edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
11. Question No. 11—PoliceSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Police: Is she concerned gang membership in New Zealand is continuing to increase; if so does the Government have a target to reduce the number of gang members?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): It would be more accurate to say that the number on the national gang list has increased. However I would note the comments from the Police Commissioner that the list was created for intelligence purposes not to give us an accurate statistical picture of gang membership or activity. I also note that he has expressed a lack of confidence in the accuracy of these numbers. The Government is committed to combating the harm caused by organised crime through a variety of measures including introducing firearms prohibition orders; amending the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to hit the gangs in their pockets where it hurts the most; investing record amounts into our police service; committing to recruiting an additional 1800 police officers; and ensuring that we now have the largest police workforce ever.Simeon Brown: Point of order. There were two parts to that question. I believe the Minister addressed the first part but I didn't hear anything about whether the Government has a target to reduce the number of gang members.SPEAKER: I think the Minister effectively answered the question when she said that there wasn't a statistically valid way of counting them.Simeon Brown: Does she accept that gang membership is now over 8000 members; and if not why not?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I would note the comments from the Police Commissioner that the list was created for intelligence purposes not to give us an accurate statistical picture of gang membership or activity. I also note that he has expressed a lack of confidence in the accuracy—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Some of us actually want to hear the answer.Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The Government has committed to combating the harm caused by organised crime. Already as part of Operation Tauwhiro police have seized 350 firearms $2.46 million in cash 8.6 kilograms of meth; arrested 378 people; and conducted 291 search warrants.Simeon Brown: Does she accept that gang membership is now over 8000 members; and if not why not?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I have said twice now that those numbers are not statistically correct. The gang list is an intelligence tool only. It is not an accurate measure of gang numbers in New Zealand.Simeon Brown: Does the Minister have no confidence in the police intelligence which says that gang membership is now over 8000 in New Zealand?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I've answered this question three times now and I will repeat it for the benefit of the member. The comments from the Police Commissioner were that the list was created for intelligence purposes not to give us an accurate statistical picture of gang membership or activity.Simeon Brown: What is the number of gang members on the gang intelligence list?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The total number of people on the national gang list is 8006.
10. Question No. 10—TransportTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 10—Transport10. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcement has he made about pathways to a net zero emission transport sector?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Last week I released Hīkina te Kohupara - Kia mauri ora ai te iwi: Transport Emissions: Pathways to Net Zero by 2050 a Ministry of Transport green paper outlining potential policies and pathways to a net zero emissions transport sector as part of our work to develop an emissions reduction plan in response to the draft recommendations of the independent climate commission. We've already taken steps to reduce emissions with policies like the Clean Car Standard and increased investment in public transport walking and cycling but Hīkina te Kohupara shows that we have much more work to do.Terisa Ngobi: Why is decarbonising the transport sector a focus for the Government?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Tackling the climate emergency is a priority for our Government. The transport sector produces 47 percent of New Zealand's carbon dioxide emissions and between 1990 and 2018 those domestic transport emissions increased by 90 percent. Reaching New Zealand's goal of net zero carbon by 2050 would unclog our cities clean up our air support the creation of new businesses in low-carbon industries and create sustainable jobs across the country.Terisa Ngobi: What are the next steps?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: While the pathways outlined in Hīkina te Kohupara are not Government policy we want to have a national conversation about the changes that we all need to make. Some of the potential changes are potentially significant but we cannot meet our emissions reduction targets without change. We want to hear from New Zealanders over the coming weeks on the suggestions in Hīkina te Kohupara and I ask for all New Zealanders to engage in this important national debate with an eye to our shared future not simply to the partisan politics of the day. This work will feed into our emissions reduction plan which will be released by the end of the year.Hon Paul Goldsmith: On your bike!SPEAKER: Mr Goldsmith do you have another comment to make to me?
