edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henderson Emily; Dean JacquiDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Xiexie Madam Speaker. What a joy it is to stand up and support this bill during Chinese Language Week and to be able to do so—xiexie Madam Speaker—when celebrating this bill that is also going to bring us closer with our international trading partners.I'm particularly pleased to be following Minister O'Connor because at the beginning of this year he and I visited a little local place in Whangārei called Lynwood Avocado Nursery. Lynwood Avocado Nursery is one of our innovative small exporting businesses. They do remarkable world-leading work cloning avocados and they export them all over the world. I am delighted that on Thursday night when I go home I'm going to be able to take up the invitation that I've been given to Lynwood's next open day and tell them about the work that this Government has done to make it easier for them to access the markets they need to grow their remarkable business alongside all those other remarkable Kiwi businesses we're so proud of. Thank you Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Joseph Mooney—five minutes.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Xiexie Mr Speaker. I'd like to thank you for the ability to be able to take this call. It is quite ironic. I'm going to actually speak on the bill as opposed to Todd McClay the previous speaker who although he was giving us a lesson on Trade 101 he isn't actually the spokesperson for trade. So I'd like to acknowledge the spokesperson for trade for her contribution to the bill.I think it's also appropriate given it's Chinese Language Week that the bill that I arise to take a short call on is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. This particular bill implements New Zealand's obligations under RCEP a free-trade agreement negotiated between New Zealand Australia China Japan South Korea and 10 members of ASEAN.Now I wasn't a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which scrutinised both the bill and the treaty so I want to acknowledge the work of the chair the Hon Jenny Salesa who's probably watching this from home and other members of the committee. I note that the committee unanimously agreed to the recommended changes in the bill bar the one change around the application date which is as a result of a recommendation from the Regulations Review Committee. So it's good to see the system working as it's needed.One other item I did want to take note of within this particular bill is the futureproofing which is around some of the commentary around e-commerce and cryptocurrency. I note one submitter who was supportive of the bill thought that the agreement would provide some opportunities around cryptocurrency. The bill doesn't actually have specific cryptocurrency provisions but it does allow for e-commerce. As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which currently has an inquiry on cryptocurrency I thank the committee for bringing this to our attention. It is something that I'll take back to note as part of our select committee and I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I must congratulate the speaker Nicola Grigg. I think that's the best speech she's read so far.It is good to hear—the one good thing I did hear from over the other side—the usual cross-party approach on trade because obviously we all have New Zealand's interests at heart. The fact of the matter is that this is yet another plank another piece of the puzzle to make sure we're a robust trading nation that we are resilient that we are not putting all of our eggs in one basket and that we're diversifying. Some of those South-east Asian nations are thriving economies. Vietnam's a great example and other emerging economies like Laos. They're important parts of this agreement along with the very major trading nations like China as well.But the Minister's done a great job. We know that in true cross-party fashion we're building on work that's gone before and there's nothing wrong with that. So I absolutely commend this bill to the House. Great work Minister.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Ni hao Mr Speaker thank you—a pleasure to take a call on this second reading. Look I think having just listened to the previous speaker Tim van de Molen who has just resumed his seat—I think he's actually got his wrong speech notes. We might need to remind him that he's actually intending as we've heard his party to vote in support of this. If anyone's sitting at home listening to that they might be a little bit confused—but that's turning out to perhaps be something that's more familiar than not this time for some.Look I think this particular bill what it does is it introduces a requirement for entities—and only actually those entities that are specifically identified and captured under the Financial Markets Conduct Act—to report in an additional way. The purpose around that is quite simply the inclusion of climate-related disclosures. We've heard a lot around that in the second reading of this bill this evening. But I think it's also worth reminding members of the House that this is yes public-facing information. Then there is a level of accountability around that and my colleague Rachel Brooking has touched on the avenue by which the reporting board would provide guidance. So entities are simply not left to their own devices around that.But this is also an opportunity for entities to have an inward-facing opportunity to look at actually how they are performing as a business and perhaps they may choose to take some particular decisions around climate-related activities that their entity is doing to ensure that the longer-term focus is at play. I'm happy to commend this bill to the House.
