreak on 8 November and indicated that a programme of vaccination would begin next week. I misspoke and as I've said on many other occasions the vaccination programme actually starts tomorrow.
Thursday 29 November 2018 - Volume 735
12. Question No. 12—Internal AffairsMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 12—Internal Affairs12. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about community benefit from the America's Cup?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you. A special time-limited lottery fund has been created to help maximise the benefit across New Zealand from hosting the 2021 America's Cup. Twenty million dollars of funding generated from lotteries has been allocated for community groups across New Zealand. So while the America's Cup will be held in Auckland we want to ensure that this fund can spread the gains to communities across the whole of the country.Mark Patterson: What can the funds be used for?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The fund is for capital projects and items that relate to the hosting of the 2021 America's Cup or that connect New Zealanders to the America's Cup in particular for projects that one will benefit the community in the lead-up to during and after the 2021 event; show they are the right size and scale for their community; provide opportunities for a diverse group of people to actively participate interact or connect; and have community support. For example a yacht club might apply for a grant for an accessible yacht to teach sailing in their community to those who might otherwise not have this opportunity due to perhaps—or they could be members of a disability community for example. And that has lots of positive benefits that last a lot longer after the America's Cup.Mark Patterson: Why are you making this announcement now?SPEAKER: No—why is the Minister making the announcement now. I could have made it earlier but the Minister could make it now.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I want to publicise the fund so that community groups can apply. The committee members have just been appointed and will meet for the first time in December. The fund will be open until the end of 2020 so there's plenty of time for community groups to apply for this funding but it is time limited so I want to make sure that they know it's available to them.
10. Question No. 10—PoliceGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 10—Police10. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: What support is the Government providing to help the police improve their digital connections with the public?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Off the back of the single biggest investment in our police service through Budget 2018 this week I was pleased to open the new police digital services and communication centre in Kāpiti. The specialist service made possible by this new facility signals a transformation in the way police connect with the public. For example the centre will receive the majority of the over one million non-urgent calls made to police stations around the country. It will employ 200 people once the training process is complete. I would like to acknowledge the work of the local MP the Hon Kris Faafoi and the local Porirua and Kāpiti councils for their commitment to helping us build safer and more connected communities.Greg O'Connor: What other capital investment projects has the Government funded to support safer and more connected communities?Hon STUART NASH: Under the previous Government 150 front counters were closed due to health and safety concerns the staff or because of difficulties with public access. I am pleased to report that 82 of those sites including Kawakawa in the Far North and Mosgiel in the deep South have now been refurbished upgraded and reopened. Work is under way for the remaining 68 sites including the Lower Hutt station and two sites in Tauranga to be completed by early 2019. Greg O'Connor: How is this improved police presence reflected in our provinces and regions and in smaller centres?Hon STUART NASH: This Government is a champion of the regions in so many ways. For example members are already aware that Northland will see a 25 percent increase in the number of constables we allocate out of the extra 1800 police. In that district alone new capital investment has allowed for upgrades to police sites in Dargaville Kawakawa Kaikohe Kamo Paihia and Mangonui. Work is also under way on other Northland sites in Kaitāia Ruakākā Kerikeri Russell and Onerahi. This Government is committed to investing in healthier safer and more connected communities. SPEAKER: Even with a Minister who defines himself as elderly apparently.
8. Question No. 8—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his actions and policies around meningococcal disease and the meningitis outbreak in Northland?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes and the good news is that I have had confirmation that the first 10000 doses of the vaccine arrived in New Zealand on Tuesday already.Matt King: Have at least two Northland children died of meningococcal W between May this year and his announcement of a vaccine programme this week? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: People have died of meningococcal disease across New Zealand sadly. That happens. When an outbreak is triggered it is imperative that we move swiftly to respond. An outbreak was declared on 8 November and we have moved very swiftly.Dr Shane Reti: Did the ministry know there was a meningococcal disease outbreak as far back as May this year?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There was not.Dr Shane Reti: Why then does the ministry's own immunisation update from May this year have a whole section titled Outbreaks—Meningococcal Disease"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Look if that language has been used in a casual form then that may be so. I would like the member to understand that I am briefed frequently by the ministry on cases of meningococcal disease—it's something we take very seriously. For the member's benefit I will demonstrate with this chart. Meningococcal disease notifications are monitored closely. If you look in 1989 there was a significant rise in cases through the 1990s. It came down in the early 2000s dramatically. Meningococcal disease remained flat in recent years. There has been a slight rise in meningococcal disease recently and we are monitoring that very closely because we do not want to see the spike that we saw through the 90s. We are a proactive Government that will make sure that we respond as soon as an outbreak is declared as it was on 8 November. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Before the member calls out again I have had in recent days a number of complaints from members of the public about not being able to hear answers to questions as a result of the noise in the Chamber. This is a very important area. It is a matter of life and death and I think it ill behoves the House to shout the Minister down when he is replying. Dr Shane Reti: If the ministry's own immunisation update is describing a meningococcal outbreak as far back as May this year will he now submit all his actions on this matter for further scrutiny?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There will be ongoing scrutiny of the Minister of Health—that's the job of this House—and my Cabinet colleagues hold me to account too. I'm happy to be held to account and I'm delighted—because this is a very serious matter—that the Ministry of Health and Pharmac moved very quickly to secure a vaccine to address an outbreak after it was declared on 8 November. I would warn the member too to be very careful about fearmongering. He is a clinician; he knows better than that."