7. Question No. 7—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Education: What progress has the Government made in supporting schools with property maintenance projects? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): In December 2019 I announced a school investment package as part of the Government's New Zealand Upgrade Programme. Nearly every State school received a one-off cash injection of up to $400000 to deliver property projects that had been deferred or delayed. I'm pleased to be able to report that a thousand of those projects have been completed so far across 639 schools. This is a significant milestone and a fantastic achievement for those schools. It's good for the schools and for the builders and builders' merchants in towns up and down the country. These projects have helped to keep our economy ticking over during a challenging period. Jo Luxton: Why was it important for the Government to deliver this special package of funding? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The package has given every school the ability to undertake property projects that had been otherwise put off and it came alongside the significant funding that the Government's been investing in schools. Schools have been able to use this funding among other things to upgrade classrooms and learning spaces install energy-efficient heating and lighting resurface outdoor courts and paved areas install shade sails and covered areas and upgrade playing areas and sports facilities. Jo Luxton: Where was the 1000th school investment package project completed? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. It's very fitting that the 1000th project to be completed was in Whanganui which is in fact where we announced the package 18 months ago. Whanganui Intermediate received $399861 in funding and they put this towards a number of projects including relocating a two-classroom block to another area of the school and installing fencing heat pumps and new signage throughout the school. Jo Luxton: Is he satisfied with schools' progress in rolling out these projects? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes indeed I am. More than 3800 projects across New Zealand are in the various stages of delivery. Hundreds of schools have been re-clad or had insulated walls. They've had improved heating systems landscaped play areas and resurfaced courts just to name some of those projects. It's also important to remember that not long after we announced the money and just as schools were starting to get under way we had lockdown—the COVID-19 lockdown—which did delay a number of these projects and schools have done a very good job of catching up and making up for lost time.
4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government deliver on all of its past Budget commitments?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Budget 2021 Securing our Recovery will be this Government's first Budget in which we will appropriate the first Budget commitments of this Government.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will the Government deliver on its 2017 commitment to spend $2 billion on the KiwiBuild programme; and if so when?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If I recall correctly the appropriation for that was done in Budget 2018. That is being rolled out over a period of time. The programme has been subject to some reorganisation obviously since then.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will the Government spend all of the funds appropriated in Budget 2018 for the billion trees programme; and if so how many trees have been planted under that programme?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously Governments have hundreds of Budget commitments. If the member wants a specific answer he should put that question down on notice.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well has the Government delivered on its Budget 2018 commitment to spend $300 million on 1800 more police given they're still 578 officers short?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In respect of the first part of the question we'd have to check on the dollars. In respect of the second part of the question we're very proud of the fact that we have put more than those 1800 police through their training and out there on to the beat.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will the Government deliver on its commitment to spend $1.8 billion on seed funding for Auckland light rail wherein not even a business case has been completed?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is well aware of the fact that that money was allocated and that the work is ongoing on that. Obviously the Government intends to make significant progress on addressing the incredible deficit in Auckland transport funding that we were left when we came in.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Government now have around $19 billion for reprioritising from previous Budget commitments that haven't been fulfilled?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the member I'd definitely need to check his numbers on that one.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Westpac has released its latest quarterly review on the economy. The bank's economists note that New Zealand's recovery is gaining traction underpinned by continuing increases in household spending lower than expected unemployment stronger construction sector and firmer activity in the manufacturing sector. They expect economic activity will continue to strengthen over the year ahead with a continued support from fiscal and monetary policy. However Westpac warns that the economy is expected to take time to recover as vaccines are rolled out around the world and conditions are set to remain uneven across sectors. Global activity is on the mend but the recovery is uneven there too.Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Securing the economic recovery in New Zealand has been supported by the manufacturing sector. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index remains in expansion mode at 58.4 in April. This is 5.2 points down from that record all-time high in March but it's still the second-highest result since July 2020 when New Zealand came out of lockdown. The main drivers of this result continue to be production and new orders with manufacturers seeing an increase in inquiries and orders particularly in the building industry.Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on other sectors of the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index also expanded up 8.3 points to 61.2 in April to reach its highest level since the survey began in 2007. The improvement was widespread with increases in activities and sales new orders and employment. Indeed the employment component in the index hit a record high of 60.8. Along with the above average employment reading in the Performance of Manufacturing Index the BNZ's economists say it suggests a rapid pick-up in job growth.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the Plant Variety Rights Bill first reading. I want to acknowledge the member to my left Rachel Brooking who has given a very extensive report on some of the clauses that the bill covers; so I will try to keep my contributions to just our Green Party position on the bill. But in summary this bill will modernise New Zealand's plant variety rights regime which is a fixed-term intellectual property right granted to plant breeders over varieties they develop. The Green Party strongly supports the proposed kaitiaki relationship considerations and we actually do think that the principle of bringing these into legislation has a lot of merit and we're really excited to debate these and discuss with stakeholders at select committee but we do think that the appropriate course of action for this change is in wider legislation protecting taonga species from bioprospecting as Wai 262 may have led us to. This issue can be addressed without also extending intellectual property rights to the detriment of farmers or consumers.So when we look at moving us closer to actually meeting our Te Tiriti obligations in relationship to also meeting our obligations to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) it's important to contextualise that the CPTPP contains a Treaty protection clause that the Waitangi Tribunal specifically found to be insufficient to protect Māori rights and our obligations pursuant to Te Tiriti. Despite this our Government did not change the Treaty protection clause and so we're put in a situation where we have this amazing proposal to develop kaitiaki relationship considerations but at the cost of them coming with us swallowing a dead rat in the form of the CPTPP. We believe that the merit of those kaitiaki relationships perhaps could be unpacked at select committee but we should not accept something that will ultimately create inequities in society in the nature of the design of the CPTPP. Instead we should just be looking at upholding our Te Tiriti obligations in a way that genuinely creates trade for all not just trade for people who already hold a lot of power in our international economies or trade that ultimately will continue benefiting Pākehā.So for those reasons the Green Party does not support this bill but we do look forward to really robust conversations at select committee.
