edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
6. Question No. 6—AgricultureSUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of AgricultureQuestion No. 6—Agriculture6. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to reduce regulatory burden on the primary sector?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Today the Government has introduced the first Resource Management Act amendment bill to the House which will start to deliver on our commitment to reduce red tape and cost for farmers by changing national freshwater regulations. The bill proposes a range of changes that will reduce regulatory burden that have been holding back our rural sector and imposing unnecessary and significant on-farm compliance costs onto our world-leading farmers whilst focusing on better environmental outcomes.Suze Redmayne: What are some of the changes in the bill that will help farmers?Hon TODD McCLAY: We've heard concerns from the farm gate and are making sensible changes to allow farmers to get on with the job. We're proposing to remove the problematic and ineffective low slope map which imposes a significant cost for minimal environmental benefits especially for low-stock farms. Regional councils and farmers are best to determine where stock need to be excluded based upon risk. The focus is on farm-level and regionally suitable solutions which will ultimately reduce cost for farmers and be better for the environment.Suze Redmayne: How else will this bill reduce regulatory burden?Hon TODD McCLAY: We'll also be repealing ineffective intensive winter grazing regulations in time for the 2025 season. Effective non-regulatory measures are already in place to support the continued improvement of winter grazing practices with sector groups confirming their continued and collective commitment to working alongside farmers and regional councils to ensure good outcomes. Where councils have already adopted their own rules these will remain in place. We've also heard how Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations is being applied inconsistently so we'll be starting the process to rebalance the rights of all water users in respect of consent applications.Suze Redmayne: Why is the Government making these changes?Hon TODD McCLAY: Well regulations need to be fit for purpose and not place unnecessary costs on our most productive sectors. By improving primary sector efficiency we can boost our largest export sector and deliver for all New Zealanders. We want an efficient primary sector that works with Government for better environmental outcomes. There's a lot more work to do but these changes are an important first step in our commitment to get Wellington out of farming.
4. Question No. 4—TransportGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 4—Transport4. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on roadside drug testing?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Mr Speaker. On Monday I announced that our Government will introduce legislation this year to enable roadside drug testing as part of our commitment to improve road safety and restore law and order. Oral fluid testing is common overseas and it's an easy way to screen for drugs at the roadside. Our approach will bring New Zealand in line with Australian legislation and will remove unnecessary barriers that have delayed the fight against drugged driving.Grant McCallum: What advice has he seen on the impacts of drug-driving?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Alcohol and drugs are the number one contributing factor in fatal road crashes in New Zealand. In 2022 alone alcohol and drugs were contributors to 200 fatal crashes on our roads. That is why our Government is introducing legislation to enable roadside drug testing will set targets for police to undertake 50000 oral fluid tests each year.Grant McCallum: What reports has he seen on roadside drug testing in New Zealand?Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have seen reports that despite legislation being passed in 2022 to enable roadside drug testing roadside testing has not been rolled out as the legislation required the test to be suitable for evidentiary purposes and not just for a screening intent. The Police Association said this was really disappointing" and the Automobile Association said that the failed roll out was "another blow to road safety". Our Government will pass workable legislation to target the highest contributing factors to fatal road crashes.Grant McCallum: How will the Government's legislation differ to roadside drug testing legislation passed in 2022?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our roadside drug testing regime will use oral fluid testing devices at the roadside for screening purposes. If two oral fluid tests are positive then an oral fluid sample will be tested in a laboratory for evidentiary purposes. This differs to the previous roadside drug testing regime which required tests at the roadside to be used for evidentiary purposes and resulted in police being unable to roll out roadside drug testing."
1. Question No. 1—Prime MinisterTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister1. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What update can he provide on the coalition Government's commitment to Gumboot Friday?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The coalition Government announced yesterday that Budget 2024 will provide $24 million over four years contracting the I Am Hope Foundation to provide under-25-year-olds with free counselling services through the Gumboot Friday initiative. This funding was a commitment made under the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement. Gumboot Friday helps youth with mental health needs—Hon Member: What's your procurement process?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and you if you'd like to have access to counselling services earlier. This funding will help Gumboot Friday give more than 15000 young New Zealanders access to free mental health counselling services each year. This is a serious investment in the front-line service that has a proven record of delivering to the young people who need help the most.Tanya Unkovich: Why is investing in this grassroots organisation so important for young New Zealanders?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This Government is focused on investing in our front-line services that will deliver real results. For every $1 invested in I Am Hope it results in a social return to New Zealand of $5.70. This is a grassroots organisation that works and delivers results. I Am Hope has over 500 accredited counsellors and with this funding 300 more are on the way. This is a common-sense investment and by providing better access to targeted faster intervention now youth will get the help they need sooner.