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Xiexie Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this climate-related disclosures bill. As the Hon Scott Simpson has just said this bill went to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. One of the members on that committee is Naisi Chen she's been unable to speak on this bill so I asked her what she'd say about it and I ask—before I say it—for the forgiveness of Chinese speakers but she said ai di chu" which means "love the planet". And why did she say this? Well because this piece of legislation is one of the many tools that we need to respond to climate change both mitigation and adaptation. Fiddling or not we need to do many things and I'm so pleased to hear members of the Opposition just now—particularly Stuart Smith—being so enthusiastic about the need to take tangible measures to fight climate change. I couldn't agree with him any more than that.I wanted to focus very briefly on the key hook or mechanism within this legislation and that's found at clause 28. It's about the creation of climate standards. These are made by the external reporting board the XRB and then they're reported on by the climate reporting entities. So at what would be new section 19A there's an ability for the board to make non-binding guidance that can facilitate best practice. But then at 19B—this is the really important one—it talks about the purpose of climate standards and that is to "provide for or promote climate-related disclosures in order to"—and this is particularly important—at (a) "encourage entities to routinely consider the short- medium- and long-term risks and opportunities that climate change presents for the activities of the entity or the entity's group". It's that that's the key to this bill identifying those risks and opportunities reporting on them and then hopefully that will lead to the action that we all want. Thank you Mr Speaker I commend this bill to the House."
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Talofa Mr Speaker. I've taken a call on the first reading and second reading of the Water Services Bill and so it's my pleasure to rise and take what appears to be the final call for the third reading this evening. This bill is fundamentally about health but it's about infrastructure as well and particularly around waste and water but the latter being the key focus there. As we heard earlier in the House today when it comes to drinking water and the safe provision of that to communities up and down New Zealand doing nothing is simply not an option. And so what's pleasing in the bill that's currently before the House is that it does actually enable a transition period that sets a pathway forward for communities to understand what the expectations are and to simply move forward in that particular light.The observation over time is that there has been significant under-investment when it comes to water service infrastructure for many many years and so fundamentally this bill is about the intention to ensure that there is the provision of safe drinking water to communities. Some as we know have paid the ultimate sacrifice for that not being the case and that quite simply is not good enough. So when it comes to infrastructure when it comes to good safe delivery of water and safe drinking water—that is fundamentally what this bill is about. I commend it to the House.
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. I wasn't able to speak to the second reading unfortunately so forgive me if I stray slightly for a few seconds from third reading protocol. I just want to take a minute to thank our chair of the Health Committee Dr Liz Craig but also to take a minute to thank the many officials and the clerks who worked incredibly hard on what was a substantial body of work with 977 submissions 130 of those in person or via Zoom. We did listen to or read every single one of those submissions and changes were made as a result. My colleague across the way has referred to the warrantless entry to marae being declined and that was unanimously supported and championed by the entire select committee. Christchurch residents will also be pleased to hear that a strong focus was on enabling suppliers to provide chlorine-free water to consumers so long as it is safe and meets drinking standards because ensuring safe clean drinking water for all New Zealanders is the clear intention of this bill and something we can all get behind. Thank you so much and I commend this bill to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianDEPUTY SPEAKER: Members the House has resumed. Members before the dinner break we were debating the third reading of the Water Services Bill. We were on split call No. 9. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koe.
Dean JacquiASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House is resumed at 7 o'clock this evening.Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a very brief call on this bill. I was going to say that's a hard act to follow but the least I can do is at least speak to the bill that's before us the Water Services Bill. We all agree that we want clean safe drinking water and while this is the case for most New Zealanders on this side of the House we prefer not to leave people behind. We want to make sure that the approximately 20 percent of our population whose water quality is not currently guaranteed can also feel assured about the safety of their water. Many of those 20 percent live in rural communities and it would be such a disservice to not extend the same level of drinking water quality to them as their counterparts in the cities. The Minister's Supplementary Order Paper extends the deadline for when small suppliers can register with Taumata Arowai to four years and when they must provide a plan if required to seven years. These amendments were the direct response to concerns raised by the community and the rural suppliers. This extended transition window in conjunction with acceptable solutions provides sufficient time for these suppliers to organise themselves and become compliant with the legislation. It is certainly not a one-size-fits-all solution and doesn't need to be.Although not strictly part of the third reading it was a pleasure to be part of the select committee and given that I missed the second reading I would very quickly like to extend my appreciation to all the submitters for ensuring that this process was as informative as it was comprehensive. I commend this bill to the House.