edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Young Jonathan; Tisch LindsayJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand and speak in support of this legislation five bills divided from the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders Bailees and Other Persons Legislation Bill. I think the people of New Zealand would be pleased to hear that there is agreement across the House for such a good piece of legislation which has some very positive outcomes for everybody involved in this.For instance for those people who are community-based offenders or bailees who do have an addiction either to drugs or to alcohol they have some supported remedy to that. It might seem to be the strong arm of the law but many people who are caught in those addictions need that level of support and the legislation is quite clear that that work by Corrections and police needs to be done in a reasonable manner.Secondly the people who are most affected by bailees and community-based offenders who are under the influence of drugs and alcohol are often their families. We see an effect on domestic violence in this country that is driven by alcohol and drugs. If this legislation can bring greater protection to families because there is greater accountability to the conditions of bail or community-based sentences that is a very good thing.Thirdly there is the general public as well. The general public deserves to be protected. This is what law and order is about. We have a very good Minister of Corrections in the Hon Judith Collins who believes very strongly that New Zealanders must be protected from crime. This legislation serves them.Fourthly it also gives our police and corrections staff a greater degree of understanding and clear authority around this particular area. At the moment police and corrections staff are trying to ensure offenders and bailees comply with drug and alcohol conditions but they are limited in what they can do. This legislation will give them clear authority.The bills create a legislative mandate for alcohol and drug testing of eligible offenders and bailees. In my final thoughts New Zealanders want to see the law in New Zealand upheld. We really do. We want our law to be respected and we hate it when the law is flouted because law creates safety for everybody. The degree of accountability in a positive way in a responsible way and in a reasonable way through this legislation will help do that. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Julie Anne Genter—5 minutes.
Barclay ToddTODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to speak on the third readings of these particular bills. I would just like to acknowledge the speakers who have gone before me in particular our chair Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi for his sterling leadership of the Law and Order Committee and his interference in the House before as well. I have to agree with Mr Assistant Speaker that it was quite unlike him but it was a very sage point. I would just like to acknowledge also the previous speaker Mr Parker on a number of the points that he was making on reflection regarding some of the motives and the unfortunate characteristics of many of the offenders who are currently in prison for the first time and repeat offenders as well. We heard a statistic from the Department of Corrections that about 80 percent of inmates have drug-related or alcohol-related—or both—characteristics that are a negative part of their offending.I think the fundamental part of this legislation or the intent behind it is not to say if you are an offender we are going to randomly slap a drug and alcohol testing regime around you. It is for the Department of Corrections and police to have a greater ability to actually monitor those who are on bail or out on parole with a condition around drug or alcohol use—to actually enable them to enforce that and follow up. For most offenders who are repeat offenders as we know they have drug- or alcohol-related incidents. Part of this is to help try to protect them—while they are in prison and undergoing drug and alcohol rehabilitation—when they exit back into society again it is to help that continuation of that treatment. If they know that there is enforcement around drug or alcohol use as a condition of them being released out into the public they are less likely to offend and they are less likely to utilise those substances—which in effect means that there is a greater chance that they are less likely to offend in a criminal space that saw them put into the corrections system in the first instance.One of the aspects of the legislation that the select committee expanded on was the inclusion of psychoactive substances as one of those and to test the ability for police and Corrections to test. It is quite important because a couple of years ago before the Government put in place legislation and restrictions around the use there was a massive blow-up of that use in our community and there is still a flow-on effect from that. Many of the offenders have evidence of using that. So thank you. It was a privilege to sit on the committee and listen to submissions. It is a privilege to commend this legislation to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghTHIRD READINGSDebate resumed.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the final stages of the legislation arising out of the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders Bailees and Other Persons Legislation Bill. Before I continue with my contribution I think the member who has objected to the personal explanation should go and get testing done. The purpose of the legislation is to amend the Bail Act 2000 the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002 to enable the Department of Corrections and the police to require community-based offenders and bailees who are subject to the condition of a prohibition on the use of drugs or alcohol to undergo drug and alcohol testing. We know that drugs and alcohol are two of the biggest contributors to crime in our country. Two-thirds of prisoners have substance abuse problems and half of the crimes committed are committed by someone who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Also this is often a major factor in reoffending. We need to understand that we have to give the tools to