edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
9. Question No. 9—EnvironmentHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 9—EnvironmentHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Does she stand by her—SPEAKER: Sorry—could you start again? We've just got too much talk over here. Please start again.9. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her answer given to primary oral question No. 11 yesterday; if so which of the objectives of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 would she prioritise above the health and wellbeing of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Yes I do stand by my statement. We do not agree with the hierarchy of objectives and that is why we have undertaken to replace the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management 2020 to ensure more balanced enduring and sustainable outcomes. We have been clear that we will undertake a full and robust consultation process to replace the national policy statement and rebalance Te Mana o te Wai. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to give priorities when we will be entering a full consultation round. Hon Rachel Brooking: So can the Minister therefore confirm that she would not prioritise the objective of health needs of people over the commercial use of water? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We have indicated that we would be looking for a balanced approach that would be more enduring and more sustainable and therefore that consultation process will be with all stakeholders to ascertain all interests in fresh water. Hon Rachel Brooking: Given her statement yesterday that she intends to customise and to have nuanced processes in place that ensure that at a community level they can be making decisions that are appropriate for that community is she proposing to abandon national environmental standards entirely or will she retain freshwater bottom line standards?Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We are very clear on this side that people on the ground are the ones that know solutions and we've got some wonderful examples of that with catchment groups and so therefore we will be ensuring that our consultation is to that level of people on the ground who have the solutions who can then bring that into the new NPS. Hon Rachel Brooking: Point of order. That question was specifically about national environmental standards and the answer related to the national policy statement.SPEAKER: The second part of it asked if she was going to drop some of those. The member knows that you can't ask a yes or no answer" question.Hon Rachel Brooking: Will she commit to ensure that it remains the case that tangata whenua are actively involved in freshwater management including decision-making processes and Māori freshwater values are identified and provided for? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Absolutely. We are committed to a full consultation process including iwi and various other groups that have an interest in fresh water."
6. Question No. 6—HealthDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—Health6. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on the performance of the health system?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): The latest clinical performance metrics report released by Health New Zealand yesterday shows the amount of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment nationally has grown enormously from 35863 in September 2022 to 59817 in September 2023. That is a 66.79 percent increase in just 12 months. Meanwhile emergency department (ED) wait times have also deteriorated with only 67.6 percent of those presenting to ED being seen in under six hours. We will work with the sector to improve this. Dr Carlos Cheung: What steps is the Minister taking to tackle the ongoing challenges around the 2020 health reforms?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yesterday I announced my plans to appoint a Crown observer to Health New Zealand. This was a carefully considered decision but is necessary to work with the sector to reset a clear focus on health outcomes and to improve our health system. We will be a Government of outcomes and tackle the ongoing challenges left over from Labour's 2022 reforms.Dr Carlos Cheung: What action will this Government take to improve the health outcome for all New Zealanders?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government will take many actions to improve health outcomes for all New Zealanders. The 2022 health reforms were proclaimed by previous Ministers as providing better health results but all that they achieved was more money spent and more bureaucracy while delivering longer waiting times dire workforce shortages and worse outcomes for all. That is why amongst other things we will be setting clear health targets in the new year. Dr Carlos Cheung: What benefits will the introduction of health targets have for New Zealanders? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As we have seen through the clinical performance metrics and many other measures the past six years have caused an obvious deterioration in our healthcare system despite the hard work of the board and our health workforce. The introduction of clear targets will help change that. We will deliver better health outcomes for all New Zealanders; put simply we agree with clinicians that health targets save lives. SPEAKER: Yes OK that's great but don't use question time to attack previous Governments—pretty simple.
4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the principle in the Government's coalition agreements that decisions will be based on data and evidence" including for economic and fiscal policy?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes.Hon James Shaw: Has she seen any data or evidence that shows that increasing bus fares for the lowest earning New Zealanders will cut their living costs?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am aware of evidence that shows that the biggest barrier to people choosing public transport is the reliability and frequency of public transport. Therefore ours is a Government that will continue to invest in public transport infrastructure to ensure public transport is reliable and available. Hon James Shaw: Has she seen any data or evidence that shows that increasing bus fares for the lowest earning New Zealanders will cut their living costs?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen evidence that the living costs of lower income New Zealanders are based on a range of things. This includes their incomes and whether they are growing and how highly taxed those incomes are. This is why our Government is committed to lower taxes for middle and lower income New Zealanders. Their living costs are also affected by the inflation rate which has been allowed to be out of control for the last 2½ years which is why our commitment to fiscal discipline will aid in bringing inflation under control. Their living costs are affected by a range of factors and our Government is committed to reducing their cost of living. Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen about children's ability to learn the basics brilliantly if they are hungry because the school lunch programme has been cut?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well obviously I'm not the Minister of Education but I understand that the evidence to suggest that the school lunch programme has in any way increased literacy or numeracy achievement is extremely limited indeed.Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen that shows that renters can expect to see their rents decrease as a result of the changes to the brightline test?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is demonstrably evident that if the costs we place on landlords are reduced then they will have fewer costs that they need to meet through the rents that they charge."