Henare Peeni; Salesa JennyInstruction to the Health CommitteeHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 29 October 2021.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill — Instruction to Select Committee
Twyford PhilInstruction to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade CommitteeHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): I move That the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be reported to the House four months and one day after it has its first reading.Motion agreed to.
Rurawhe AdrianREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Building (Building Products and Methods Modular Components and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. Madam Speaker I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
van de Molen Tim; Williams Poto; Rurawhe AdrianTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Yeah thanks. Just a quick one on this around the commencement date. We'd seen part of it being pushed out from 12 months to 15 months for a number of the clauses there and there was some concern that the 12-month time frame wouldn't be sufficient to enable the detailed regulations to be put in place. I'd be really interested to hear from the Minister which particular regulations she feels wouldn't be able to be met within the 12-month time frame. Just really excited about getting this started as soon as possible I suppose. So why the need for pushing it out that extra three months? What aspects does she fear will be particularly complex that require that additional three months?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I think 130-odd pages of regulations and wanting to ensure that we get this absolutely right is the answer to that question.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will report this bill without amendment.House resumed.
Rurawhe AdrianClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the debate on clauses 1 and 2. These are the title and commencement clauses. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
SpeechPart 2 agreed to.
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I'll come to the building levy that Mr van de Molen raised as an issue. The intent of this is to allow for you know a broadening of the scope that the levy can be spent on and I guess in terms of top of mind monitoring overseeing and improving the performance of the building sector is probably right up there at the top of the list.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. To the Minister: we certainly are still waiting for an answer to the last one from Mr Seymour but I'd like to add a further question. During the discussion at select committee the issue was raised about the modular component manufacturer having the opportunity to certify their own product as complying with the design. There was an issue raised by Engineering New Zealand and councils that having the designer check that the manufactured product actually met the design intent was an important safeguard. We were assured by officials that the auditing and checking functions included in this amendment bill were sufficient yet there must still be a concern amongst stakeholders that unfortunately there is no role for the designer in checking whether a product they've designed and which is manufactured by an approved organisation actually meets the design intent and looks like the product they designed. So could the Minister provide some assurance that the controls in the bill are sufficient?
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): That is a very good example for people watching of how not to answer a question in committee. The question was put. It was fair. I thought it was reasonable; it just wasn't answered. Instead we got a Minister engaged in personal attacks saying that maybe I had some intention to not support innovation and questioning whether I myself had built a house. I'm not sure how that's relevant to actually reading the law. Many members haven't built a house but they still have to vote on laws. Then she talked about a range of things such as climate change which are completely irrelevant to the question.The question is simply: if the law that we have defining a building product and a building method as set out in this legislation that the Minister has brought to the committee is adequate why does the Governor-General need the ability to change it? If on the other hand the Governor-General has the power to define by Order in Council then why is it that we have these definitions put in place? It is a simple question. It's either one or the other. People will look to this and they'll say Well I actually want to know by reading the law what a building method or a building product is." and we don't want to see that a building product can be defined in one way but then that definition can be cancelled. We don't want to see that a building method can be defined in one way except if it's not and even if it's not the Governor-General by Order in Council can say that it is. People who read this law are really none the wiser as to whether it's the courts or the Governor-General that decide and if it's the Governor-General what criteria they use.The questions are not complicated. I think it would be really helpful if the Minister rather than attacking me in the Chamber could just get up and not impugn any motives and not talk about innovation or climate change but just say how people who want to build houses in New Zealand should understand this law. I'll give the Minister another chance to do that."