the Department of Corrections and the police who want to ensure that our communities and our people are safe in their homes in their businesses and in their communities. There was a limitation with the law. The police and Corrections staff were trying to ensure that offenders and bailees complied with their drug and alcohol conditions but they were limited in what they could do and what they could not to. That was a big problem and that is why this legislation was introduced. I think we should congratulate the Minister on her leadership. Also I would like to thank all the members of the Law and Order Committee who contributed during the select committee process and the officials also. This legislation establishes a legislative basis for bailees and community-based offenders with a drug or alcohol abstinence condition imposed by the court or Parole Board to undergo alcohol or drug testing or summit to continuous monitoring if directed by police and the Department of Corrections. Here I will also clarify that the chief executives of the Department of Corrections and the Police have to publish the rules and how these rules can be implemented on a case by case basis. It is very important for us to understand that these rules are set in a way that ensures nobody is abused while they are being tested or while they are being asked to come forward for compliance. This legislation also establishes the principle that testing should not be more intrusive than is reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the drug and alcohol conditions. That is important because we do not want people to be abused and we do not want bailees or prisoners in prison to be abused. This legislation is another step to ensure the safety of our communities and I commend these bills to the House.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister
Smith NickAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 10 to MinisterHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I seek leave of the House to make a correction to an answer in question time today.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There is objection. [Interruption] I will ask the member to sit down. I just want to remind members that it is extremely unusual to deny leave to a member to make a personal explanation for the purposes of making a correction. It is the right of any member to do so but what it does is effectively leave on the record incorrect statements. I will also remind members that it is a gross abuse of the correction system to use it for any political purposes. I am going to put the leave again. Members do have the right to turn it down. Is there any objection to Nick Smith making a personal explanation in order to correct an answer? There is.
Third Readings (Bills divided from Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders Bailees and Other Persons Legislation Bill)
Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill at its first reading. Many many viewpoints have been discussed in the past hour or so as we debate this bill. But I think it is a great bill and it will encourage further—David Seymour: Tell us why.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: —I am telling you; just listen to it—innovation in the energy sector. As we know and as the previous speaker David Seymour just mentioned there is a lot of innovation happening in the sector and new batteries are being built that can store a lot of energy. If we look at the capacity of electric vehicles earlier it was very difficult for them to last a whole day but today the technology available means that new electric vehicles can be driven for up to 500 or 600 kilometres in a day without needing to be charged. That means that the technology is coming and this bill will help to encourage that innovation to continue. National is committed to finding ways to reduce greenhouse emissions and this bill is another step towards that. New and emerging technologies offer scope for us to improve the efficiency of our energy usage which offers economy-wide benefits while also complementing efforts to meet our international commitments to global efforts to manage climate change. One thing I would also like to mention is that the majority of the energy being used right now in transport is not renewable but by having vehicles that are battery operated or electricity operated we can use renewable energy. That will help us to reduce greenhouse emissions and it will also enhance our commitment as a signatory to various treaties around the world. I look forward to the select committee process when the bill comes to the Commerce Committee and I hope that we will have good input from the stakeholders. That will help us to enhance the bill. With these words I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor Simon; Borrows ChesterSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I just have to take a little bit of umbrage with the previous speaker's metaphors—talking about baby steps. I need to remind him that this is actually about cars and vehicles. You do not step in a car unless you are a Flintstone which might be representative of a party past. He also talked about being behind the eight ball. Again it is very hard to be behind the eight ball on a road because normally the eight ball is on a pool table which is just to our left here. Already we are seeing the Opposition being somewhat confused. We have also seen a whole lot of confusion particularly from those members of the Labour Party who are great supporters of diesel trains and diesel-belching fire engines. They have been standing and standing and moralising if you will to a degree around these important steps. I will come back to that in a moment. This is an omnibus bill. It is in four parts as the Minister has indicated. I am not going to go through all or each of them. One of them is ultimately around what the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority can do. At the moment you will be familiar with the ads on TV around how one conserves electricity. This bill basically allows it to extend. The other areas are around the use—as has been mentioned mockingly unfortunately many times—of bus lanes. I just encourage members to come to my electorate to the likes of Tāmaki Drive to find the T2 lanes and what the bus lanes are used for. They are not