1. Question No. 1—HealthDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Minister of HealthORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Health1. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement on the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora My dream is to devolve decision making and funding and give to mana motuhake as close to the home and hapū as possible"; if so what structure and funding models will he use to achieve it?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes I stand by my statement. The dream is to lift mostly every health metric for Māori. I'm still working with my officials on how this will look and am excited to work collaboratively with our coalition partners to ensure that we achieve better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. That is because there is one thing we can all agree on: New Zealanders are suffering from six years of broken promises and misguidance from the previous Labour Government. The latest clinical performance metrics released yesterday show that Māori and all New Zealanders are suffering with longer wait times in the emergency department for their specialist assessment amongst many other issues. We believe the devolution of decision making and funding to those on the front lines will help drive better health outcomes and that the hapū probably know what's best for their communities.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What assurances can he give if any that the Māori health commissioning budget for Te Aka Whai Ora will stay ring-fenced for Māori health providers at the same level of funding currently in place?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The leader has already given indications that funding that is appropriated for Māori health will remain with Māori health.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will he ensure that the recommendations of the Wai 2575 Māori health claim are implemented in the new Māori health structure and investment model?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We seek to improve Māori health outcomes—which is also the endeavour of the Wai claim—and we have every intention of doing that.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will now be the monitoring mechanism to ensure accountability for Māori health outcomes as achieved by Te Whatu Ora?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We could contend whether that was truly achieved by Te Aka Whai Ora but we are working through structural mechanisms to make sure that there is monitoring in place for Māori health outcomes.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific decisions has the Government made on baseline funding delegations and the role of iwi Māori partnership boards under the new system?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We're working through appropriate structures and delegations for how we can improve Māori health outcomes."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill — Third Reading
VoteHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as being not an objective description of the bill.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill — In Committee—Schedule 2
VoteSchedule 2 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come to Schedule 2. Arena Williams' tabled amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 2 deleting amendments to various Acts are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.Steve Abel's amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 4 is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.The question is that Lan Pham's tabled amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Schedule 2 agreed to.
Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill — In Committee—Schedule 1
VoteSchedule 1 Transitional savings and related provisions CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come to Schedule 1.The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment inserting new clause 7A in Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment inserting new clause 7B in Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment inserting new clause 7C in Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment replacing clause 11 of Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 19 of Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Schedule 1 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on the question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A to require an inquiry into parts of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 that should be reinstated or given effect be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A to require an inquiry into parts of the Spatial Planning Act 2023 should be reinstated or given effect be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' third tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 2 agreed to.
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — Third Reading (continued)
Personal Explanation — Oral Questions—Question No. 1 to Minister 13 December
Swarbrick ChlöePERSONAL EXPLANATIONSOral Questions—Question No. 1 to Minister 13 DecemberCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Point of order. I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation regarding question time on Wednesday 13 December. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: During question time on Wednesday 13 December I made comments intended to challenge the content of the Prime Minister's answer to oral question No. 1. I can understand how this statement could be interpreted to be a personal reflection against the Prime Minister. It was not my intention to make a personal reflection on the Prime Minister in this House and to that effect I apologise to this House. I recognise that that should have happened at the time.