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you Mr Chair. I find it curious that the member who's just resumed his seat David Seymour wants to place impositions upon people who build houses that won't allow them to build in innovative and creative ways. Perhaps that member knows something about the future of building that the rest of us don't know? I'm not sure that he does. I don't know whether that member has built a house or not but I know that over the course of my lifetime the way we build houses the things that go into them to make them warmer and drier and healthier for us has changed over time. Now part of this discussion is about ensuring that we don't close off opportunities for innovation and creativity into the future. I mean you know I think about things like the options of the way we do things with regards to technology—being able to 3-D print major components of things as well. I know the member is shaking his head but it is an important point to note that we should not close off our options to innovation if we are wanting to make sure that we build for climate change that we build for futureproofing.David Seymour: Ha ha!Hon POTO WILLIAMS: And the member mocks and laughs but that's the whole point—that the select committee did very little to change this because they were sure that there is an appropriate amount of scrutiny within this. Because let me just say to the member the safeguards within this bill include the obligation to consult and as a disallowable instrument may be reviewed by the Regulations Review Committee and disallowed by Parliament. Now if that's not scrutiny in terms of the definition that would be appropriate to people I'm not entirely sure what is.Now before I go any further I didn't say this beforehand but I do want to thank the committee for the work that they have done on this and I want to thank the officials who've worked on not only this part of the building reform but other pieces of work to ensure that at the end of the day we build safely; we build buildings that we can futureproof buildings that actually don't cost us a lot to heat buildings that in terms of their maintenance and energy costs help us to meet our obligations and at the end of the day help us to build more homes for Kiwis.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to explore what my colleague Tim van de Molen talked about in clause 7 which inserts new sections 9A and 9B. I want to draw the Minister's attention to new section 9A(3) which says In determining whether something could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building the following are relevant considerations: (a) the purposes for which the thing is ordinarily used: (b) the purposes for which the manufacturer or supplier intends the thing to be used: (c) the purposes for which the thing is represented as being used for: (d) the purposes for which the thing is likely to be used (because of the way which it is presented or for any other reason)." But it goes on into subsection (4) saying that "The matters listed in subsection (3) are relevant but not determinative considerations and do not limit what may be considered."The Regulations Review Committee as the Minister will be aware was very concerned about the "Henry VIII" powers in this particular clause. My question to the Minister is: how can this be justified? While we're supporting the bill I certainly have concerns about this. Always the officials would like to expand their ability to make regulations and do it and the regulations won't have the same scrutiny that this bill has. I certainly have concerns about this because overreaches are something that happens over time. I think this is a relatively small but actually quite important step down that path and it's something I'm not that comfortable with. I don't understand how that can be justified in this bill to that extent. The Regulations Review Committee recommended that it be much more strictly defined than in this iteration of the bill and I think that's a very fair observation from the Regulations Review Committee. I've not been a permanent member on the committee but I have sat on it from time to time—and I note one of the members on the other side who is on the committee. It is a good committee and they quite rightly spend a lot of time on the stuff that quite frankly would bore most people to tears. But it's really important and it's important because the overreach in these things—these bits of legislation are around for a long time and the justification for this being in here is that building methods and components will change over time; therefore they need the flexibility. I accept that to a point but the devil is going to be in the detail of those regulations and we aren't debating that. We're debating the overarching legislation and the Regulations Review Committee said it needed to be tighter. I would just like to hear the justification as to why it doesn't meet the standard that the Regulations Review Committee thinks it should."