O'Connor Greg; Kuriger BarbaraHouse resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill — In Committee—Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 3 and Clauses 1 to 3
Utikere Tangi; Jones Shane; O'Connor GregTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mr Chair thank you. I take the Minister's response around the nature of reviews being timely and frequent cost is a factor and resilience and economic productivity being increased as well. There is a suggestion with this piece of legislation that when reviews are undertaken it's at a time that is between seven and 10 years post enactment of the legislation as is the case in relation to special resolutions that some organisations that are iwi-mandated may have as is the case. So I wonder whether the Minister is comfortable with that as a time frame or whether the suggestion of a default period kicking in post-enactment is something that he might be more interested in. Can I also ask the Minister this: the House has obviously arrived at this point after a lot of work over a lot of time and if there are any future proposed changes to this bill either in theory or in practice does he commit to ensuring that that follows a similar process albeit timely rather than it appearing in an omnibus bill or something similar like that in terms of addressing some of these issues which might arise in the short to medium term without it being just sort of swept in so to speak. Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): That's an uncharacteristically shrewd observation. I think that the point is well made. This was a National settlement and it should be subject to a collaborative approach by all parties in the House because we all have a vested interest given the great drama promise and compromise that was entered into at the time that this settlement was enacted. So to the extent that I can provide satisfaction to the member I probably can provide that level of satisfaction for maybe nine to 12 years. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I very much thank the Minister for that level of satisfaction that he has and also it's good to hear on this side of the Chamber as well. But my final question for the Minister is around the commencement—since we've taken this all as one—and there is obviously feedback that the two-year time frame post - Royal assent for commencement is ideal in order to give time for the relevant changes and amendments to be made. My final question is whether the Minister believes that that two-year time frame is sufficient and if not why not? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): As these exchanges draw to a close I think the member is demonstrating a growing skill in protracting debates where perhaps there's no substance. If only the earlier speaker on immigration had showed such shrewdness as he's got. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well that's an observation for the Chair I'd point out to the honourable Minister. The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Amendment Paper 33 and his tabled amendment be agreed to. Amendments agreed to.Preamble Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Williams Arena; Jones ShaneARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Chair thank you. One of the most significant changes that this bill would enact and what the committee considered very carefully in the detail of it is how it is appropriate to change the powers to appoint Te Ohu Kai Moana directors. I want to invite the Minister to comment on the current state of the appointment of Te Ohu Kai Moana directors and then in his view how this legislation will change the appointment going forward and to give an assurance to this committee that the independence and capability of the directors will be of a high standard given the law change.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Te Ohu Kai Moana when it was created was built around an electoral college and there was a sense that that diminished the right of iwi to directly participate in the governance direction the governance nomination and the governance voting process. That particular innovation was designed to prevent rivalry and to bring some stability to the iwi community lying behind Te Ohu Kai Moana—a wee bit I presume like the nominations committee which I unwisely agreed to in an earlier Government of the Climate Change Commission. But that's another matter. So this is an attempt to reflect a better institutional expression of rangatiratanga where there is direct influence enjoyed by iwi and as I'm sure they will say not through the sieve of an electoral college.
Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Meager James; O'Connor GregJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Point of order. I seek leave to take all provisions as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There's no objection.