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and rise and take a call on this piece of legislation. I just want to commend the Minister for being bold enough to bring this piece of legislation to the House because as we've heard at the end of the day and everyone agrees—including those across the other side of the House—that people should be able to turn their taps on and have safe drinking water. That's just an everyday human right in my eyes and as we've heard the members opposite agree.I'd also like to commend and acknowledge the select committee who heard all these submissions from those in person and all those that wrote in and interesting to note that due to some of the submissions some of the concerns that were raised in those submissions there have been changes made to this piece of legislation which will be better for those that we've heard members on the opposite side of the House talk about: our small and rural suppliers. One of those changes is the additional time that has been allowed; seven years for people to be able to comply with this piece of legislation.Much of what I would like to say has been said by my other colleagues who have stood and taken a call this so I have nothing further to add except to commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Everybody should be able to turn on the tap and know their drinking water is safe and for me it's a real pleasure to be able to stand here at the third reading of the Water Services Bill because this is a bill that the Health Committee spent a considerable amount of time looking at and discussing over the past few months. So it's great to see it move forward to this stage.In total we had 977 written submissions and we heard 130 oral submissions and basically as a result we made quite a few changes. But one of the common themes and it's already been debated in the House is the need to make sure that our response fits the scale and complexity of the water scheme. So we did hear from a number of submitters—often rural suppliers who supply a lot of stock with water but also supplied a few houses for drinking water; similar issues of scale around marae and also around some holiday homes.So we were really pleased to be able to have a look at some of the acceptable solutions—there was an exposure draft on Taumata Arowai's website—because the bill allows Taumata Arowai to develop acceptable solutions which mean that you can actually scale the response and mean those suppliers don't have to comply with the full regulatory regime. And so looking at the one that was on the website looking at households being able to install off-the-shelf water treatment devices in their homes is really important.This is an important bill. There's been an extension in the Supplementary Order Paper stage for smaller suppliers to come on board but really great to commend it to the House.
Rurawhe Adrian; Dean JacquiREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. Madam Speaker I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Those bills are set down for third reading next sitting day.
Pugh MaureenClauses 1 and 2MAUREEN PUGH (National): I'd like to just take a short call on the title of this bill currently called the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill and suggest that we call this bill the Social Security (Long-term Dependency) Bill" because I believe that this is what we are condemning a lot of our most vulnerable people in this country to: long-term dependency on the State. For a socialist Government I anticipate that that is exactly what they are hoping to do. But for people that care about the long-term future of this country the financial viability of this country but mostly about the children that are being born into these homes this side of the House believes that we need to be creating independence financial security and really solid homes where families go off to work where children go off to school and they train and they grow up to be contributing members of this country. I think the title does not suit the outcome that this bill is going to deliver. I rest my case."
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I do note the Minister's response earlier when we were discussing the costs of this. The Minister revealed some of the other subsequent incentives or what would happen to beneficiaries on say the sole parent who would have their obligations changed and some of the transition from jobseeker to sole parent. The other financial benefits that are available the Minister did run through those but I wonder if she has put a dollar figure on it for those 5400 sole parents that would be changed and especially for the 2500 that are on the jobseeker benefit who would move over to sole parent and qualify for those other financial benefits. If she can quantify that please to help inform the discussion. Thank you.
Tinetti JanHon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Part 2 of the bill sets out transitional provisions to improve the client experience and comes into force on 11 October 2021. This allows for a 28-day transition period prior to the policy's removal which will improve the client experience for clients with the benefit application or change in circumstances around the time of the policy's removal by preventing multiple changes to their benefit type and/or work or work preparation obligations within a short period of time. The transition period also extends 28 days after the policy's removal. The dates of application decision by the Ministry of Social Development and benefit commencement or corresponding dates for a change in circumstances can be spread across several weeks. A broad window is therefore required to ensure equitable treatment across a range of situations within the transition period and to ensure a streamlined process for clients.