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I completely concur with the member on that. With regard to the products that come through the Australian system we will leverage off that system in terms of product safety. With regard to lead in the water you're absolutely right and I completely agree that there is no safe level of lead in our drinking water. I support local authorities local councils in their testing of water. I think there is a co-relation the member is wanting to draw with some of the products that are used by plumbers that may then lead to leaching of lead into drinking-water supplies. I have to say that some of the information that I have seen with regard to resting doesn't demonstrate that doesn't prove that. However I think that part of the issue is the selection of products that people put into their homes and there's no way—I'm wanting to say to the member—that the balance is cost versus health. That is not the argument here. The argument here is ensuring that we get the best product information that people can make well-informed decisions and that we have systems set up that leverage off all the information that is available that can then be put out to the public so they can make the best choices that they can in terms of the products that go into their homes.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I thank the Minister. Just in slight reply my understanding is that 80 percent of the people supplying into New Zealand are supplying into Australia where they would be required to get the third-party independent testing to show that it's safe. So I'm just curious about the assertion that it would raise costs in some way to ensure that we're eliminating from our market any products that might be leaching lead into drinking water. I don't know a single parent who would say that they prefer to save money and cause their child irreversible brain damage by having public health impacts.So I really question whether or not this is striking the right balance when there is no safe level of lead and it's impossible to remediate once someone's been exposed. Arguably the most vulnerable people in our community are the ones who are least likely to know the products and to have the means to ensure that the products that are being installed in their homes are to the standard that we would expect. I hear what the Minister is saying—that this regime will enable the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to do more—but I would argue very strongly that we are far behind the rest of the world on this and that we need to move towards a lead-free standard for all drinking-water products. Of course there are other issues around lead and drinking water which might be the responsibility of councils but there are very widespread long-terms public health impacts from lead that we have to confront and do something about.
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I thank the member for the question. I guess like myself the Master Plumbers have been huge advocates of this work in ensuring that lead is not in our drinking water. Some of the recent issues that have happened across the country would lead us to have sympathy for that point of view. I do have to say that the process we're hoping to initiate here will give the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) much more opportunity to monitor and then consider whether to take prosecutions or penalise those suppliers and those manufacturers of that tapware that doesn't meet standards.With regard to having a voluntary code as opposed to something that is far more regulated and monitored we've decided to go for a balance here. We believe that there is lots of information out there that is available for people to make the rights kinds of decisions for the tapware and the products they use. However the balance we need to have here is about having a fully regulated system where all products are put through a particular process and that would be hugely onerous and would not meet our intentions of being able to build quickly and build quality in as well.I think with regard to the discussion that I had with the Master Plumbers and you may have had this conversation with them as well—apologies Mr Chair. This may have been a conversation that the member had with them as well in that some of the products that they talked to me about were products that they purchased over the internet not through what we would call the usual supply market and we know that our suppliers and our manufacturers are self-regulating in the way they produce their products. So in this regard if they are not then our process puts in a level of ability for MBIE to then do the work they need to do to ensure that those products are no longer available for purchase.That's the impression I got from them in the discussions. They were quite concerned about the product standards for products that come from overseas for plumbers that were purchasing over the internet and did not have the normal safeguards you would have going through a normal process.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Chair; tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill but I want to raise a really specific issue that I know I've discussed with the Minister in the chair Poto Williams before and that has to do with the submission from Master Plumbers and specifically on how this regime could help ensure that people can be assured that their tapware for drinking-water is safe. My understanding is that some tests that have been undertaken of random products in New Zealand have shown that there are tapware products for drinking water that are leaching unsafe levels of lead sometimes as high as 18 times higher than what the Ministry of Health currently deems is safe. But on top of that what is deemed safe and our current tolerable limit for lead is arguably way too high. You know the United States Canada parts of Europe and now Australia are moving towards a zero-lead or a lead-free standard for all drinking-water tapware products. Within Australia my understanding of the way that their compliance regime works is that there has to be mandatory third-party testing to ensure that the products are safe.Minister what I'm concerned about is that this is somewhat voluntary the system that it's setting up. So the purveyors of certain products can provide a certificate saying that it's safe but there's no requirement or regime set up by which there's an independent third-party body that's responsible for testing that. The reason I raise this is—I mean we don't talk about it enough here in Aotearoa New Zealand but there is no safe level of lead exposure for young children and there's no way of remediating it once they have been exposed to lead. It has irreversible impacts on brain development. So it's extremely concerning and I don't think that consumers are aware of just how random it could be that they could be purchasing a product or have a contractor who's purchasing a product off Trade Me that they're using in their kitchen to fill up water glasses to drink from and it could be leaching unsafe levels of lead. I think it's definitely worth addressing and so I'm wondering if the Minister can comment on that.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair and I appreciate the member there. Just to finish on this particular topic just exploring the regulations side of it because there was a bit of concern that was raised by the Regulations Review Committee in relation to the Henry VIII" power in terms of the outline under the Order in Council being made around that particular definition. So just wondering if the Minister in the chair Poto Williams can give a bit of confidence to the committee in terms of that—how we can ensure that we're getting that balance right between obviously wanting to enable innovation with new products coming on board to adapt to that but also ensuring that we're still able to have confidence in that underlying legislation. Of course then sitting alongside that a question of well are we then proposing that every building product will be clarified or named under that process or not? And the time frame—what is her expectation of how long it would take to have a product certified coming back to that original question of are we actually producing a more timely system here? Thank you."
