edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just don't see the need for this bill in our court system. Now we have a very strong judicial system and I remember when the Labour Party brought to this House the need to remove the Privy Council and replace it with the Court of Appeal in New Zealand. They were very adamant at that stage that that would be the final court and all that was needed for the court system. Suddenly now we have the need for a commission of review. There's no need in our small country to have another stage in the legal system. This is really just trying to bring more bureaucracy into the system. Golriz Ghahraman: This isn't a stage; that's not how it works David. Hon DAVID BENNETT: That is how it works because it is a review commission. So in between every level of the court system someone can apply to this review commission and then—Golriz Ghahraman: Yeah it's a diversion. Hon DAVID BENNETT:—and so it is another court in our four-court system. And why would we want to do that? Why do we need to do that? It's just a gross abuse of New Zealand taxpayer funds for the interests of the Green Party so that they can feel that they are dealing with people's personal interests. It's very sad that the New Zealand First Party which is the handbrake on this Government—or they say they are—has let this go through. And it's very silly that the Labour Party—that actually had proposed to take out the Privy Council and replace it with the Court of Appeal—is now buckling to the pressure of the Green Party to have this fifth court process. It's completely unnecessary will achieve nothing and is part of a coalition that looks for problems where there are none and just creates more bureaucracy in the system more costs in the system and a failure of a justice system that actually works very well as it stands.
Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill — Third Reading
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill. Can I start by acknowledging my colleagues from across the House on the Health Committee. It's actually great to be part of a committee that makes a real difference. I think out of all the committees when you look at them the Health Committee is the one that I think makes a real difference. You look at some of the others like the Finance and Expenditure Committee—I'm not really sure what goes on there. In the Primary Production Committee it just seems like they sit around and have a chat! But of course the Health Committee is one that really makes a difference in individual New Zealanders' lives.This bill although a small bill and very technical—an omnibus bill if I get that correct at this hour of the night. It had a small number of submitters but those small numbers of submitters made a real difference to the bill and I think it shaped up very well.Although I do give one warning with the bill: it really shows the limitations of Parliament and of Government. We can pass legislation and provide a framework for the national organ donation agency and support more organ donations but the problem is in New Zealand—as many will know—we need a real cultural shift. People can put that they want to be a donor on their drivers' licences but we know the very real issue. When that person passes away—they might be in the hospital—the family turns up challenges that and puts the health professional right in the firing line. And of course they don't want to take sides as well.So yes this is a start but it's very much the start of a discussion—not the end of it—of how in New Zealand we can have a real step change a real cultural shift to allow more organ donations that will go on to save lives but very much enrich other Kiwis' lives as we've heard several times across the House in other people's speeches.Organ donation makes a huge difference in people's lives. It saves lives. But ultimately now this bill is up to the people of New Zealand to make a real cultural shift so that we increase the number of organ donations in this country. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Barry Maggie; Tolley AnneHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak with great pleasure at the third reading of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill as I have in each of the readings. This is a bill whose time has come.We have as a House I think traversed the issues very carefully at select committee level—things were ironed out. This is a piece of legislation that needed to happen but it's very encouraging to find that as it has made its passage through the House it has attracted journalists to write stories about people who have had organ donation problems and who have had successful outings as well because I think as with dementia and a lot of other issues some of these things are not properly discussed. So I think the general conversation about planning for the provision of our death and what we might do with our organs afterwards—we've all I think had a boost in the idea of putting information on drivers' licences and doing all of these things. When the original legislation went through I think there was a 500 percent increase—that's the one—in organ donors receiving compensation for the year before. So it really does work to offer people compensation.It's a huge undertaking. A friend of mine—whom I spoke to only yesterday actually—a couple of years ago had a heart transplant. This is a guy who was very fit had a healthy lifestyle—all of those things—and his heart failed him and he needed with great urgency to have a transplant. The provision for it the way it was enacted the counselling and so forth that went around it and the aftermath I think where the person who has donated the organ is able to perhaps meet with the donor organ's family—which I think must be incredibly challenging and confronting for the family but also at heart very comforting to think that you have given another person a life that emerged from a tragedy whether it's a car accident or so forth.But I think it is important that the change to section 10 set out in clause 6 providing for qualifying donors to get earnings compensation for up to 12 weeks while recuperating is really important. Obviously it depends what you donate and a heart obviously is not something that someone can give and survive. But none the less I think that when it comes to all of the other issues with kidney failure—people that have been in this House and members of Parliament and their families. I know we all know of them and their personal stories. But none the less the availability of compensation the raising of the level of awareness—I think all of these things have made this a healthy debate and one of great rarity and scarcity that there is such an outbreak of agreement across the political divide. It's rare enough that this happens.Andrew Bayly: It's a beautiful thing.