Rurawhe AdrianPart 2 Transitional savings and related provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 17 and the Schedule Transitional savings and related provisions". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the Minister for her very revealing reply to my earlier questions. She said that equity between kids in a household on welfare and a household with parents working was out of the scope of this bill. She then went on to talk about all of the terrible impacts of parents having to work in households where people are dependent on benefits. She talked about toxic stress for example. Well can I just offer a few thoughts to the Minister about why the kids of working households and their welfare is relevant and is in scope for this bill.You see this Parliament is here to approve the use of taxes for the Government's purposes and the people who are working—they are compulsorily in this country taxpayers and so they do have an interest in how money is used. And they might reasonably ask if we are going to spend money not having people working staying on benefits to reduce toxic stress then it might be relevant to understand what sort of toxic stress and other concerns the Minister has—apply to the people paying the bills. If we're concerned about the people getting the Government money from the taxpayer via the Treasury via the Ministry of Social Development I think we should be concerned for all kids in all households. And if it's true that having to work is such a terrible thing maybe the Minister could get up and tell us what sort of research they have done as a baseline for all those kids whose parents work and pay taxes and have to go back to work within one year already. I think we should be worried about their welfare too.Now that I've explained I hope to the Minister why actually all children including those in working households are in scope for this bill and considering them is important before we set the levels of benefits for kids in benefit-led households can the Minister get up and explain: has she studied and has this policy been informed by the experience of kids in working households? How many of them have parents who have to go back to work within one year? That's very relevant and I'd love the Minister to get up and explain it to us.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for raising the issue of the first 1000 days and referencing the National Party's plan its policy on the first 1000 days. I actually wrote that component of that policy so I firmly stand behind it. But what the first 1000 days is about is not dedicating full-time at-home care for mums and their babies or dads and their new babies. It's about creating that security with those children and if you talk or listen to experts like Nathan Wallis he will tell you that even children in day care can have those bonds if the facility manages the care of those children and rearranges their rosters and the process that they install there. But one thing that I can't reconcile with this bill which has been raised is that if you are a working parent you are entitled to 12 months' parental leave. Six months of that is paid. But if you are not working you have no obligation to go back to work and so there is a disconnect and a misalignment between people who are working full-time and those who are not and receiving care from the State.So how does the Minister reconcile that and would she consider some other time frame some other limit to people who are caring for children on benefit before they have to re-join the workforce? One of the things that I do note Minister when we are talking about work readiness is that when someone has a time limit on it when they have a time period that they have to work towards what they are doing is starting to think about types of jobs that they might be interested in the types of jobs that may be available to them in their local environment. Then they start thinking about the skills that they need to enter into those jobs and then they start thinking about the training that they need or the upskilling that they might need or even going out and getting work in preparation for getting back into the workforce full-time. But if there's no time limit on that if it's very open-ended then what is the incentive for people to actually start thinking about their skills what skills they may need to develop what re-education they may need for that work preparation? So without any kind of time limit on it what I think is going to happen—and this Government will probably be very well aware of it—is that we are opening the door to very long-term benefit dependency and people staying out of the workforce because there is no incentive no motivation for them to re-enter the workforce. It just makes it harder on those people that do go back because we all have to remember that the people who do go back to work are the ones that are paying for those that don't.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair I appreciate that. I think it's really important that we keep focusing on the children here. The Minister has talked about working groups doing this and that with policy; it is also very important to look at experience. I was an experienced mother who went back to work I've watched my daughters go back to work after having children and I've watched thousands and thousands of women retrain to go back to work in my previous job. So much of going back to work after having children is about confidence. There is nothing in this bill that tells me that women are going to be given more confidence to get back into the workforce eventually. The longer someone is unemployed the harder it is to re-enter the workforce—that sense of self-worth and that confidence just ebbs away. This is not a compassionate bill.The Minister has already said that she sees the biggest impact of this bill being on Māori and on women and sadly I think she is right. I think the biggest impact will be on Māori and on women. There will be greater benefit dependency by Māori and by women and the children of those women will suffer. The children who are in a benefit-dependent family will suffer all because this Government wants to have their so-called kindness and compassion—but the reality is they will suffer.
Logie Jan; Tinetti JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. Just I guess more to that point I'm interested in hearing from the Minister because the Greens absolutely support the view articulated by the Minister. We believe that parents particularly mums are best placed to assist the needs of their whānau and sometimes it's in the best interests of the whānau for mum to go back to work because her head's been done in staying at home 24/7 because my goodness that is a tough tough job. Rewarding I hear but tough—right? And so sometimes going back to work is the right thing for the whānau but the mum and the whānau are the best people to be able to assess whether that's the case or not. The sense that there's a blanket rule that can be applied to every single family regardless of the mental health of the mum the aptitude of the mum the health of the baby a history of violence and trauma or not or whether there's actually attachment issues that require the parent to put themselves first at home with the baby regardless of whether they want to be going back to work. The fact—the idea that we can just pretend that none of those differences exist and apply a blanket rule does my head in to be perfectly frank. So we're very pleased to see this piece of legislation and the Minister's spoken very clearly and articulately that actually there's no evidence of this policy supporting people back into work faster. I suspect that's because of those diversity of experiences and needs. But I'm wondering if the Minister has seen any evidence that sanctions work at all in our welfare system and how that may have impacted her decision making in light of this legislation?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: That's actually part of the broader review that we will have going on into the welfare area. I'm looking forward to finding that and reading through that as I'm sure the member will be and her party as well. But I'm really delighted that we will be looking into that because it does need examination and we do need to be looking into the evidence of the impacts of sanctions. So it will be part—and I can give you that reassurance—of the broader review that will be happening or is happening.