actually packed full. Maybe that works in the land that Labour and the Greens inhabit but in reality they are not overly used and actually it would be a welcome opportunity I would argue for taxis and other vehicles to use them as well. These recommendations are very positive. I just return to my initial theme around the moralising particularly around the point that the Government should go out and buy 17000 electric vehicles from Elon Musk. Firstly as a negotiator in the past I can say that you never tell the people you are going to buy from that you want to. It is a very quick way to get a very inflated price. I am just going to throw that out there—not that corporate experience is the strong point on the other side. But the other element too is that actually they will be the first parties to complain that we did not spend the extra millions of dollars that we spent on electric vehicles on the homeless and housing on social welfare and on education and the like. The good news of course is that we are very prudent in the way we spend money on the vehicles in the ministerial and ministry fleets and really importantly too we are already spending an enormous amount of money in the social services space. I know that the Minister who has recently announced $300 million for emergency housing is in the House. It is just tremendous. So cars housing you name it—I am going to end it there.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—James Shaw.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in this its first reading. It comes as no surprise after this past weekend for us to realise that Labour and numbers just do not go together. Those members did not get them right on the weekend and it is no wonder at all that they cannot get them right now either. Ms Moroney does not understand the difference between a minimum and a maximum. The Government has a target of looking to stimulate the uptake of electric vehicles. It does not say: Once you get to 2 percent stop." The other part of the 2 percent of course is that that is the threshold for when the road-user charge exemption will be removed. What the Government is looking to do is to stimulate the uptake of these vehicles not pay for them for the rest of their lives. The other thing the member clearly did not understand is the nature of total cost of ownership. By creating this stimulus for both heavy and previously light vehicles the Government is helping to reduce the total cost of ownership for those early adopters—those people who choose to take advantage of this stimulus for their own reasons and purchase those electric vehicles. It is helping to drive adoption without going to the point of just buying these vehicles for people which is the Labour Party's standard policy approach to most things. But it is really odd: the member says in one breath that 2 percent is pathetically low and the Government should be criticised. In the very next sentence she says: "You're going to clog up the bus lanes with your 2 percent which is pathetically low." How you square that circle is absolutely unknown to man or beast I would argue. The other point I would like to make given the Labour members have said the Government should be doing this for its fleet is wake up and smell the coffee because back in August the Minister of Transport announced that the Government would be looking to pool the purchasing power of both the Government and the private sector to help to drive the capital cost of electric vehicles down by creating greater demand. Secondly let us make this clear. Mr Stuart Nash drives a Bedford TK fire engine which spews belching emissions all over Hawke's Bay and he says we should be driving electric vehicles. Maybe he should try eating his own dog-food. Let us also point out that the ministerial BMW fleet that exists today was a pre-order from the previous Labour Government and the reason it gave was low carbon emissions. Those people just cannot do anything with any consistency. This is a good bill. It will advance measures to help meet emission controls and targets. It will actually help to drive us to be a lower-emitting country and I commend it to the House."
Urgent Debates Declined — Waikato Federated Farmers—Report on Farm Environment Plans
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDFederated Farmers Waikato—Report on Farm Environment PlansMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Barbara Stewart seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the report prepared by a consultant for Federated Farmers Waikato on farm environment plans required by Waikato Regional Council under its notified plan change. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence that involves administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. There is no ministerial responsibility for a report released by Federated Farmers nor for the actions of a local authority and I refer members to Speaker's ruling 176/2. The application is therefore declined.
SpeechRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to make a personal explanation so I can read the full quote which will show that I was misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Leave is sought for the Prime Minister to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that being done? There is none. Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK let me go back and read the full quote then: and we have been trialling a domestic RSE scheme. But go and ask the employers—get them on this show—and they will say some of these people won't pass a drug test some of these people won't turn up for work some of these people will claim they have health issues later on. So it's not to say there aren't great people who transition from Work and Income into work they do but it's equally true that they're also living in the wrong place or they just can't muster what is required to actually work.""
Little Andrew; Carter DavidQuestion No. 5 to MinisterANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to table a transcript from RNZ National from 5 September 2016 in which the Prime Minister states amongst other things in relation to young people: or they just can't muster what is required"—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Those transcripts are available and easily sourced by any member if they want them."