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It is a beautiful thing indeed as Andrew Bayly my colleague has piped up from the back seats. I without hesitation and with complete conviction commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Marja Lubeck.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you. The Green Party is very pleased to support the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill and would like to commend Stuff for the series of articles that they have been doing on organ donation.I was struck as well as Jenny Marcroft by the recent article which told the story of Jamie Shennan and his parents. I think that article really conveyed that amazing gift of health and of life that organ donors provide whether they're deceased or whether they're living. The work that Stuff has done with these articles in just showing readers what is involved—getting beyond that whakamā that shame process that means that people are often reluctant to ask others for the gift of an organ because it is the ultimate gift but making organ donation more understandable.This bill in the establishment of the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service by widening the mandate of the New Zealand Blood Service is also doing what Stuff has been doing in ensuring that there is more advocacy and a greater public understanding of organ donation based on encouraging more people to think about putting that inscription on their driver's licence so that if they die their organs will be available. So the work in the bill and this provision for now having a national agency that has a clear responsibility for raising the profile of organ donation and supporting clinical governance and coordinating that whole donation and transplantation process is a really good step forward.I would acknowledge Chris Bishop because of course this bill is based on his original bill. I concur with the comments that Dr Reti has made about the very practical changes that the bill provides in order that people who are taking time off work to recover as living donors from giving perhaps a kidney can be recompensed for that. Similarly if they are part of a recognised international organ donation scheme this bill makes the changes there that they will be able to be recompensed for lost work time and gives the Director-General of Health some discretion around that as well.So it is a good and practical bill that makes significant changes that will I hope—particularly through the work of the new New Zealand Blood and Organ Service—increase the profile of organ donation and increase the number of New Zealanders who are prepared to do that. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill.I just wanted to comment how much I enjoyed the previous speaker's contribution. I thought that was really interesting. Koha it's a very good way to think of it and I like the visual aid as well.I want to thank the select committee for progressing this. This was our bill. It was grounded on Chris Bishop's initial work so I want to acknowledge Chris. This was sort of a tidy up. Like most select committee processes it was vastly improved through the select committee process so that we were able to address the main issues which primarily were around creating an organ donation agency of which it was appropriately decided that the blood bank—blood people blood transfusion service—was the most appropriate Crown entity to bed the organ donation agency into.Then there were some tidying-up things to make it easier to donate. We had the issue that we'd said initially donors and recipients could only be located in New Zealand when in fact some approved overseas international programmes were also worthy to be a part of this. There were also issues around variable return to work. We'd been a little bit too firm too tight in the initial drafting of the legislation and it made sense to relax that and accommodate more flexible returns to work.I have a particular interest in organ donation in as much as that when I was working in Boston my clinical appointment was to a place called Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and right opposite Beth Israel was Brigham and Women's Hospital. Brigham Women's in 1954 was known as a Peter Bent Brigham Hospital and that's where the first transplant actually occurred the first successful transplant. This was in a gentleman who needed a kidney transplant. Previously you would always succumb within about a week or two because no one quite understood the immune system implications of a transplant. But there'd been some sense that there was something about twins that made transplants successful.So at Brigham Women's or Brigham Bent as it was there was a gentleman his kidney was failing and they got his twin in the operating room next door to actually do the kidney transplant. They finger-printed both—I think Richard Hickman—of them to make sure they were identical twins and they thought Look this is our best chance. We don't understand what it is in the immune system that causes previous transplants to fail but if we have two almost identical humans we think that good things will happen." and that's exactly what happened. The first successful organ transplant was of a kidney at Brigham Bent in Boston around about 1954. It was 100 metres from where my clinical appointment was and a fine institution. So I have a particular interest in the history of this bill and like the people who have previously spoken I strongly support organ donation—what greater gift could you give than something that is of you to someone else?I also just want to hasten the progress of this bill into legislation. I thank those that have brought it to this point and I too commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