Grigg Nicola; Tinetti JanNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. I congratulate the Minister on her ambitions for women and I must say I share much of that sentiment to a degree. I think I made some commentary in this House last time I spoke on this bill about there being quite an ideological difference from these two sides of the House around this policy change. As much as there are ideological arguments to be had there's also data-driven arguments to have and we on this side of the Chamber especially like to make our decisions based in data. So first of all I'd like to ask the Minister about any impact assessment that has been had on women around the benefits of going back into the workforce or at least attempting to go back into the workforce after that 12-month period once that subsequent or second or third child turns one. I'd also like to caveat those comments with a note from the OECD which says that paid work is the most effective way of reducing the risk of family poverty enhancing child development and generally giving children the best start to life". So in the context of that comment from the OECD I'd just like to ask the Minister two further questions: one is she confident that the advice on the bill accounted for the harms of long-term benefit dependency and if so why; and two where in the official advice are the harms of long-term benefit dependency thoroughly considered? Thank you Mr Chair. Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I think it's important to establish that what the member with that question is assuming is that this policy setting is reducing long-term benefit dependency and what we do know is that the evidence shows that the current policy has not been effective in reducing time on benefit or improving financial or social outcomes. In fact what it has done is taken away choices for those families and I think that that's really important. I feel that the question is a bit of a redundant question in the fact that it's making an assumption around that long-term benefit dependency and that's not what happens. Under the current policy settings that benefit dependency did not reduce; we created greater inequities within the system. We are dealing with those inequities with rectifying the settings of this policy change now. So there is no evidence to suggest that removing the policy will have a negative impact on parents off benefit or employment outcomes. The evidence does not exist and the Ministry of Social Development will continue to offer a range of employment initiatives services and support. I kind of agree with the member that it's important that we have those services and support there for parents who are able to be in a position to make those choices to work. But equally we want those parents to make the choices and to have realistic choices of what is best for their whānau and to give them a realistic choice of what is best for their whānau and not have that choice whittled away and taken away from them. That is the critical key to what we are rectifying with this bill here."
Logie Jan; Tinetti JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a couple of quick questions to the Minister. The Greens are very supportive of this piece of legislation and we believe it's well overdue to remove this kind of unfair treatment of subsequent children compared to other kids. We want all kids to be able to get the parenting that they need and that their parents are able to give them.So from listening to the previous member from the National Party who seem to be concerned about welfare dependency—as if that was a disconnected thing from the rest of society and could be resolved by sanctions and punishment of parents—I wonder if the Minister would like to talk to some of the drivers about why sole parents may need and benefit from receiving income support for a period of time to support themselves and their children.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I'd like to thank the member for that question and yes I think that the intent of this is to give those parents choice around what's best for their family and what's best for their children. I believe that it is really important that we create a realistic and sensible choice for those families and for those sole parents.It was only last year that the Opposition put out their seven-point plan around the importance of the first 1000 days in a young person's life. I believe that getting rid of the policy settings as they stand at the moment supports the 1000 days and those first 1000 days of a young person's life because it gives a realistic choice that people can stay at home and be the first parent and the first teacher of their child. I think that that's incredibly important if that's what works best for their family because everybody needs to be able to make that choice and not having something that's being imposed upon them and choices taken away from them is incredibly important. That makes certain that they are providing the best that they can for their children. So I believe that that is the real reason why we are looking at this.I know that it was part of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's recommendations; they put this forward that this was going to make a big difference to those families but also—and something that is dear to my heart—a huge difference to women because we know that the majority of sole parents receiving this or in this situation as it stands are women. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group acknowledged and identified that this was going to have the biggest impact on Māori and women. I couldn't be happier that we're making this difference here with this policy setting change.