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member for her concern but I believe that the member may misinterpret the intention of this clause. It is actually quite possible with people who are currently under 90-day trials as was the law under the previous Labour-led Government where it is still the current law that we have 90-day trials people can raise a personal grievance on other matters such as sexual harassment as the Hon Willie Jackson raised. So just to clarify for the member that law exists now. We're simply extending 90-day trials to all employers.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It's a pleasure to take my first call on this very specific amendment so I appreciate being able to make a contribution. I think this is a really important amendment to discuss because—and to add a new angle to the debate—I want to get the Minister's view on why she doesn't think the intent of this amendment actually marries with what she has previously described around enabling that good matching of employers and workers to actually happen in a way that happens in good faith.If the Minister is so confident that she wants to make sure that there's flexibility in finding good matches then there won't be those unjustifiable and unfair dismissals. If the Minister is so confident that her legislation will lead to a better matching of employers and workers then she should allow for personal grievances to be put in place when there's unfair dismissals because otherwise what this tells me is that the Minister is not actually that confident that 90-day trials lead to fair outcomes. If the Minister is so confident that 90-day trials lead to fair outcomes she would have nothing to fear about personal grievances being able to be in place.So I'm really curious to unpack how her previous statements regarding good matching between employers and workers and particularly around flexibility in the workplace match. To me it says a lot that the members to my left say that it's not a new—because they seem to not be listening and just being snarky and making comments. For the ones that are new I would invite them to pay more attention in the House and do more service to the communities that they are supposed to serve.Returning to the amendment I think that the key thing here is if she doesn't believe that this adds flexibility I'm interested to know why. Then how does she think that without this amendment we can still continue to protect workers from unscrupulous employers? Because this amendment presents one of the few last safeguards that could be introduced at a time where the Government is presenting a huge huge concession when it comes to workers' rights in the name of productivity according to the Minister and in the name of flexibility. So yeah again really keen to unpack how this amendment in her view contradicts her previous sentiments around making sure that employers and workers match.
Edmonds Barbara; Kuriger BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Point of order Madam Chair. Thank you Madam Chair. I wasn't going to interrupt the vote because you had gone to the vote. Not asking Madam Chair to reopen the vote for clause 5 and 6 but actually just a reflection as we go into one more amendment clause.Even though the amendment clauses that have been tabled are quite small and narrow the Minister has been saying she's been repeating answers that she's given to different clauses—clauses 4 5 and 6. The concern that we have on this side of the House is that they are all still new amendments and because we don't have a select committee process we need to be able to speak to the various amendments. Even though the Minister's answer might be the same they are relevant to previous clauses not the new clauses.So I just ask Madam Chair as we debate the next clause by Ginny Andersen there are a couple of questions which I don't believe have been addressed by the Minister and I'm not going to reopen them but they're related to about four different questions that had not been addressed. But nevertheless as we go into this new clause debate I ask that Madam Chair just reflect on even though the answer may be the same by the Minister for previous clauses we are debating a new clause.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you for that point of order. What I would say is that some of the debate over the course of this committee stage has been quite extended. The last two Amendment Papers were very narrow. This one appears to be a little bit broader but I do want the conversation to be kept to what's in the clause. I'd also say that it is up to the Minister as to whether she wants to take further responses. If she chooses not to then that's her choice. Thank you.
Kuriger BarbaraNew clause 6 Tabled amendment (Ginny Andersen) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to the debate on new clause 6 set out on the Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment. This amendment seeks to enable an employee dismissed unfairly under a trial period to bring a personal grievance.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Noted Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the amendment in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March amending 67BA which is a new clause to be added in at clause 6 of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. There are three parts to this particular amendment and I won't take the full amount of time but I want to make a few comments on the operative parts of it. The first one is as we know a review provision. However the member has set down a review in three years and in my mind I think that's probably a bit too long. I think it would be preferable to have a review after a shorter period of time possibly one year or two years. I would like to ask the Minister if she—she's obviously indicated she's not interested in this particular provision as it stands at the moment. However if it was amended to change the number of years in fact to make it a shorter period of time would she be more open to it? Alternatively in fact a longer period of time would also be better than nothing in my view. So we've got three years at the moment; would she be minded to agree to review provision if it was five years? So that's 67BA(1) of the amendments in Menéndez March's name. The second part of that provision is looking at the people who should be consulted as part of the review and we have had I think some very relevant and useful contributions on other people that could be included in that provision. But I wanted to take the time just to note that this bill is going through without a select committee process. I did read when I was looking at my phone briefly in between taking contributions that when this bill was first introduced it was also introduced under urgency. I wondered if she had information about that or whether this is in fact the first time urgency has been used in a trial period bill. As we know there have been—and she stated in her first reading speech—four different iterations of trial period legislation as they've been through the House. It hasn't been to a select committee and I think clause 2 67BA(2) addresses some of the issues relating to the fact we didn't have a select committee.The third provision which would be useful I think for the House would be to present a copy to the House of Representatives. I'd go a little bit further than my colleague Mr Menéndez March and just say: would it be in fact more appropriate for us to actually have a special debate on that report when it was tabled? I won't be tabling a separate amendment to make that suggestion but I'd be interested in the Minister's thoughts. If she was to be agreeable to perhaps a shorter or longer period in clause 67BA(1) in that operative provision of three years at the moment would she be open to having a debate in the House looking at this report that he has suggested?