1. Saudi Agri-hub—Legal Advice and Auditor-General's ReportANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterTUESDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSSaudi Agri-hub—Legal Advice and Auditor-General's Report1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Why did he say regarding the Saudi sheep deal that the view of Cabinet was that there had been a case that at least the investor could put up that we may well have to fight that in court" and was he aware when he made that statement that there was no legal advice assessing the legal risk from the investor's case?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I made that statement because Cabinet was advised that the Government was exposed to the risk of a between $20 million and $30 million legal claim. We accepted that advice. This is backed up by the Auditor-General's report which states that during negotiations Al-Khalaf Group indicated it could be paid compensation of $24 million. Cabinet was satisfied that the full partnership as outlined in the Cabinet paper resolved the prospect of any litigation. With regard to legal advice Cabinet accepted the paper's advice about the potential legal claim.Andrew Little: Does he now accept the Auditor-General's finding that there was no legal advice and no evidence of a legal claim against the Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I accept the words of the Auditor-General's report when she says on page 8: "the Al Khalaf Group indicated that it considered it should be paid compensation of $24 million." [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Andrew Little: Did Murray McCully inform Cabinet at any time that legal advice had been taken; if not how did Cabinet form the view that it may have to fight a $20 million to $30 million action in court?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Cabinet was advised through the Cabinet paper by the Minister: "Saudi parties had received advice suggesting they pursue a claim of between $20 million to $30 million. The Government has made it clear it would not be a party to such discussions."Andrew Little: Did Cabinet insist on seeing legal advice to support that claim?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Andrew Little: Was the Auditor-General wrong when she found a settlement of a grievance was provided under the guise of a contract for services—in essence a sham; if not why did his Government pay $4 million cash to a man to whom nothing was owed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The only people who were wrong were the Opposition members when they went on and on about how the payments were evidence of corruption bribery or a facilitation payment. The Auditor-General found the complete opposite.Andrew Little: Does he agree with Fran O'Sullivan that "Provost's findings are a scathing assessment of the lack of transparency around this deal." and that it does nothing to vindicate Murray McCully?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I do find it somewhat amusing that the Leader of the Opposition is quoting the media when according to Phil Twyford and himself—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!"
Wednesday 2 November 2016 - Volume 718
Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders Bailees and Other Persons Legislation Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into five bills the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill with amendment and the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 in the name of Clare Curran to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 in the name of Clare Curran to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill — In Committee
Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders Bailees and Other Persons Legislation Bill — In Committee
12. Border Control Illegal Drug Interception—FirstDefendersMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of CustomsBorder Control Illegal Drug Interception—FirstDefenders12. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Customs: What announcements has she made regarding the Government's investment into front-line drug detection equipment for Customs?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): Last week I announced the roll-out of 14 FirstDefenders. This is a mobile drug-detection device which uses a laser to analyse the substance often without needing to open the packaging. The device was purchased with over a million dollars from funding from the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act so Customs' hard work in seizing drugs and catching criminals has paid off. We are using assets taken from the criminals to purchase tools that will help seize more drugs and catch more criminals.Mark Mitchell: How will these devices enhance Customs' capabilities to protect the border?Hon NICKY WAGNER: The FirstDefenders will be vital equipment for our front-line officers making drug detection quicker safer and more efficient. They are portable they are easy to use and the samples are matched against the database of 11000 illegal substances to prove an accurate match within seconds without having to go to the lab. Customs will share this latest capability with partner agencies to help broader drug-enforcement work.Mark Mitchell: What reports has she received on Customs' recent meth interceptions at the border?Hon NICKY WAGNER: Customs' largest ever meth seizure was announced last week. It was $176 million of meth seized from shipping containers in July after a 16-month investigation. It was international collaboration the use of intelligence and new technology which results in better risk assessments and increased operational efficiency and successful drug detection.
10. Better Public Services—Unemployment and Employment SupportTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentBetter Public Services—Unemployment and Employment Support10. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made on the Government's progress on Better Public Service Result one?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): As part of the Government's regular Better Public Services update I announced that the number of working-age people on a main benefit fell below 280000 at the end of March 2016 for the first time since 2008 and the future cost of the benefit system has fallen by $3.6 billion in the last year. Since we refreshed the target the number of people on a benefit has fallen by around 15000 and if we look back to 2011 this number has fallen by around 51000. I also note today's announcement that unemployment has fallen below 5 percent. This Government is committed to helping people off welfare and into work so that they and their families can succeed.Todd Muller: What announcements from Budget 2016 will contribute to continuing this downward trend?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Budget 2016 included $111.5 million over the next 4 years to support more people into sustainable employment. This includes funding for intensive work-focused case management for 120000 clients; the extension of the Youth Service which helps young people at risk of long-term benefit dependence; and allows us to trial some different ways of working with target groups including working with district health boards and Corrections. We are absolutely committed to investing in the things that work and trying new initiatives to support more people into long-term sustainable employment.