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought the Minister might have been jumping to her feet to enlighten us all on this lovely piece of legislation passing before the House. But that's quite all right. I'm happy to delve in and ask a few questions on it. Broadly we're pretty supportive of this. Ultimately the building industry has huge potential at the moment to contribute to our economic recovery.Having said that there are a few little constraints that are holding back businesses—compliance red tape bureaucracy; typical things that every business every industry faces actually. But this is an encouraging step to look at streamlining some of that. So broadly we're supportive of that. We have supported the stages so far and haven't seen any particular amendments proposed in the committee stage that would alter that for us.But there were a few questions I had of the Minister because some of the concerns raised by submitters particularly in the definition of building products" and "building methods"—that's one of the key areas that I just wanted to get a bit of clarification from the Minister on because it to me seems like one of the most critical areas. Again the concept of this bill is good. But as with most things the devil is in the detail. So how do we have confidence or what confidence does the Minister have around the accuracy of the definitions in terms of—we heard from some submitters actually that they were too broad but other submitters said they were too narrow. Then other submitters again said they were actually defined adequately elsewhere so didn't need to be included in this bill. I'm really keen to get the Minister's take on how she's landed where she has with those definitions and any particular concerns she had around whether the wording of that was ambiguous or might lead to a slowing down or overburdening of the process by adding red tape into it if people are actually taking longer to navigate through what is or isn't a building product or method in their particular instance. Then ultimately we're trying to streamline the process here. The risk is that we don't if they don't have a clear picture on that. So if we could start with that one that would be wonderful."
Salesa JennyBUILDING (BUILDING PRODUCTS AND METHODS MODULAR COMPONENTS AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to the Building Act 2004CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well that was an extraordinary statement from the Minister we heard just a moment ago. He said that he takes an optimistic view of workplace relations and I think that's certainly true. Optimistic—hopeful perhaps. He said that he doesn't think that there would ever be discrimination based on people having dependants. Well here's a bit of reality: the more laws the Government makes that entitle people to extra leave the more expensive it is for employers to employ people who are more likely to take leave. If his view of human nature is really that no employer has ever looked at an employee and thought Is this person more or less likely to take leave?" then first of all there's a whole range and manner of statistics in the employment literature he won't be able to explain but also he's just out of touch with basic reality.Then he said "Ah such a dim view that Scott Simpson has"—that nobody will ever take advantage of sick leave when they aren't sick. Has he spoken to the employers in his electorate even? To the hairdressers who say "Actually I know that my employees will take advantage of this."? That's what they're saying out there. That's because this Minister as he says has an optimistic view of human nature when it comes to workplace relations. Well actually if it was true that all people were angels we wouldn't need to be here making rules to try and restrain undesirable behaviour. It's a totally illogical construction that he's put on the way workplace relations actually work.So here's a couple of realities. The Minister can say that he wants this law because he thinks it's important that there's more sick leave for any number of reasons but it's also important to confront the reality that employers are concerned that employees will take advantage of it—not all of them not most of them not even many. But the idea there's not a concern among employers that people are going to take advantage of this—and you watch: sick leave rates will go up at the margins because of this law—is a denial of reality and the reality that people trying to run small businesses face needs to be put on record in this committee.Here's the next thing. The Minister says he doesn't think that there would ever be discrimination based on circumstance. He thinks that it's possible to regulate up the cost of people taking leave and he doesn't think that's going to have a cost for people more likely to take leave in the view of some employers. You know we've got to acknowledge the reality that that will happen. So I say to the Minister that there's people watching—actually no there won't be because they'll be out working. But people who are actually out working if they hear about this later will say to him "Let's have some reality." It's nice that the workplace relations Minister has an optimistic view of human nature and employment law but if he was right we wouldn't need employment law."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Look I have commented on this a number of times already but just to make another comment in terms of the point that Mr Simpson is making around prorating. It is good to know that he does have a relatively balanced view of things because not only does he have such a dim view of employers that he thinks that they might discriminate against people who might have dependants in their hiring decisions; he also thinks that employees are just sort of primed and waiting to take advantage and play hooky and use all of their sick leave when they're not already sick. I have a much more optimistic view of human nature and the way that Kiwi workers and employers treat one another on the whole. I do note that in respect of his Supplementary Order Paper 36 and I don't know if he's actually realised this it would actually reduce—literally reduce—the sick leave entitlements below what many New Zealand part-time workers currently have. The number two effect of the Supplementary Order Paper would mean that any worker in New Zealand who works less than 2½ days per week would receive less than the current statutory minimum of five days' sick leave per year and I'm certainly not going to support a Supplementary Order Paper that actually reduces the currently available sick leave entitlements of New Zealand workers as we're coming out of a global pandemic which really points to the need for workers to have adequate sick leave.