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I just want to add one simple thing to this debate because I think it is very important. We have about 80 percent of employees who are on individual agreements. We have absolutely no idea what's in those agreements and this work about trials mainly fits into that area because it won't be something that is very happily adopted in the collective agreements. The collective agreements are things we have some sight of because they're collected centrally and so we can see those—we can see what's in them. But what we can't see is the complex situation in an individual agreement which may be made with an employment builder or it may be something that's entirely original.What I've found in those agreements is that there will be clauses that say what you expect them to say and entirely new clauses which you haven't ever thought of which might actually affect how these things are working. I've given you one example tonight which is the restraints of trade that are increasingly used to tie up employees so they cannot go and work for others and they cannot ask for a pay rise because they cannot afford to leave. In combination a trial period in those agreements is a problem and I haven't heard an acknowledgment that it's a problem. I've heard that it's another piece of work but it's not another piece of work; it's a way of finding out—monitoring this piece of work and its impact and what's impacting on it and what isn't.So what I'd like to know is: have you got a plan to have a look at the effectiveness of your legislation in this case? Have you got a plan that involves seeing the whole picture?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Has the Minister got a plan?"—don't bring the Chair into the debate.HELEN WHITE: Sorry—has the Minister got a plan? I apologise Madam Chair. Has the Minister got a plan to look at the overarching work and the place of trial periods within the context of an individual agreement? And are we going to see what impact that clause is having in conjunction with other clauses? What is the plan to monitor the performance of her Government and her decision here to make this a policy given that she has made a strong argument and she has pinned her flag to the mast that this will help a particular section of New Zealand? How will we know who it helps and who it does not help?"
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): I too stand to support the amendment that's been put forward by Ricardo Menéndez March. As the previous speaker Camilla Belich has asked the Minister she's asking for a bit more detail as to how this forms as part of the Minister's business-as-usual (BAU) because the amendment that the member has put forward is not BAU. There is no monitoring BAU as part of a portfolio to be able to provide each financial year make it publicly available within three months at the end of the financial year to which this report relates which the amendment speaks to.I also wanted to ask the Minister again adding on—can you provide more detail as to how much you will report as part of your BAU or monitor as part of your BAU? The Natural and Built Environment Act repeal that went through—was it yesterday or this morning; sorry today because it's still Tuesday—had a specific post-100-day assessment clause in it. Now it wasn't part of the bill but it was part of the disclosure statement. Apologies to the Minister; I wasn't able to find a departmental disclosure statement. I wasn't sure whether one was needed for this bill. But in that particular Natural and Built Environment Bill that was put through it actually had a specific clause which said as part of the 100-day initiatives—so the Government's 100-day initiatives—there would be an assessment or monitoring of the bill because it had gone through urgency.So my additional question to the Minister is—she has made clear that she is not supportive of this amendment. We are asking for a bit more detail as to how this comes within her BAU but also one whether there was a disclosure statement prepared for this bill; and if not what is her intention in meeting the Government's post-100-days monitoring evaluation—which we have seen in other bills—because this bill has gone through urgency? So those are the three various questions that I would like some answers from the Minister please.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair and I would also like to speak to the amendment before us in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March looking at monitoring and reporting on the use of trial provisions. One of the things that members who have read the regulatory impact statement on this bill will note is the lack of information about how trial provisions are used and I think that this particular amendment goes quite a long way to making sure that that information would be recorded. One of the issues is that we can do studies on the relative impact of hiring and there's been quite a bit of a reference in this debate and in previous readings to the research commissioned by the Treasury that showed there wasn't an uptake an uptick of hiring even though that was the intention of the trial provision. But one of the things they did note is the actual use of trial provisions within individual employment contracts is not something that is centrally recorded in relation to if—so it's really difficult to know to the extent that this is actually included within employment contracts in New Zealand. So I think that this would be a really useful thing. I know the Minister has responded to Mr Menéndez March to state that she doesn't think that she wanted to include this particular provision at this stage. But I think I would ask her to reconsider that because I think this is very sensible. I don't think it goes against the policy of the Act at all. In fact I think this would strengthen the bill that she has in front of her because it would show that she's open to receiving additional information on the efficacy of the lawmaking on which she is endeavouring to put through the Chamber at the moment.I support this particular provision and I am interested—I found the responses from the Minister although helpful a little bit vague in terms of the actual concrete steps that she's looking to take. So I'd just like to say that from my end I support this amendment and I think it would be incumbent on the Minister to go into a bit more detail on the actual steps that she'll be taking in order to monitor the various labour market impacts that extending the trial period as much as this particular bill does extend it from a very small section of employees about 28 percent to every employee would have on the employment market. So I support this amendment.