van de Molen TimORGAN DONORS AND RELATED MATTERS BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 7 November.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a delight to pick up on the 18 seconds of wonderful contribution I made the last time we were considering this particular bill. We're in the third and final reading of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill and it is a pleasure to be taking a call on this. This is a delicate piece of legislation. Any time we're talking about organ donation it is a very sensitive topic—Todd Muller: Even Darroch thinks it's funny. TIM VAN DE MOLEN:—and I'm sure Mr Muller would agree with me that it's something we need to be very mindful of when we are working through numerous debates in this House. I'd encourage members to have a little bit more decorum when we're talking about organ donation. It is a serious topic and making light of the situation I don't think is appropriate in this setting. I would like to commend—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but—TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Again! ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe):—it's come time for me—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. It's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Thank you Madam Speaker.Hon Peeni Henare: Take three.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: This is my third attempt now on this call and I've advanced so far one minute. So I'm looking forward to continuing this fantastic contribution. I won't drag it out too much.But look this is a really important piece of legislation here. It is a sensitive issue; I was just touching on that before the dinner break as well. Organ donation rates in New Zealand have been increasing but are still much lower than we'd like them to be 13 per million as of last year which is quite a low rate. At the moment as I understand the waiting list for people who are looking for organ or tissue transplants is over 550 people. So there is certainly a need to focus on increasing that.This bill comes about as a result of the Increasing Deceased Organ Donation and Transplantation: A national strategy paper that was released in 2017. And there are some good processes in here to try and lift that rate of donation. Of course anyone who becomes deceased and is looking to or has previously indicated an intent to donate organs—it's a very sensitive time as I mentioned for their family. Of course they're going through a grieving process and there are some difficult decisions to make. This helps to tidy up that; helps to encourage a few more people to get involved with this.I'm proud to say I have donor" on my driver's licence as well. It's fantastic and I'd encourage everyone in this House to consider that if they're not already.This is a good piece of legislation. We're supporting it at this stage. I look forward to seeing some positive increases in donation rates as a result. Thank you."
National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Hayes JoanneJO HAYES (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand to take a brief call on the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) in its second reading. We are farmers as well. I'm pleased to see a bill like this come into the House. Farmers have been under a lot of stress and they will continue to be under a lot of stress financially especially. We have seen too many of our farming colleagues take their lives because of the burden of debt. So without any further ado I commend the bill to the House.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you. It's a pleasure to talk on the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) a bill established to help with creditors and farmers. Clare Curran the previous speaker—I think she might be going into the fertiliser business when she retires from Parliament because she produces it on an industrial scale. We're supporting this bill. We support this bill. The original bill was brought in by New Zealand First and it was a dog of a bill. They should have just cut and pasted the New South Wales version and I see that this current bill is essentially a copy of that so the Government had to rescue it. I see that there were 30-plus submitters and 18 oral submitters and it was supported by Federated Farmers and the New Zealand Bankers' Association. We're talking about $62.8 billion worth of debt which was what $49 billion in 2009. So it's not a massive increase but it is still a significant amount of debt for us to carry and it's acknowledged that early intervention in these cases rather than forced disclosures is a good method so we support that. I'm a farmer myself and we're vulnerable—farmers. We are subject to weather the markets diseases and Governments that don't know what they're doing introducing all kinds of legislation that puts pressure on farmers and the farming community at this point in time have never been more under load. They're more under siege than ever before and this is at a time when they should be jumping from the rooftops because the prices are good earnings are good and the weather's been reasonable. But they're not. They're pretty sad. In fact I've got a hill-country farm and I struggle to make a living off that farm. The fertiliser the weed control bill the fencing—if I did it as to best practice I would spend my entire farm income on that. So it's a common misconception that farmers are rolling in dough because they're not. Most farmers I know will be lucky to retire with a bit of a nest egg after a lifetime of working seven days a week so farming is really hard. It's hard on people it's hard on farmers—it's hard on their bodies—and it's no wonder they're struggling. So we need this farm debt mediation bill because I can see that a lot of farmers especially with what's coming down the line are going to be struggling. There are going to be some farmers who are going to have to walk off their land. Hopefully a National Government will get back in and change things around and we can carry on. On my farm I could—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you actually going to address the bill? MATT KING: Oh yep. I'm talking about farm debt. The banks can be villains at times. They can be villains at times. You hear this story about bank bosses foreclosing on farmers and making them pay back capital right at crunch times and this definitely goes on. We know that this goes on. This farm debt mediation bill in my view is a mechanism to keep bankers honest. So I commend the bill to the House.
Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill — In Committee
Referendums Framework Bill — Discharge from Justice Committee
Ministerial Statement — Fire and Emergency Services—New South Wales Deployment
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to thank the Minister Chris Hipkins for his detailed explanation of the reasons for the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which the National Party will support as it is—this bill.I would take the opportunity though in providing further confirmation of that support to express a caveat that I did in the second reading—perhaps the Minister wasn't in a position to be able to receive that—which was the concern that despite the reassurances both in the regulatory impact statement and in the Governance and Administration Committee's report the wording of the bill does go further than the intention of the bill. It certainly intended that there are administrative back-office functions that will benefit from cooperation between the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk which strictly speaking isn't presently available but nevertheless both clauses 4 and 6 go broader than that actually. They talk about the delegation effectively of any functions or powers of a person from one organisation to the other.I accept the explanation from the Clerk in his submission in the select committee and also the assurances of the Minister in second reading that that's not the intention but I do draw the committee's attention to the fact that those clauses are quite wide-ranging and therefore could in the future actually be broadened past the intention that is being brought by this bill.With those caveats though it's not my intention to amend or tighten the clause. I just wanted to point that out and I certainly support the SOP.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 407 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Hipkins ChrisParts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): As I outlined in my earlier contributions on the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill it is an incredibly simple bill. It provides for the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the head of the Parliamentary Service to delegate responsibilities to each other's employees where it's appropriate to do that. The bill was not amended by the Governance and Administration Committee. I thank them for their consideration of the bill.There are two amendments that are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 407 that I do ask the committee to consider. The Statutes Amendment Act that the House passed a couple of weeks ago amended the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 to change the title of the head of the service from General Manager to Chief Executive. So the Supplementary Order Paper that's now on the Table updates the terminology in this bill to reflect the change that's already been made in the Statutes Amendment Bill. Other than that I don't have any matters to bring to the committee's attention although I'm happy to answer any questions should there be any from members.
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianPARLIAMENTARY AGENCIES DELEGATIONS LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to take all provisions of the bill as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Mallard TrevorREFERENDUMS FRAMEWORK BILLDischarge from Justice Committee SPEAKER: The Referendums Framework Bill has been discharged from the Justice Committee under Standing Order 295(3) and is set down for second reading from Thursday.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It's all right Mr Speaker. The National Party supports sending firefighters to Australia. Australia and New Zealand whilst fierce rivals on the sporting field have a long history of mateship off it and it is important we support each other in tough times. We commend the decision to send firefighters to Australia to support and assist in whatever way we can and bring these fires under control as quickly as possible. We offer our best wishes to all these firefighters both the New Zealanders travelling over and those already on the ground and hope they all return home safely.