O'Connor Greg; Utikere Tangi; Jones ShanePart 1 Amendments to Preamble Title and Parts 1 to 6 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 1 which is the debate on clauses 4 to 94 Amendments to Preamble Title and Parts 1 to 6". The question is that Part 1 stand part.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Chair and it's a pleasure to take a call and to engage with the Minister on some of these issues—like my colleague Arena Williams. The preamble which exists in terms of before the committee is something that is new to I think many members in the committee in terms of being available for debate.But I want to acknowledge first that this is as we know a bill that has taken a number of years to get here; that many Ministers have had this in front of them and I congratulate the current Minister on having this landed on his lap and being able to bring it back to the House—albeit post the select committee of the previous Parliament—to progress some of the changes. I do want to very briefly just acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee—that was very apparent that it was constructive and supportive as a process.There is an Amendment Paper in the Minister's name and no doubt we will come to them but at this stage I do want to signal to the Minister that the Labour Party will be providing general support for the amendments that are suggested in his name.But when I reflect on the second reading debate there was a lot of commentary on suggestions around clause 37 and clause 25. The two clauses that they relate to: 37 is the nature of representative Māori organisations and effectively the voting capacity. Whereas clause 25 which is in Part 1 relates more specifically to the ability for there to be specific involvement for a representative Māori organisation around votes and decision making that relate to the number of directors on the board; the relativity around the appointment of directors specific or otherwise; but also they relate to the potential removal of a director or directors.The National Party differing view sought changes to those two clauses and so my question to the Minister is: what has changed in his mind where there are no amendments that have been tabled or seem to be willing to be progressed at committee stage in light of that? So that's the first question I have for the Minister.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The member raises a very good point. What has changed since the point of that select committee proceeding and today? A momentous event called an election."
Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill — In Committee—Preamble
Williams Arena; Jones Shane; O'Connor GregARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. And thank you to Minister Jones who has provided some clarity around his intentions for this committee stage keeping us on our toes—we were wondering whether he would come to the House tonight with some more amendments. But as the chair of the previous Māori Affairs Committee I'm happy to hear that it is his intention to proceed with the bill as it is now.My only question about the preamble is that you know members of this House who have been here for as long as I have—I'm in my second term—will not have engaged in the committee stage but the preamble is the first part of the debate. I want to ask the Minister whether that is because this legislation was drafted around the time—2015 I believe—when the independent review was conducted. And perhaps the Minister could comment on why it has taken this long for the legislation to reach the House given that the independent review was conducted in 2015?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): During the period of time 2017 2020 this bill did not enjoy a level of urgency or priority. It obviously fell to the recently departed Government that it should be expedited. I have inherited that role and I am moving it forward.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's tabled amendment to the preamble be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the preamble as amended stand part.Preamble agreed to.
O'Connor Greg; Jones ShaneMĀORI FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePreambleCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. Members we start with the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): For purposes of clarification this bill reflects a desire of the owners of the Māori fisheries endowment to make amendments to the parent legislation. It's traceable back to legislation that was passed in this House in the Helen Clark Government based on a settlement that originally was entered into by the Jim Bolger Government in 1992. Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Tim Castle was hired for the princely sum of $600000 to undertake a review of the operations of Te Ohu Kai Moana. That was then subject to a variety of negotiations and consultations and meetings within Te Ao Māori.So I want to draw the attention of the committee that a Supplementary Order Paper—otherwise known I'm told now as an Amendment Paper—lies on the Table. It will have the effect of improving the commerciality of how quota is used to meet the interests of the Māori fishing companies who desire a longer period of time to use less quota to boost jobs and give greater certainty. The effect of the bill will be to give a greater sense of autonomy back to the many iwi and their level of influence over the central governance body otherwise known as Te Ohu Kai Moana.I'm advised and I faithfully pray that this is accurate that it will improve efficiency. That all lies in the future. There are several areas where consultation was entered into and that pertains to the role of representative Māori organisations. Sadly it reprises a historic debate that caused a great deal of disharmony in the 1990s between the various traditional iwi and more modern aggregations of Māori society otherwise known as urban Māori groups. There's no consensus on this matter so I have proceeded on the assumption that we will be relying upon the report that came back from the select committee. Although I have to say to people who may be concerned about that that Māori urban authorities otherwise known as representative Māori organisations have always been a part of the infrastructure of this piece of legislation.The Amendment Paper I repeat again is a positive addition improving the prospects of iwi and their companies using quota without triggering any constitutional provisions that might cause people to doubt as to whether or not it's a lease or an alienation. Naturally I do acknowledge the work that the select committee did. Although this is a technical range of amendments it does build on a historic settlement 1992 entered into between Māoridom led by Sir Graham Latimer Sir Bob Mahuta Hon Matiu Rata and Sir Tipene O'Regan—only one of those four totara trees is still with us—and Doug Graham Doug Kidd and Mr Bolger.So I reiterate that the changes incorporated in the Amendment Paper are of a relatively modest commercial nature but the bill does build on a report that was tabled and completed several years ago. The bill has been through the select committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