9. Community Social Services—Collection of Personal InformationJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for Social DevelopmentCommunity Social Services—Collection of Personal Information9. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: Is she confident that requiring community groups to hand over individual client details as a condition of funding will result in better outcomes for people who access those services?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Social Development): Yes I am confident that the collection of client-level data will result in better outcomes for those accessing the services funded through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).Jan Logie: Does she think that an MSD employee say struggling to pay the bills and feed the kids will be more or less likely to get budgeting help if their details are shared with Government?Hon JO GOODHEW: I think the member's fears are unfounded because what I can say is that there are robust procedures for the gathering of personal information. The Ministry of Social Development has been working closely with the Privacy Commissioner and the Government Chief Privacy Officer to ensure that clients' privacy rights are protected. It does the member no service nor the people accessing these services to create unfounded fears.Jan Logie: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was not talking about my fears—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I was distracted at the time the member asked the question so I did not hear it clearly. I invite her to ask it again.Jan Logie: Does she think that an MSD employee say struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table will be more or less likely to go to get budgeting help if their details are shared with Government?Hon JO GOODHEW: I think that that MSD employee should not have any fears that their private information will be shared for any other purpose than to provide an excellent service to them for their needs at the time.Jan Logie: Does she think a media personality or rugby player beating up his partner will be more or less likely to voluntarily get help if his information is shared with Government?Hon JO GOODHEW: The whole premise behind MSD requiring the providers of services to collect client-level data is to make sure that New Zealand's most vulnerable people get the services that they need and that those services deliver to them an efficient and effective outcome. I believe this member is simply scaremongering.Jan Logie: Does the Minister not understand that the trust and confidentiality at the heart of social work budgeting and counselling will be undermined by requiring community organisations to hand over individuals' data to Government?Hon JO GOODHEW: I absolutely reject that. In fact we have had tragedies in New Zealand where children or adults have been harmed or have died and in retrospect people have said that they fell through the cracks. Often that has simply been because client-level data was not shared.
8. Health Services—Primary-care Funding and Rheumatic Fever InitiativesDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Primary-care Funding and Rheumatic Fever Initiatives8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that primary-care funding has gone up from $667.2 million in 2008-09 to an estimated $892.7 million in 2016-17 an increase of about 34 percent and what improvements to primary-care service does this increase deliver?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Over the last 8 years under this Government primary-care funding has increased by around $230 million including an extra $25 million in this year's Budget. We have also brought in free visits for children under the age of 13 with over 780000 children benefiting from free doctors visits and prescriptions. The numbers of prescriptions dispensed has increased by 23.9 percent showing that the removal of costs has improved access to medicines. And of course fewer children under the age of 13 are presenting to emergency departments which shows that these investments are all paying off.Dr Shane Reti: What specific services is the Government delivering to address serious but preventable diseases such as rheumatic fever?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Reducing rheumatic fever rates is one of our Better Public Services targets and recent figures show a 37 percent decrease in new cases. Although we are tracking in the right direction it is an ambitious target and we need to continue to do more. This week my colleague Anne Tolley and I announced an awareness campaign to recruit and train around a hundred young people mainly Māori and Pasifika aged between 11 and 19 to talk about how we prevent rheumatic fever. The youth campaign is part of the $65 million the Government has invested in the fight against rheumatic fever.