Martin Tracey; Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 12 NOVEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MINISTERIAL STATEMENTSFire and Emergency Services—New South Wales DeploymentHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I wish to make a ministerial statement on sending firefighters to New South Wales. The Government is closely watching the situation with these horrific fires and our thoughts are with our neighbours across the Tasman during this challenging time. As of yesterday morning there were 100 active bushfire-related incidents across Queensland and New South Wales. New Zealanders will remember the challenges faced during the Tasman wildfires earlier this year. During that event Fire and Emergency New Zealand responded quickly and capably. We are thankful that no lives were lost here. The conditions being faced in Australia are unprecedented and it's the first time since 2009 when the fire danger ratings were introduced that catastrophic fire weather conditions are in place for the Greater Sydney area. Queensland has declared a state of fire emergency and a total fire ban remains in place in New South Wales.Today in support of Australian firefighters Fire and Emergency is deploying 21 New Zealand firefighters to help fight the Queensland wildfires that have been raging for the past nine weeks. The New Zealand contingent of six three-person crews consisting of two task force leaders and one liaison officer will fly from Auckland this afternoon and begin operations on Wednesday. These crews are in addition to the six New Zealand personnel currently assisting in New South Wales. The request to provide this assistance is in recognition of the high regard in which our fire and emergency personnel are held internationally.Their deployment is part of the reciprocal arrangements we have with Australia along with the US and Canada. We assist them when they need our help and they are available to assist us if we need their support. In the past 12 months 140 New Zealand firefighters have gone to help in Australia. Deployments such as this also provide valuable deployment opportunities or development opportunities for our personnel. Some of the lessons learnt over the past overseas deployments were put into practice at the Tasman fires in February.The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely and Fire and Emergency remain in contact with Australian fire authorities about their needs. The situation in Australia is changing rapidly and deployment details are likely to change at short notice. I'm sure the best wishes of the whole Parliament and all New Zealanders are with all the firefighters combatting these terrible fires in extremely challenging positions. Take care of yourselves and we appreciate your efforts.Stuart Smith: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Oh I've lost his name. Stuart Smith—I apologise.
Thursday 7 November 2019 - Volume 742
12. Question No. 12—ImmigrationSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 12—Immigration12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: Prior to 1 October 2019 did Cabinet discuss changes to Immigration New Zealand's management of temporary visa applications for applicants in a relationship; if so on what date? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you Mr Speaker. Cabinet discussed policy changes to improve temporary work visas on 10 December 2018 and 2 September 2019. We discussed and agreed that a worker's partner and children will be able to apply to come to New Zealand on a visitor visa for the length of the worker's temporary work visa. Cabinet has not discussed Immigration New Zealand's operational management of temporary visa applications. Stuart Smith: When he said he was not aware that there was any specific [Government] directive" to change the way Immigration New Zealand interprets partnership visas is it possible that directive came from the Rt Hon Winston Peters without his knowledge given his answer to the primary question? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. Stuart Smith: Has he seen reports of statements made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he was asked about the partnership visa policy in which he said "Has New Zealand First had an influence on trying to tidy up the quality of information on which the immigration department relies? The answer is profoundly yes."? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I do read the newspaper yes. Stuart Smith: If he stands by his statement that Cabinet didn't discuss the application of the living in a relationship / partnership visa—Hon Shane Jones: Hurry up. Stuart Smith: If he stands by his statement that Cabinet didn't discuss that and that "Immigration New Zealand made its own decision." then why is New Zealand First claiming they influenced the policy? SPEAKER: I'm sorry—because it was interrupted and I lost focus on it I am going to ask the member to ask it again. Stuart Smith: If he stands by his statement that Cabinet didn't make those changes recommended to Immigration New Zealand and that Immigration New Zealand "has made its own decision." then why is New Zealand First claiming they influenced the policy change? SPEAKER: Oh that's an area that he doesn't have responsibility for. Stuart Smith: Do the comments from the Rt Hon Winston Peters show that Mr Peters has more influence over immigration policy than the Minister? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. Jamie Strange: Did the Cabinet discussions that the Minister referred to in his primary answer relate to culturally arranged marriages? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No."