Simmonds Penny; Tinetti JanPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm quite sure that everyone in this Chamber agrees that we should be firmly and resolutely focused on reducing child poverty. So I would be very interested to hear from the Minister why over 30000 more children are living in benefit dependent households since October 2017 when this Government came into power and how will this bill reverse this trend of more children growing up in benefit dependent households which are so clearly aligned with child poverty?If the Minister isn't in a position to answer that yet I'll give her one more question. I would like to know—given that since Labour came to power there have been 74000 more people on jobseeker support and 84000 more people on the main benefit—does this Government actually accept that long-term welfare dependency is harmful? If so what policies do they have to reduce welfare dependency? And how again is this bill going to help reduce that welfare dependency with its close alignment with child poverty?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The member opposite Penny Simmonds will be pleased to know I'm certain that this bill will support 42000 children and help them in their journey as she is suggesting towards moving out of poverty. What I will say too is that the evidence shows that the current policy has not been effective in reducing time on the benefit. So there was a thought that this would increase time or that the previous policy or the policy as it stands at the moment would reduce time on the benefit. That is not what the evidence has shown. Also the evidence has not shown that the current policy has improved financial or social outcomes for those people on this benefit. So while this is a small scope—this particular bill is a very narrow scope and creates a very narrow policy setting—it isn't about the fact of looking at the increasing time on the benefit because it doesn't currently show that. The evidence doesn't show that this has been effective in getting that aim anyway. So this is about equity—about creating equity in the current policy settings.
Rurawhe AdrianSOCIAL SECURITY (SUBSEQUENT CHILD POLICY REMOVAL) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Substantive and consequential amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come now to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 15 Substantive and consequential amendments". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Hipango Harete; Faafoi KrisHARETE HIPANGO (National): With respect Minister that doesn't answer the question I put to you. My question is—the purpose of this bill is identified with specifically addressing Resolution 2178 and you've talked about the elements under that resolution. My question Minister is that you leading this proposed legislation in addressing counter-terrorism to the best effect in New Zealand—why was recommendation 1 under the commission of inquiry which is Ensure a Minister is given responsibility and accountability to lead and coordinate the counter-terrorism effort" and recommendation 2 to "Establish a new national intelligence and security agency"—those recommendations Minister are very specific and would clearly fit within the purpose of this legislation in dealing with and defeating counter-terrorism in New Zealand. Why has that not been included? Or more so Minister why have you overlooked that being addressed within this counter-terrorism legislation?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for the question. The priority in this instance and for this piece of legislation was to ensure that another recommendation of the royal commission of inquiry—around the likes of planning and preparation control orders etc.—was prioritised to give the authorities the tools in order to prevent another offence of that ilk occurring again something which we all will agree with. I think Mr Little outlined in his second reading contribution that the issues around recommendations 1 and 2 that the member has referred to are issues that the Government continues to work on. I would not want the work on that to hold up the work that is contained in this legislation which will go a long way to give the tools to our authorities to prevent terrorist attacks occurring again."
Hipango Harete; Faafoi KrisHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. Minister following on from that you've clarified for the benefit of the public Resolution 2178 from the United Nations Security Council in 2014. Again coming in under the purposes of this bill it is specific to addressing the recommendations within that resolution. My question Minister is: why is it that the drafting of this legislation and you as the Minister leading the bill did not see fit as a priority the recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry giving it the same regard and positioning as Resolution 2178 which is specific to dealing with how best to address counter-terrorism in New Zealand?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): My understanding is that making sure that we include the United Nations Resolution 2178 within this piece of legislation means that we give full effect to it. It is connected to some new aspects within this legislation around international travel to or through New Zealand or its waters with the intent to undertake a terrorist act. I think the member will note that that resolution has been around since 2014 as it says in the clause that she mentioned and the Government has seen fit to make sure that it comes fully into effect and this piece of legislation is the vehicle in which we can do that.