6. Student Loans—Overseas-based BorrowersSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and EmploymentStudent Loans—Overseas-based Borrowers6. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What progress is being made on recovering student loan debt from overseas-based borrowers?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Good progress. As part of the ongoing overseas-based borrower compliance campaign last week the first data-match under the information-sharing agreement with the Australian Taxation Office was made locating contact information for around 10400 student loan borrowers living in Australia. With more than 90 percent of loans in default held by borrowers living overseas and a significant majority of those believed to be in Australia this tool will be a huge boost to enable the Inland Revenue Department to get in touch with borrowers who have been hard to track down and those who are deliberately avoiding their obligations.Sarah Dowie: What results is the compliance campaign delivering?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The campaign has achieved good results over the last year including a 32 percent increase in repayments from defaulting borrowers and an additional $100 million being collected in the year with collection overall through the campaign passing $300 million since it began. I expect that this initial information-sharing agreement will see a further improvement in that figure over the next year. What is more pleasing is that the Inland Revenue Department is reporting a turn-around in attitudes amongst overseas-based borrowers who have previously been reluctant to engage with the department. It seems to now be getting through that if you leave the country for a few years you cannot leave your student loan behind and hope it goes away.Sarah Dowie: Why is the Government encouraging overseas-based borrowers to meet their obligations?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Overseas-based borrowers are just 15.2 percent of student loan borrowers but they represent more than 91 percent of the total amount of debt in default. So if those who stay in New Zealand can pay it is important that those overseas also meet their obligation to taxpayers who have supported their study and allow the same level of support to be available for the next generation of students. It is important for borrowers to know that being overseas does not mean the loan goes away and they are encouraged to get in touch and get on top of their loans. To assist with this we have made it easier for borrowers to contact the Inland Revenue Department and easier for them to make payments from overseas.
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): This will be a short call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. The Green Party wants the primary sector to have access to the latest technology both for plant protection and for animal health. But we are opposing this bill because we think it is weighted too heavily towards industry rather than the protection of the public. We want a New Zealand where there is greater use of integrated pest management greater use of organics and where there is greater public knowledge about the compounds that are being used to control pests and weeds. This bill by extending the data protection actually mitigates against that.Although Mr Prosser and others have talked a lot about the benefits of extending the secrecy around the compounds that are used in these products because we do not have a robust assessment of pesticide use in New Zealand by either the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) or the Environmental Protection Authority we think there needs to be much greater transparency about what chemicals are being used. I also think that if you read the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry for Primary Industries a lot of the claims that have been made about the commercial benefits of extending data protection are on somewhat shaky ground. The ministry made it very clear in the regulatory impact statement that there was no detailed information by which it could establish the extent to which the current regime and the current 5-year term for keeping information about the composition of these compounds secret resulted in new products or new uses not being registered or the extent to which it inhibited the development of new products using existing chemistry.When you have had MPI saying that a precise determination of the net economic impact of any changes is not possible how can all these assertions be made that it will have significant economic benefits? We do not think it is appropriate that we have got legislation going through that will make the current regime less transparent by extending the periods for data protection extending the non-disclosure periods when you have got only some anecdotal information where the industry claims that the current rules have discouraged a product from being registered. It is interesting that the provisions in the current legislation go back to our obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. So again it seems to be where these big chemical companies using international agreements have influenced New Zealand legislation.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It is not an area of expertise that I particularly hold—the primary industries area. However I have had the opportunity to speak on this bill in several passages through the House. It has amazed me actually as a townie to be part of the conversation and to actually understand the level of science and discussion that sits behind our farming industry. I think that members of the House should take the opportunity to engage in conversations across other areas where they may not necessarily have a high level of expertise. I was fascinated by this particular bill and the fact that the data can be used by those researchers to find new and different ways of using their products whether it is around different species that can benefit from their products or whether it is finding completely innovative ways to use these compounds or to add something to the formulations which means that you can use these compounds in new and creative ways. It has been fascinating to be part of the discussion. As the previous speaker has said we are a country of inventors. We take the No. 8 wire approach to many things. I think that really stands us in good stead. When we go overseas as members of Parliament and look at the ways that other countries' primary industries are structured and the types of data that they use to inform them and to support the work they do we can see that as a small nation at the bottom of the world we do incredibly well. I guess part of it is the fact that our isolation has forced us to really look at different ways of working different ways of using our research and different ways of using the technology that we already have for a broader base of opportunities. I do want to comment too on what Richard Prosser said about data management. I know that we have some very strong tertiary education in terms of being able to use that data management and those processes in some incredibly diverse ways. I do not have the strength to be able to talk about this in any real depth. I do not actually have the knowledge that other members of the House have of the practical implications or the practical applications of this work. But it has fascinated me that we can take a formulation we can recreate that for use across a range of species or across a range of applications and with this piece of legislation we can provide some protections for those people who actually create the information and the knowledge so that they have some benefit from that. I know that I have got prime-time viewing but I will not hold up the passage of this bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and in particular on behalf of Ria Bond who is a member of the Commerce Committee and who has been part of the process thus far. The feedback has been a process of asking the question: why are we actually here? It seems to echo some of the earlier contributions of members on this side of the Chamber.Hon Member: It's an existential question.