7. Question No. 7—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: When will the Government formally respond to the report of the mental health and addiction inquiry?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yesterday I received the report of the inquiry into mental health and addition. The report is 200 pages long and contains 40 recommendations. It's a substantial and considered piece of work and I want to thank inquiry chair Paterson and the panel for their hard work and for honouring the voices of all those who made submissions to the inquiry. It will take some time to fully digest the report. The Government intends to formally respond to the inquiry report in March next year.Dr Liz Craig: What advice will he take when considering the response to the inquiry report?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have no doubt there will be plenty of advice for the Government both official and unofficial. The Government is committed to working with people with lived experience. Their voices are critical as we respond to the inquiry. Obviously official advice from the Ministry of Health will also be key and I expect officials to talk with the health sector and the community. I am aware of some disquiet around the make-up of a previously established mental health and addiction health sector leadership group. I am advised that the group has recognised that it needs a more diverse membership and is seeking more members with lived experience. And finally I would add that it will be the Government that responds to this inquiry not the ministry.Dr Liz Craig: When will the report be released?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I appreciate there is considerable public interest in this report which will shape our approach to mental health and addiction for years to come. It is best practice to have an inquiry report reviewed for legal technical and privacy considerations before it is released. That is standard practice for all inquiries. I am advised that that work is progressing well and I intend to release the report as soon as I am able to.
4. Question No. 4—Social DevelopmentPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 4—Social Development4. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recognition has the Ministry of Social Development recently received for its communication with clients?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) Better Letters project team won this year's award for Plain English Champion in the Best Plain English Sentence Transformation at the Plain English Awards. Winning these awards reflects the hard work of the Better Letters team who have navigated a complex range of technology systems complexity policy and legal considerations to create letters that are more accessible and empathetic for MSD clients and shows this Government's commitment to improving the experience of clients who interact with Work and Income.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is the Better Letters project important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Clients and staff at MSD said that previous MSD letters had been difficult to understand and the tone wasn't reflective of how staff wanted to engage with clients. As part of improving culture at Work and Income an important starting point was making sure that communication is clear and accessible. Each letter is also an opportunity to show that we care about our clients. Making our letters clearer and more compassionate reflects the Ministry of Social Development's commitment to mana manaaki a positive experience every time reflecting that MSD will be warm welcoming fair and compassionate to all New Zealanders.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What are the next steps for the Better Letters project?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Better Letters team has also been working on improving and simplifying the wording on main benefit application obligations forms. These will be rolled out in service centres from 10 December onwards. These changes will make it easier for our clients to understand how we will work together what they need to do to ensure we are supporting them in the right way and what is required of them while they are receiving financial assistance. Once these new forms are rolled out we will continue to evaluate and refine them based on client feedback to ensure they are concise clear and accessible.SPEAKER: I'm sure there'll be some staff that can be seconded to the Minister's office to help draft answers to questions.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank's financial stability report released this week says that the country's financial system which is deeply integrated into the New Zealand economy is sound and that the risks to it have abated a little. Talking more broadly about New Zealand's economic structure Standard & Poor's in a report this week said that the economic structure of New Zealand benefits from being an open prosperous flexible and resilient economy. Based on this Standard & Poor's is expecting economic growth to be robust" at 2.8 percent a year—Hon Dr David Clark: Oh serious momentum. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —between 2018 and 2020 which is in the range of other forecasts and—yes Dr Clark—represents serious momentum as the Leader of the Opposition has said. These reports provide further confirmation that this coalition Government's plan to build a productive sustainable and inclusive economy is working. Kiritapu Allan: Why is a resilient economy important for the Government's economic strategy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's important because resilience and strong underlying fundamentals are essential to improving the well-being of New Zealanders and their families. If we continued to base our economic growth on selling houses to one another and on population growth we will end up—as we have—with infrastructure deficits services struggling to keep up and rising inequality. We need to change the quality of economic growth so that it is productive providing more higher-wage jobs; sustainable and not running down our natural resources; and inclusive providing opportunities for everyone. We need to transition the economy to make sure that every New Zealander has the possibility to succeed. Kiritapu Allan: What is the next step in the Government's plan for economic transformation? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In our next month's Budget Policy Statement we'll guide the way to the 2019 Wellbeing Budget. It will show how the Government will produce Budgets that include a wider range of factors of success—not just our fiscal success but also how we're ensuring that our people our environment and our communities are strengthened. Additionally while continuing to meet our Budget responsibility rules the 2019 Wellbeing Budget will deliver policies to support continued productive sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Economic growth is not an end in itself but an important means by which we improve the living standards and well-being of all New Zealanders."