Penk Chris; O'Connor GregHon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Immigration): Thank you Mr Chair. I think we could not have a more straightforward description of the intent and indeed the substance of the bill. Mass arrivals" refers specifically to those who arrive in a way that is a mass as opposed to on an individual basis. That's at the heart of the first definition the first substantive provision within the bill. It does exactly what it says on the tin—that is the regime that it generates—because without that we would have a lack of clarity. We would have the possibility of diminution of human rights in the sense of not being able to have an effective management of the system. Again I stand by the fact that that is effectively one of the purposes of the bill because to have them processed in as timely a fashion as possible to be detained in as minimal a form as possible is the whole purpose of the bill. It's appropriate that the title of the bill reflects that.It's also by the way while I'm at it appropriate that the commencement date be the day after Royal assent because we don't know when and if this bill might be required but we cannot afford to take the chance that we have a regime not in place whereby we'd have a system overwhelmed and without a good capacity to deal with it.That's the purpose of the bill. That's why the title and the commencement are as they are.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'm assuming that the members to my right are all looking for a closure. I'm not seeing any speakers on my left so I'll go straight to the vote."
O'Connor Greg; Menéndez March RicardoClauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to our final debate—clauses 1 to 3 Title" "Commencement" and "Principal Act". RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Can I just suggest a different title and I just want to discuss on the title itself that this bill may have been titled "Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill" but let's make it really clear: this bill should be "Immigration (Diminishing of the Human Rights of Asylum Seekers) Amendment Bill" and to make it the really lengthy title I would follow with "Having No Regard and/or Commitments to the Wellbeing of Disabled or Under-age Asylum Seekers". Throughout the debate and now that we're arriving to the title of this bill which ultimately serves as the more symbolic way of debating what this bill intends to do it is important to note the language around mass arrivals. Because "mass arrivals" as a language isn't in and of itself political language; it is loaded. "Mass arrivals" serve as language to actually fearmonger around the potential risks that asylum seekers may pose to a country. "Mass arrivals" implies that the people arriving who are fleeing war who are fleeing persecution actually pose some sort of risk or will be arriving in "masses". Seeking asylum is a right and this bill did nothing to actually enhance the rights of those asylum seekers despite the claims by several members from both Labour and National throughout this debate. What this bill is doing despite its quite ambiguous title is simply diminishing the rights of those asylum seekers using a two-tier system of ways of processing asylum-seeker claims and the reality of this bill is simply that it is founded by fearmongering. Despite what Cabinet Ministers may have been privy of this title simply does not reflect what the community organisations at the front lines have been calling for which is resourcing the judiciary system and the community system.Hon Shane Jones: Relevant? No.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I know that this debate may feel like a joke for the members of New Zealand First who have made a career of fearmongering the public when it comes to migrants but the reality is this bill is a load of rubbish. It simply diminishes the rights of those asylum seekers and any member of this House should be ashamed of supporting this bill instead of focusing on the issues that matter to those communities."
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 (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Amendment Paper 28 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford's tabled amendments to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments 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.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment set out on Amendment Paper 34 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 Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment set out on Amendment Paper 35 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 Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment set out on Amendment Paper 36 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 Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment set out on Amendment Paper 37 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 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call Mr Menéndez March just a reminder that the House has got a preferred method—both the Minister and any member making a statement—of operating through the committee stages. Question and answer can be more effective often and as Chair I'll facilitate that. The members are welcome to make full five-minute speeches—that's within their purview. However in light of the spirit of trying to get good debate good facts out at this committee of the whole House stage I'll just invite all the members involved just to reflect on that.
Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Green Building Council Report—Government Response
Brownlee GerryURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDNew Zealand Green Building Council Report—Government ResponseSPEAKER: I have received a letter from Arena Williams seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government's response to the New Zealand Green Building Council's report Closing the gap: Hidden emissions and untapped potential of buildings to reduce the costs and deliver for carbon budgets. The business of the House should not be set aside just because a Minister has commented on a report indicating a possible future action. There must be such an element of urgency; the matter must take precedence over other business. In this instance I'm not convinced that the threshold has been reached. The application is declined.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petitions of Christine McCarthy requesting that the House amend section 77(3) of the Corrections Act to increase every prisoner's minimum entitlement for outgoing telephone calls.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Electoral Commission on the 2023 general election.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:briefing on the 2022-23 performance current operations and strategic intentions of Immigration New Zealand and on theEducation and Workforce Committee Scrutiny Plan for the 54th Parliamentreport of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Finance and Expenditure Committee Scrutiny Plan for the 54th Parliamentreport of the Social Services and Community Committee on its Scrutiny Plan for the 54th Parliament.SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill introductionRegulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill introductionRegulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Brown SimeonBUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week the House will consider the committee stage immediately followed by the third reading of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill as well as the first reading of the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members' day and on Thursday the Minister of Finance will deliver Budget 2024—seven more sleeps to go.
Brownlee GerryVISITORSAustralia—New South Wales Legislative AssemblySPEAKER: I am sure members would wish to welcome the Hon Dominic Perrottet member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and his accompanying delegation who are in the gallery.
Visitors — Australia—New South Wales Legislative Assembly
Speaker's Observations — New Zealand Parliament—170th Anniversary of First Meeting
Brownlee GerrySPEAKER'S OBSERVATIONSNew Zealand Parliament—170th Anniversary of First MeetingSPEAKER: Members tomorrow—24 May 2024—marks the 170th anniversary of the first meeting of the New Zealand Parliament in Auckland on 24 May 1854. I'm sure members would wish to join me in noting the occasion and noting the continued importance of our democracy.
Kuriger BarbaraTHURSDAY 23 MAY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSBARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 21 May 2024 - Volume 775
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a first 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 first time. Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I stand wanting to say that if children were able to see us now with the passions that are being displayed with all the good intentions on both sides being expressed and the indignance behind the desire to strengthen a culture they would probably look at us and say What about us the children?" They are not as sophisticated in their language. They are not at the level that everyone in this House is able to speak and shout and judge and label. They will just be wanting to be provided the opportunity to live the best lives they can.There are other children in the care of Oranga Tamariki. While it is true that the greater percentage is Māori—Kahurangi Carter: Yes seven out of 10.PAULO GARCIA: Yes yes. If I may I think we can dial down the anger because we can't see—Rawiri Waititi: It's not anger; it's righteous anger and it's passion.PAULO GARCIA: OK so I will just—[Interruption]So my point is that if children could see what is happening now they would probably just want to clamour for what they need as children do. They need to be cared for they need to be in stable conditions and they need to be loved. Love does not call out by race. Love is called out by the kind of values that the care environment provides to the children or seeks to provide the children.Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are you saying there are no loving Māori whānau that could take these children on?PAULO GARCIA: No no no. I'm just saying what I'm saying. People can take whatever meaning they want to take out of what I'm saying but what I'm saying is that children just want to be cared for and loved and put in stable environments.Hon Willow-Jean Prime: That's what we want too.PAULO GARCIA: We all want that.Hon Willow-Jean Prime: With whānau.PAULO GARCIA: It's true that there is a deeper connection with cultural values behind the upbringing of children. True. There is no battle about that.Hon Member: That's why we're here. That's what we are debating on.PAULO GARCIA: No because not all children in care are Māori.Hon Member: This is about 7AA Māori mokopuna.PAULO GARCIA: I'm just pointing out there are children in care who are not Māori and just like Māori kids they will be looking for the love and support and environment that they need to grow in a stable environment. There is no—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Mr Garcia if you'd mind just sticking to the bill. It might just be a good idea at this stage.PAULO GARCIA: Thank you Mr Speaker. The removing of section 7AA does not restrict the engagement and specialised relationship that iwi hapū and Māori organisations offer. It does not strip that. It also provides opportunities for existing relationships to carry on as long as they are able to provide that environment. That's the whole object because it is possible that in the way the law is there it can be abused. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First is steadfast in its belief that there should be a focus on actionable outcomes for those who are in need. We believe in securing the immediate safety and wellbeing of our most vulnerable especially our children. There has been a concern around section 7AA addressing a child's cultural needs ahead of their immediate safety stability and wellbeing. We believe that cultural considerations whilst important should not impede a process and possibly put a child's safety and security at jeopardy. There is a genuine concern that section 7AA when executed is simply too traumatic for the young child; hence removing this provision from the Oranga Tamariki Act which puts an obligation on the chief executive around abiding by the Treaty of Waitangi in decision making when it comes to caring for our young people.It is hard to imagine the possible trauma for a child when uplifted. The child may have been told that this is their forever home. They are settled and have developed a connection a bond with their new carers some over several years only then to be removed. Genuine need must transcend race religion or other similar factors. The obligation under section 7AA does not put the overall welfare of the child first. The child and wellbeing of the child the care and wellbeing of the child must come first. The child must be safe at all costs period. I look forward to the select committee in hearing submissions and going through this process. Hence on behalf of New Zealand First I commend this bill to the House.