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE van VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member Rachel Boyack for that very fulsome contribution but I also remind her—as she also noted at the start—that I have also already responded to that particular clause. I always just want to take the chance to talk about Ginny Andersen's amendment which talked about requiring a review of the impact of the 90-day trial periods. I remind the member that I have already spoken on that on a previous amendment doing the exact same thing.
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thanks very much Mr Chair. Now I have two drafted amendments for a new clause 6. I've got advice to understand that the first of mine will be debated under clause 5 and the second one subsequent to voting on that clause. So the new clause 6 proposes that section 103 be amended which refers to section 103 of the Employment Relations Act. So in section 103 following section 103(1)(k) my proposed amendment is that a new section would be inserted after paragraph (k) which would be paragraph (l) that employee has been dismissed unfairly under a trial period".Now that section of the Employment Relations Act which this bill the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill amends basically lays out the grounds for a personal grievance for all of those different reasons why an employee may take a personal grievance against their employer. What the extension of the 90-day trial period to all businesses—what this amended bill essentially does is remove all grounds for a personal grievance.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry Ms Andersen can I just interrupt. I think this particular additional clause of yours is actually part of clause 6 because that will actually trigger a new clause 6.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: So we did seek advice. The whip sought advice from the previous Clerk and we showed both amendments and we wrote that that was actually the advice we received that this should be debated under clause 5. I'm happy to take it at a different point but the advice we did receive—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well look we'll continue on now and then we will actually—you've got another couple of minutes to go but it will actually also be relevant to clause 6 because it will actually trigger a new clause 6.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: OK thank you. So the point I would like to have an answer from the Minister on is: would she be open to inserting an additional clause under section 103 of the Employment Relations Act that would add in that an employee has been dismissed unfairly under the trial period? Essentially that enables those rights to continue if there are grounds that the employee may feel that there's been either discrimination unfair conditions—there might be a whole range of reasons why they'd believe that they have been unjustifiably dismissed—by adding in the additional provision into the legislation that would enable a greater strengthening of workers' rights and it would stop the erosion of workers' rights which this bill so dramatically does for New Zealanders."
Pugh MaureenCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that clause 5 stand part.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Madam Chair I do have a further point of order to raise because I do want it to be noted that despite the claim that all speakers with amendments were able to speak to their amendments on clause 4 I was not able to speak to the two amendments that I put forward on clause 4. I did speak earlier not on amendments but on other matters on previous clauses. But I was not granted a call on clause 4 where I did have two amendments so I do want to put that on record.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): New point of order. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It is a new point of order? RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It is a new point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. I have been asking this because I feel like it's still unclear to me on which clause we can genuinely meaningfully impact all the things in valid questions that we would have had in the select committee stage. We know that there's no select committee stage but there's a lot of things that we normally—and answers would have happened Minister that may sit outside of those clauses that are valid otherwise. So I was just checking: would that be in the following clause because the opportunities to unpack those things are running out and I'm really concerned about—CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That's not a point of order.