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It is an existential question for Mr Goldsmith. The reality is the legislation itself—I think the Minister will acknowledge—came to the House in the first reading and then to the select committee in a flawed manner. It did not serve the purpose for which he intended. The committee had a great deal to say about that and a great deal to explore around why that was the case. The feedback from the New Zealand First member was that the to-ing and fro-ing with MPs and officials was such that the select committee process probably failed the purpose for which it was intended and that is the question I raise in the House tonight. Listening to other contributions tonight you are not achieving what you set out to achieve. If there are any gains they are minimal. Reading submissions in preparation for my contribution this evening seems to suggest—and I am loath to read them out because this is not in the bill but it is what should be in the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well do not read those out.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: So I am well advised not to read those submissions out. Thank you Mr Chair. What I will acknowledge is that new Part 1 new section 92(4)—which seeks to remove the right to operate a grant of patent on the grounds of a claim or claims related to one or more inventions—seems to have been supported by the committee and submitters. But essentially from then on—around the single patents application process the single patent examination process then Part 2 clause 6 where all 13 submissions opposed the implementation of the joint regime—we have come to a point where I suggest respectfully to the Minister that he and his officials need to take this back for due and thoughtful consideration because I submit it is not achieving what he set out to do. It is a short contribution but it is a sincere one. I hope the Minister takes what we have to say into consideration. Thank you.
Dyson Ruth; Borrows ChesterPATENTS (TRANS-TASMAN PATENT ATTORNEYS AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I seek leave for all provisions of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate with separate votes on each at the end.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Sepuloni CarmelCIVIL DEFENCE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate with separate votes taken at the end.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Ross Jami-Lee; Tisch LindsayDRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING OF COMMUNITY-BASED OFFENDERS BAILEES AND OTHER PERSONS LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for this bill to be debated as one question but voted on separately.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave has been sought for all provisions to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take just a very short call on the Charities Amendment Bill in the second reading and I acknowledge as I do so the ongoing leadership of Minister Goodhew in this particular field. As we have heard during the course of this debate these are non-controversial amendments that will lead to greater transparency and confidence in respect of charity matters and management of the same.In particular I was pleased to see that clause 11 got the support that one would hope it would get through the submission process and the select committee deliberations making it clear that if someone has been disqualified under section 143B of the Tax Administration Act they cannot be an officer of a registered charity. I think everyone in this House and the wider public would see that as sensible.Equally clause 12 introducing the 20-working-days time frame for an entity to respond to notices to provide more information seems very sound. I noted in reflecting on select committee deliberations that there was some concern around that being too tight but I think the opportunity for a request for extension of time is a sensible way around that. So as other speakers have said this is a short bill. It is sensible it is sound it has been thoroughly tested and I add my voice to those of the House in supporting it to the next stage.Bill read a second time.
Charities Amendment Bill — Second Reading
McKelvie IanCHARITIES AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 1 November.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me pleasure to take a short call on the second reading of the Charities Amendment Bill a bill that is equally as short as the contribution that I am going to make. I do remember 2005 when the Charities Bill was first brought to Parliament. I remember I guess a disquiet that occurred in our communities around what might or might not happen to our thousands of charities that operate in all sorts of sectors in our communities. I remember at the time the Department of Internal Affairs I guess it would have been put a lot of people out into the communities giving advice to those charities charitable organisations and the people concerned with them on how they might or might not comply with the legislation and what that legislation might mean for them. I think you would have to say that there has been very little negative impact from that legislation so this amendment bill has been brought to Parliament to make some very simple changes but quite important ones.In an odd way one of the clauses in this bill stops someone convicted of tax evasion or someone who is perhaps not suitable to be operating a charity from being an officer in those charitable organisations—and that is obviously clearly very sensible. It also provides that an application for registration as a charitable entity can be treated as withdrawn if the applicant does not to respond to questions. That was an issue that certainly caused some challenges in the early days of the re-registration of thousands of charities throughout New Zealand because many of the officers of those organisations struggled frankly with having to comply with stuff they had never had to comply with before. You can see why that has been brought to bear in this. Finally it corrects a 2012 drafting error something that does not happen very often in this House. So with that short contribution I will sit down.