Tuesday 7 May 2024 - Volume 775
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party is pleased to support this bill. It restores the property rights and provides compensation for an iwi which had their property taken in an unjust way and it was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. So the ACT Party is very pleased to support this bill as reported back.I want to acknowledge that Ngāti Tara Tokanui have suffered significant harm as individuals as an iwi and as the people of the Hauraki Plains and that resulted from the confiscation of a large tract of land by the Crown in the Tauranga area which included their traditional lands. It was not clear to me from reading the summary—the historical account—what the role was of Ngāti Tara Tokanui at the time that led to their lands being confiscated. It's not clear. However confiscation or raupatu was a common punishment for rebellion under the British and under other empires and not just in New Zealand. It was common going back to medieval times in Britain for example that rebellions were punished by confiscating land. The difference between medieval times and now though is that New Zealand is a country which believes in the rule of law protecting property rights although they have been severely eroded. There is an opportunity to address the wrongs of the past and that's what this settlement bill does in some small way. As the previous speaker Steve Abel mentioned it's not possible to restore Ngāti Tara Tokanui to their previous status. It's not possible to return all the land. In fact the historical account indicates that after having land confiscated and after selling a large amount of land—although it's not made clear it appears that that was to pay bills—they were left with only 232 acres of land by 1995. I think what's also important to acknowledge—and it's stated very clearly here in the historical account—is that the iwi were seeking to develop their land. They had signed an agreement with the Crown to establish a goldfield. They were supporting the investigation of goldmining on their land because goldmining at that time—in 1870—was seen as a fantastic contributor to economic and social development where it occurred and iwi like Ngāti Tara Tokanui could have benefited from it. But it appears that the iwi never got to benefit from it because some of the commercial arrangements that they entered into were all cost and no reward. It appears that their property rights have been infringed many times over the years. That's why the ACT Party is pleased to see this settlement bill come before the House. It upholds the property rights restores the mana and provides for this iwi to grow and develop their lands and to attain some kind of economic sovereignty within the laws of New Zealand. With that the ACT Party commends this bill to the House.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab requesting that the House call for an unconditional and internationally monitored ceasefire in Gaza; and note that 15814 people have signed a similar online petitionpetition of Peter James Cullinane requesting that the House urge the Government to put additional pressure on Israel to end the conflicts in Gaza and the West Bankpetition of Holly Brooker requesting that the House require Internet Service Providers to filter objectionable materialpetition of Sharon Shaw requesting that the House urge Auckland Council to review the consent granted to Kiwi Waste & Recycling because of concerns about dust pollution. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Government response to the referral of the petition of Millicent Dickenson: Subsidise degrees that lead to mental health jobsreport of the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Billreport of Mana Mokopuna Children and Young People's Commission Statement of Intent 2024 - 2027 andWhakaata Māori - Māori Television Service Statement of Intent 2023 - 2026.SPEAKER: I present the 2024-25 draft annual plan of the Controller and Auditor-General. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill introductionContracts of Insurance Bill introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Motions — Congratulations—Completion of doctorate Dr David Wilson
Bishop ChrisMOTIONSClerk of the House—Doctoral DissertationHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice without debate to congratulate Dr David Wilson on the acceptance of his doctoral dissertation and the awarding by Victoria University of Wellington of a PhD.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that?Hon Members: No.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move That this House congratulates the Clerk of the House Dr David Wilson on the acceptance of his doctoral dissertation on Influences on parliamentary procedure in New Zealand 1935-2015 and the awarding by Victoria University of Wellington of a PhD making him the first Clerk of the House to receive his PhD while holding the position.Motion agreed to.