9. Question No. 9—Climate ChangeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister for Climate ChangeQuestion No. 9—Climate Change9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: What is the history of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill in New Zealand? Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): The bill was the idea of Generation Zero in 2016 a movement of young people committed to safeguarding the climate that they will grow up in. It's informed by the work of Dr Jan Wright the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment whose March 2018 report called for UK-style bipartisan climate change legislation. It bears the imprints of the cross-party group of MPs GLOBE-NZ convened by Dr Kennedy Graham and co-chaired by the Hon Scott Simpson and the visit to Aotearoa of John Gummer Lord Deben chair of the UK climate commission arranged by the National Party's Bluegreens group in 2017. Two months ago 170000 New Zealanders took to the streets to ask this Parliament to pass the bill. It was a centrepiece of the Green Party's 2017 election campaign and all three parties of Government committed to delivering it. Today we will. Chlöe Swarbrick: How will the Government now take more action to reduce Aotearoa New Zealand's impact on the climate? Hon JAMES SHAW: With the zero carbon bill framework in place I'm looking forward to getting on with the job of actually reducing—SPEAKER: Order! I've now reflected on the question. It unfortunately does not relate to the primary question. Chlöe Swarbrick: Reflecting on the history of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill where does this fit in the chronology of plans that this Government has to tackle climate change? SPEAKER: It just about got there yep. Hon JAMES SHAW: Well now that the zero carbon bill framework is in place or nearly in place I'm looking forward to getting on with the job of actually reducing our country's emissions to help the world avoid the climate crisis. This will include drawing up five-year emissions budgets and plans that reach across the economy to reduce emissions to meet those budgets. These plans will cover transport energy waste and agriculture. Through the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill introduced this week we will finally have a proper emissions trading scheme. Climate change is already happening. It is caused by human activity it is bad and we have a plan to fix it. Rt Hon Winston Peters: With but a few minutes to go could I ask the Minister: in his consultation with other parties has the National Party given an undertaking to support this far-seeing visionary legislation? Hon JAMES SHAW: I understand that the National Party caucus had a meeting last night and they've kept me sweating about where they stand on the bill.
8. Question No. 8—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her Government's management of the nine measles outbreaks this year? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Yes and I want to take this opportunity to thank our dedicated doctors nurses and public health staff who have worked so hard to ensure New Zealanders' health is protected. Dr Shane Reti: Does her Government's management of the nine measles outbreaks include a responsibility to the people of Samoa where three deaths including that of two babies have aligned with measles in New Zealand? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Measles is highly infectious and spread between countries is not uncommon including into New Zealand at the beginning of this year. I note that the World Health Organization specifically discussed how travel restrictions or border screening for measles is not recommended because international travel can be completed before a person becomes symptomatic. We are working closely with the Governments of Samoa and Tonga to support their response to the global measles outbreaks that are happening including sending eight nurse vaccinators and medical supplies to Samoa. Dr Shane Reti: How does she explain that under her Government's management of measles outbreaks it took four months from the first measles case in Auckland to public notification of the outbreak? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Public notification of the outbreak as I understand it occurs as soon as there is one measles case. I can't comment on the specifics of the Auckland public notification he's referring to but if he puts the question down in writing—as he has done with many hundreds of others—I'm sure we will answer him. Dr Shane Reti: Did she reply that the first time the word outbreak" was used in the measles outbreak in Auckland was on 12 June by the Auckland Regional Public Health Service? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Unfortunately I cannot recall the answer to all 400-plus written questions that I've given him answers to but I will take him at his word. Dr Shane Reti: Has her Government's management of the nine measles outbreaks actually resulted in nearly 8000 cases of measles this year on the basis that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research had previously modelled that only one in four patients with measles see a doctor? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That's a hypothetical question. I wouldn't speculate on that."