Pugh Maureen; McAnulty KieranClause 5 Section 67B amended (Effect of trial provision under section 67A) CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we now come to clause 5. Clause 5 Section 67B amended (Effect of trial provision under section 67A)". The question is that clause 5 stand part.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. Thank you Madam Chair. I waited until after the vote because I thought that was the appropriate course of action. However last evening earlier in urgency I raised a point of order when a closure was accepted pointing out that there were a number of spokespeople and a number of outstanding questions. At the end of that point of order you replied that that was a fair point and now we find ourselves—when a point of order was raised by Rachel Boyack your response was that all those with amendments had spoken to those amendments. Now if the response was that there was repetition or that there were issues around relevancy we absolutely accept that as that is your call as Chair. But the reason that everyone had spoken to their amendments is a new one to me and so I was hoping you could point us to the relevant Standing Order or Speaker's ruling around those with amendments please.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I thank the member for his point of order there. If he could see my run sheet he will see that I have noted the relevance and the repetition. I was helping the member by explaining that I had made sure that everyone had spoken to their amendments but there was starting to be repetition. So I feel valid in the call that I made. Thank you.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is it a new point of order?Hon Kieran McAnulty: It is. It's a question.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Point of order the Hon Kieran McAnulty.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I want to know if this is a new Speaker's ruling and whether we can expect that whether those that have spoken to their amendments is going to be a reason for closure moving forward.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That's not a point of order the Hon Kieran McAnulty. We're going to move on to clause—Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a new point of order?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It is. I think you'll find Madam Chair that asking if a ruling from a presiding officer is a new Speaker's ruling is entirely appropriate and has been done numerous times.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Just to close off this debate it is the Chair's discretion to take a closure motion. I have done that. We are moving on to clause 5. The question is that clause 5 stand part."
Boyack Rachel; Pugh MaureenRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Point of order Madam Chair. I just want to note that there are still a number of amendments tabled on the Table with content—including mine and I've been seeking the call—that haven't been addressed yet on amendments and I think that we are calling this debate to a close too early. There are amendments still to be discussed. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I thank the member; that's not a point of order. I have made sure that everyone with amendments on the Table has had a chance to speak in this debate. The question is that the debate on this question now close.
Chhour KarenHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you Madam Chair. I move That debate on this question now close.
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE van VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to take the chance to respond to a number of members and their queries starting with the Hon Willie Jackson. I won't go over my previous response to the Hon Phil Twyford's amendment. I've already done that so we are repeating ourselves but I also note that contributions about his past works as a former Minister are not actually relevant to the bill.I also note speaking to the questions from Helen White about restraints of trade I really commend the member for wanting to talk about her own member's bill which is at select committee—love the opportunity—but that's also not part of the bill and it won't be after this goes through. I'd like to take the chance to respond to Camilla Belich who had a number of amendments. The first was to extend the 90-day trials to contractors and I'd just like to alert the member to the fact that contractors are not employees and don't have employment agreements and so that's not really relevant to this bill. We had Arena Williams talking about wanting employees to only be able to use a trial provision to dismiss an employee if they can prove that the employment of that employee has caused immaterial financial or reputational harm. The whole purpose of this bill is to reduce red tape reduce regulation reduce bureaucracy and make our labour market more flexible for employers so more employees are given an opportunity. This is a significant procedural requirement and so we do not support it.I also wanted to take the opportunity to briefly touch on the fact that she's talking about the word fewer" or "lesser" when it comes to 90 days fewer or 90 days or less. Look you might want to bring up a talking point with the legal drafters of the laws around this place but I'm not in the position of wanting to do that. I think the purpose of the draft is pretty clear.Talking to Camilla Belich also about her amendment to suggest that after an employer in the clause 67A(1) would also have an employer using a different name or legal entity but conducting the same or substantially the same work in the same location I understand this is purporting to try and limit a trial period if an employer has multiple businesses but this is not actually changing the definition of an employer. The bill extends the availability of trial periods to all employers and doesn't change any of the other settings. So it's pretty clear."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order. I just want to seek some clarification because of the previous comments you have made around a few of the amendments including those that are in clause 5 as another clause. I just want to seek your guidance on whether you expect us to have a debate on potentially adding that additional clause and whether you'd want us to have that debate right at the end or at what point do you think some of those amendments may be appropriate?CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you elaborate on which amendments you're talking to?RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So I mean because I know that some of the themes we're covering are already there in the additional clauses—for example several amendments that I've put in so for example my amendment 6 which adds a new clause 6. I just want to seek clarification as to whether you're going to ask for a debate around clause 6 or at what point do you want us to have those debates?CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The short answer is yes there will be an opportunity to debate a clause 6 amendment.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: The new clause 6?CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): But not in clause 4 no.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you.