Visitors — Ukraine—Parliamentary Delegation
Brownlee GerryVISITORSUkraine—ParliamentSPEAKER: Members I'm sure that you would wish to join with me in welcoming a Ukraine parliamentary delegation led by Dr Galyna Mykhailiuk MP.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 30 APRIL 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
Thursday 28 March 2024 - Volume 774
Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Tuesday 25 June 2024 (continued on Thursday 27 June 2024) - Volume 776
11. Question No. 11—Building and ConstructionMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 11—Building and Construction11. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about building and construction?Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): The Government has published the terms of reference for the review into earthquake-prone buildings. These demonstrate the Government's commitment to ensuring that we get the balance right between public safety and costs to building owners. The review will be extensive and will report back to the Government in the first half of 2025.Mike Butterick: Why do we need to review the earthquake-prone building system?Hon CHRIS PENK: Because the Government is focused on reinvigorating our cities and regions to support economic growth. Buildings sitting empty and abandoned for years will be negative for everyone. Buildings in that kind of state can be dangerous but they are also a handbrake on growth and development. Improving the way we manage the risks of earthquakes will be beneficial for everyone from our largest cities to our smallest regional towns that are the backbone of New Zealand.Mike Butterick: What will the review be focused on?Hon CHRIS PENK: The review will focus on among other things the cost of mitigating earthquake risk and improving buildings' resilience; proposals for managing earthquake risk as affecting building owners; barriers in the types of incentives that would help building owners better manage seismic risk; and changes that align with broader Government objectives such as going for housing growth and rebuilding the economy.Mike Butterick: Can Kiwis have their say on the review?Hon CHRIS PENK: Yes they certainly can. That includes all those across the political aisle within central government but also those in local government who have key roles to play in the system as it currently exists. The public can provide their feedback and share their views via the building.govt.nz site.
6. Question No. 6—TransportJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 6—Transport6. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made about land transport investment in New Zealand? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Today I released the final Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport a $22 billion plan over the next three years which will deliver on our transport commitments. This GPS is already delivering for New Zealanders and will continue to do so by bringing back the successful roads of national significance programme. It invests substantially more in road maintenance and invests significantly more in reliable public transport. Joseph Mooney: How is the Government policy statement investing in pothole prevention on State highways? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh good question. Our Government has created a new pothole prevention fund activity class that is ring-fenced to resealing rehabilitating and the drainage on the maintenance of our roads to prevent those pesky potholes from forming. Over $2 billion has already been allocated to the pothole prevention fund for State highways across the country—a 91 percent increase in funding compared to the spend in the last three years. Joseph Mooney: How is the Government policy statement investing in pothole prevention on local roads? Hon SIMEON BROWN: More good news: almost $2 billion has been allocated to local road pothole prevention to prevent pesky potholes from forming—a 50 percent increase in funding from over the last three years. Compared to spend in the previous three years we're increasing local road pothole prevention funding by 74 percent in Auckland 61 percent in the Bay of Plenty 38 percent in Canterbury and 40 percent in Southland. This investment will deliver real results for Kiwis travelling on our roads. Joseph Mooney: How is the Government policy statement delivering for public transport users? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well even more good news. There is great news for public transport users across the country with our Government delivering a 41 percent boost in funding for public transport services and operations to help Kiwis have more travel choices particularly in our main cities. We are a Government of delivery and we're committed to delivering reliable public transport services for New Zealand. The last Government—they might have spent their time on a ghost bridge across the harbour; we're actually going to get things done.