Hipango Harete; Faafoi KrisHARETE HIPANGO (National): Minister I draw your attention to—taking my mask off first!—Part 1 purpose of the bill section 4 where there is an amendment proposed for the insertion of Resolution 2178. Minister are you able to give clarity as to why there has been priority in recognising and addressing Resolution 2178 under this bill and not addressing recommendations 1 and 2 of the commission of inquiry which deals with important aspects of addressing counter-terrorism under this bill?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): For those who may be watching at home Resolution 2178 is a United Nations resolution and the inclusion of that within this piece of legislation makes sure that we fulfil our international commitments to that resolution. It's something that can be done relatively easily within this piece of legislation. In terms of the member's juxtaposition of that two recommendations 1 and 2 I believe she mentioned around the royal commission of inquiry I'd also note that there is a large amount of work to make sure that all of the recommendations of the royal commission are worked through and acted. That is obviously being led by the Minister responsible for that the Hon Andrew Little. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a matter of prioritisation. It's just that when we are passing this piece of counter-terrorism legislation it's an opportunity for us to make sure that we fully meet our international obligations underneath that under that resolution of the United Nations.
Tuiono Teanau; Faafoi KrisTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you for that. I have a question specifically around Māori around land protectors as well folks that occupy their ancestral lands which is fairly common in Te Ao Māori—Ihumātao Pūtiki—and trying to ensure that they don't get caught up in the broadening of the definition of this. Does the Minister believe that this bill takes into account Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the right to tino rangatiratanga given the broad powers available to the Crown under control orders? And has the Government carried out adequate and fair consultation with tangata whenua to establish this?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Important in the safeguards which exist and will continue to exist when this piece of legislation is passed is the right to protest. Again I go back to the three tests of a terrorist act that need to be met and in no way would I see a lawful protest of people around land rights getting anywhere close to being a prosecution within this piece of legislation. I will note some of the concerns raised at the select committee stage by Māori and iwi submitters. The nature of counter-terrorism legislation means that we can undertake very limited consultation ahead of legislation being proposed and tabled in the House. So we acknowledge some of the frustrations that have come about by that but by their very nature undertaking consultation early can give opportunity for gaps in the proposed system to be taken advantage of. And again that's a balance of making sure the national security interests and the consultation with stakeholders is balanced and we did believe that the select committee was the right place and acknowledge that there were submissions made around these concerns. It was the right place to ensure that the views of many including Māori stakeholders—was the right place for those views and concerns to be aired.
Tuiono Teanau; Faafoi KrisTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you. Just to follow up on that: if someone is subject to the control orders regime after they have already been punished for a period of imprisonment will the further limits on their rights from the control orders result in that person receiving rehabilitation or are imprisonment and control orders likely to result in further alienation and ultimately further radicalisation and extremism? So I kind of want to know about how this will intersect with other parts of legislation or policy to make sure that we can sort of take more of a holistic approach.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Rehabilitation is certainly one of the options that could be undertaken as part of a control order in the future under the regime. I would also point out that at the end of the day it will be a judge who will make a judgment as to what is appropriate in terms of the conditions of a control order. So if a judge believes that some of the aspects of a proposed control order that is being sought don't meet the risk that an individual or individuals may pose then it's the judge's decision as to whether or not that condition is imposed.So I think a check of the judiciary in that respect is important to make sure that any constraints upon the individual meet the risk that the individual might meet. But just to reiterate the question from the member: rehabilitation could definitely be one of the options available as part of a control order regime over an individual.
McKee Nicole; Faafoi KrisNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister you're aware that we had quite a robust discussion within the Justice Committee about the use of the word fear" and removing "terror" in response to having "fear". Then we of course removed that and went to "intimidate". And that change of word "intimidate" was something that was agreed amongst all of the select committee although there have been concerns that "intimidate" is still lowering the threshold. So Minister for clarity really for the viewers at home in order for them to understand why we have removed the word "terror" or "terrorist" and replaced it with "intimidation" is the Minister able to give us examples of where "intimidate" would or could be used by officials in prosecutions and what difference there is between inciting terror as opposed to intimidation?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair thank you for that. One of the anomalies with the definition of terror as it currently stands within the legislation is that it includes the word "terror". So there was a circular argument to be had about the definition of terror there. I do understand that along with officials the members of the select committee did have a robust debate around where the threshold should be. I also understand that officials outlined that countries similar to us—the likes of the UK and Australia—use "intimidate" as a threshold. It's slowly becoming the international norm to have intimidation as the threshold within other pieces of legislation.The proposed change from "terror" to "fear" was an issue that attracted most submissions. The issue was taken to Cabinet post the select committee's departmental report and the revision-tracked version being delivered by the select committee. I think it's difficult to give a number of scenarios around what intimidation would be. It is probably for those who studiously watch these pieces of legislation a slight lowering of the threshold but I will note and I understand that it was unanimous amongst the committee and the Government—given some of the reasoning that the committee made—decided to agree with it."