7. Question No. 7—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions is the Government taking to improve energy efficiency in schools? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): More good news. Yesterday the Government announced the accelerated roll-out of LED replacement lighting for about 550 schools around the country over the next three years. LED lights to date have been put into the majority of newly built schools and redevelopments but now schools particularly those in small and isolated areas will have the ability to have LED lights installed so that they can have their older lighting technology replaced with a much more efficient system. Gareth Hughes: Will the schools be able to keep the power bill savings to reinvest into teaching and learning? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. Yes they will. LED lights can cut schools' energy usage for lighting by over 50 percent and those savings that those 550 schools get will make a significant difference. They'll be able to reinvest that in other resources that support their students and their staff. Gareth Hughes: What else is the Government doing to promote sustainability in schools—for example supporting the use of solar panels? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That's a very good question. The Government has also announced a contestable fund to support sustainability initiatives in schools that reduce their environmental impact including the use of solar panels. The funding can support innovative energy projects in schools like solar panels replacing inefficient heating systems and removing coal boilers to ensure that we help to speed up that change. On top of this we're developing a nationwide environmental action plan to ensure that schools are energy-efficient in the future. Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did LED lighting arrive in this country and why did it take so long before a visionary education Minister understood the technology? SPEAKER: Oh I think that's a reflection on a former Minister. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To be honest I don't know the answer to the first part of the question but it was some time ago and it is an absolute tragedy. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do know the date and it does reflect on a previous education Minister who would be very well-known to you—in fact in a most reflective way—and I think that also it cannot possibly be within the realm of responsibility for Mr Hipkins. He's responsible for the education of the nation not for the technology—SPEAKER: No no. The question was why hadn't Ministers of Education—including himself and probably myself—got on to the job earlier and that is a valid question. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is a terrible tragedy in fact that schools have had to wait this long for LED lighting. But now they have got a Government that's absolutely committed to energy efficiency in our schools and we're going to deliver on that.
4. Question No. 4—ForestryJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of ForestryQuestion No. 4—Forestry4. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): More good news. As a consequence of the coalition agreement where progressively we were going to reallocate parts of Government out of Wellington to the provinces I announced the construction the beginning of the new forestry hub in Rotorua. It will house at Scion's Rotorua hub 50 Ministry for Primary Industries people with 25 coming from Te Uru Rākau shared with the Department of Conservation—a highly desirable outcome bringing those two entities closer together in an efficient use of resources using New Zealand - engineered timber delivering social and environmental regional benefits and actually putting political narrative into institutional fiscal reality. Jenny Marcroft: What other announcements has he made? Hon SHANE JONES: As a consequence of the highly successful billion trees strategy sadly attracting attention in consequence to the non-existent policy amongst other parties in the House I announced the sum of $250000 to $300000 request for proposal into ways we can use wood fibre to assist with our transition to a low-emission economy. In this way we are moving towards value-added we are assisting in the transition of our economy and we are creating a new raft of jobs. Jenny Marcroft: Why is it important for Te Uru Rākau to have a strong regional presence? Hon SHANE JONES: That's because the regions love the billion trees policy. There has unfortunately been some mischief made as a consequence of poor information and distortion of data but forestry for many decades has sustained parts of regional New Zealand. I do accept in the time of the National Party 100000 hectares of farmland was put into forestry. I have not as the Minister of Forestry achieved quite that level of ignominy.
2. Question No. 2—Research Science and InnovationDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 2—Research Science and Innovation2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made regarding Government support for research into climate change? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): This week I made two announcements that will have a significant impact on the global fight against climate change. On Tuesday I released the results of the latest Marsden funding round. The successful projects include a number that will help understand and respond to climate change. As well as these projects yesterday I had the pleasure of announcing the New Zealand Government's first space mission. This mission involves the launch of a satellite that will locate and measure methane and will be pivotal in helping to reduce those emissions across the globe. I'm extremely proud that New Zealand will be playing a significant role in this important research. The Marsden projects I've announced and the methane satellite mission demonstrate our Government's continued commitment to making sure New Zealand is not just doing what is required to fight against climate change but is being a world leader. Dr Deborah Russell: What are the Marsden Fund projects that have been funded? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Some of the exciting projects that have been funded include investigating how carbon dioxide is released from the ocean floor investigating how rainfall patterns changed in the Pacific during the glacial period whether airborne microplastics play a role in climate change and three programmes of work to increase solar panel technology. By backing our top researchers to find new and innovative solutions to tough problems we are helping to create a strong future for New Zealand. Dr Deborah Russell: Why has the Government decided to participate in this space mission to locate and measure methane? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our investment in the mission provides three key benefits for New Zealand demonstrating global leadership by investing in a science mission that will directly help to fight to climate change. It will give Kiwi researchers the opportunity to join a cutting-edge climate science mission alongside the world's best climate scientists and aerospace experts and to build important capability in our rapidly growing space sector. This mission represents the first time the New Zealand Government has participated in an international space mission and a key part of the announcement that I made yesterday is that New Zealand will host mission control.