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member for his questions. In respect of the evidence the member speaks about I have not seen widespread evidence of abuse of sick leave across the workforce. There will of course in any large-scale group be isolated examples that people will come across from time to time but certainly that's never been presented to me. In respect of evidence of presenteeism I would point the member to the evidence that's been presented to the select committee in the course of submissions. We have very clear evidence that has come through there of people with minimal sick leave entitlements who have come to work when they're unwell. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Clear anecdotes.Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The committee receives evidence as part of its hearings on a piece of legislation. This is real-world evidence from people. It is manifestly clear to me that there are workers who through no fault of their own—they do their very best in their workplaces—will face situations where due to their own illness or the illness of dependants they need to access more than five days of sick leave per year and do not currently have that. That is the fundamental problem that this bill is attempting to resolve or mitigate and I just challenge any member to seriously mount an argument that we don't have workers in our society who need more than an entitlement of five days per year given those realities of life.In respect of the second set of questions that Mr Woodhouse asked he rightly noted that a range of factors over the course of the year of COVID have resulted in a range of measurements in relation to communicable diseases being significantly reduced and he noted influenza as being one of them that's of sentinel measure in our society. Of course a big part of that were the heightened public health measures but I think a very big part of it was the fact that people have had a much much greater awareness of the need to stay at home when they're unwell to prevent spreading illnesses. Now the main driver of that has been COVID but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it's had significant flow-on benefits.In my first comments in this debate today I did note that there is some early evidence emerging from Government departments which is coming through I think in the answers to Estimates questions that the number of sick leave days taken over the course of last year in those Government departments has decreased significantly. So bringing those two things together in answering the member's question it is my view that where we have provisions that mean that workers don't come into work and don't spread their bugs there is some positive outcome there in terms of not increasing the need for sick leave across other workers in the workplace.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I start by acknowledging and agreeing with the member Chris Penk's final comment there. In answer to his other questions he asked a couple of questions effectively related to what is the appropriate point at which to draw the line and what did we contemplate in respect of this legislation?He asked about the prospect of unlimited sick leave which in the trade is often called flexible sick leave"—and actually a surprisingly large number of employers in my observation an increasing number of employers do offer what is called flexible sick leave whereby employees don't have a fixed cap on the number of days that can be taken but the number of days is effectively managed based on the employee's need and the ongoing employment relationship. There's relatively good evidence out there to show pretty good health outcomes and also to show that actually if taken in the round it doesn't increase the overall number of sick leave days that are taken. So it's not an unreasonable prospect.For the purposes of this legislation though we wanted to keep it a reasonably simple piece of legislation that could be interpreted relatively easily by employers. It was broadly speaking within the current framework that met our objective of ensuring that New Zealanders do have adequate sick leave and that struck a reasonable balance. Taking all of those things into account taking account of the fact that around about half of employees in New Zealand do currently have 10 days or more 10 days in the end is a place that we have settled in terms of the legislation.In respect of the member's second question which he termed a "half-way house" option—the working from home option—we don't really need to make any changes to this legislation to contemplate that because it is something that can be worked through in the normal course of employment relationships at the moment. An employee in that situation who did not feel that it was appropriate to come into work because they were worried that they might spread an illness but is still willing to carry out their work but to do so from home can arrange that currently under the terms of their employment agreement and in discussion with their employer and that would be considered a day at work under those circumstances.So I think we do need to allow for a bit of flexibility and for the employment relationship to some degree to deal with those sorts of circumstances and I've observed in recent times in fact in this complex some colleagues who have effectively done that—have taken a more precautionary approach to perhaps a common cold—where in past years they might have come into work and spread it around but because of the heightened awareness around COVID have taken a precautionary approach stayed at home Zoomed in and done their work from there. We can do that within the existing employment provisions that are in place."