van de Molen Tim; Mallard TrevorTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): It is a real privilege to rise in the final seconds on a Thursday evening—SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member and actually I probably could have anticipated it by doing it earlier but the debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. Have a good weekend.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill (continued)
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I think the primary question to answer tonight is what is this bill trying to provide a solution for. In fact in following on from my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse it is actually trying to find organs for 550 New Zealanders who are on a waiting list. Currently those 550 New Zealanders have to wait for somebody to pass away. So in fact donors have been sourced from people who are in the intensive care units on a ventilator and so we have historically relied on deceased donors.In 2007 we had 73 such donors. In 2018 we had 62. In terms of the international context New Zealand per million we do rank pretty lowly: 13 per million—Australia's 21 the UK is 23 the US is 32 and Spain is 46. In fact that regime has been enabled because in their jurisdiction they do have an opt-out consent process which means that if people find themselves in situations where they have died the State in that instance actually takes those organs. I will commend the bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Personal Explanations — Oral Questions—Question No. 6 to Minister
Genter Julie AnnePERSONAL EXPLANATIONSOral Questions—Question No. 6 to MinisterHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker thank you. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer given today during question time.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is not.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In answers to supplementary questions from Nicola Willis about the contents of an aide-mémoire dated 26 March 2019 my response made reference to the content of that aide-mémoire that was incorrect. My response was in fact a reference to a different briefing dated 25 January 2019.
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. On behalf of the Green Party I rise to support this legislation. I echo the comments of the previous speakers of the deep appreciation for the staff of the Clerk's Office and the Parliamentary Service. We're incredibly well served and our democracy is better as a result. I'd note that this has come back from the Governance and Administration Committee with only three submissions but no amendments. It shows I think the quality of the drafting in the first place. I'd also like to echo the comments of the Clerk that he doesn't see this as the first step towards merging the agencies and again tautoko the comments that we need to keep that independence.While we are reflecting on aligning the two entities I'd like to make a personal reflection on I think the arbitrary unfairness of the working conditions and how Ministerial Services and Parliamentary Service staff are treated differently in regards to leaders' and members' budgets. I think if Parliament could align those there would be greater fairness and understanding across people who work on behalf of the country in this precinct on the whole. There could be another opportunity to reflect on that in the future. Kia ora koutou.Bill read a second time.
Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill — Second Reading
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It's with pleasure that I rise to add New Zealand First's support to this Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill. Of course New Zealand First is the party famous for its adherence to common sense and that's exactly what this bill does. It is the epitome of common sense. Where we have a duplication of the operations of the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk we are looking through this legislation to streamline that and drive efficiencies into that. I must say you know for the record—and I'm sure that it goes for all parliamentarians—we are incredibly well served by both those entities within our parliamentary ecosystem here. As a relatively new MP I never fail to be impressed by the service we get particularly from the clerks. So New Zealand First does support this bill. We do note the need for the independence of the Clerk and are reassured I think by the Clerk's submission to the select committee that it would indeed not be a first step to a merger and understand the importance of that not occurring. Of course we're also reacting to the Francis Review which sees the way that this place operates evolve. As I said before it is a rather strange ecosystem to be part of and both those entities play a key role. I think this bill was part of that evolution—that we want to make this place a better and more efficient place to work. So I on behalf of New Zealand First have much pleasure in further supporting this bill through the process.