edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
6. Road Safety—Overseas Drivers and LicensingDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of TransportRoad Safety—Overseas Drivers and Licensing6. DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Is he satisfied with current requirements for overseas drivers in New Zealand?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Transport): If the member is asking about the requirements for those with overseas licences who drive in New Zealand then yes. Under the relevant driver-licensing rule New Zealand accepts—and has under successive Governments since the late 1990s—drivers' licences issued by any overseas authority provided they are written in English or are carried with an accurate English translation. We also accept international driving permits issued under the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. This Government in partnership with other organisations has introduced numerous initiatives to better inform and educate visitors who intend to and who do drive in New Zealand. Those initiatives cover all stages of an overseas visitor's trip: planning booking in flight on arrival and on our roads.Denis O'Rourke: If it is good enough for countries like China to require visitor drivers to sit a driving test what are the reasons his Government does not require the same here given the number and seriousness of accidents involving foreign drivers?Hon CRAIG FOSS: To put the member's last point there on the number of serious accidents involving foreign drivers in perspective in the year to March 2016 there were 3.3 million international visitors to New Zealand. In 2015 there were sadly 291 fatal crashes in New Zealand and sadly 1822 serious injury crashes. Of those overseas drivers were at fault in 16 fatal crashes and 79 serious injury crashes. I reiterate: any crash any fatality is a tragedy but we must keep it in perspective and context.Denis O'Rourke: In the case of the Chinese nationals recently caught driving tour buses on fake or borrowed licences has he seen to it that Alps Travel's transport services licence is cancelled or at least suspended pending a full investigation; if not why not?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I will not comment particularly on that case because actions are being undertaken but we take driver's licence fraud and driver's licence misdemeanours very very very seriously. I would note that on the allegations in that particular case many laws rules and regulations have allegedly been broken.Denis O'Rourke: Is he concerned that his Government's softness on overseas drivers is being reflected in similarly soft sentences for overseas drivers who cause fatal accidents here; if so when will he do something about it?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I will not comment on matters that are under investigation and/or before the courts.
4. Science and Research—Endeavour FundMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Science and InnovationScience and Research—Endeavour Fund4. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What new investment has the Government announced in high-quality scientific research?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): This week I announced funding of $209 million over 5 years for 56 new scientific research programmes through the Government's Endeavour Fund. The fund which is part of the Budget 2016 Innovative New Zealand package is also part of the Government's 10-year vision for a highly dynamic New Zealand science system. It supports both Smart Ideas initiatives and larger research programmes. Smart Ideas catalyses and rapidly tests promising innovative research ideas and contracts are awarded for that one for 2 to 3 years. Research Programmes are awarded for 3 to 5 years and support ambitious research programmes with high potential to deliver a significant impact on New Zealand's economy environment and society.Matt Doocey: What sort of research is being supported by the Endeavour Fund?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There have been a large number of high-quality proposals received with 56 of them being granted across a range of research areas. Otago University and Crown research institutes the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Scion and Landcare Research were particularly successful with research programmes along with Nelson's Cawthron Institute which has a project on improving feed efficiency in salmon; a world-first proof of application test of trojan female pest control by AgResearch and a University of Canterbury project to produce high-quality titanium from waste products. Overall this wide variety of projects will help lift innovation in economic growth and improve the lives of all New Zealanders over time.Matt Doocey: Why did the Government create the Endeavour Fund?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The new Endeavour Fund replaces the previous Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment contestable fund and refocuses our investment towards longer-term high-impact mission-led programmes of science. Although the economy as we have heard today is performing very well compared with most of the OECD it is important we continue to invest in new scientific technologies and areas of growth. This fund along with other investment the Government has made to grow the level of scientific research in areas like health research the Marsden Fund and the Catalyst Fund plus business-led research and development will continue to ensure we diversify and grow our economy.
McKelvie Ian; Tisch LindsayIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): The first speaker on the other side of the House Poto Williams reflected the views of a large number of submitters as they came to the select committee process on this bill—which I would have to say was probably one of the most complicated or interesting I guess select committee processes I have been through in my time in this House—as I think there was a lot of nervousness around how this bill would play out in due course and some of the factors that she raised I guess were of concern to the Law and Order Committee. However as the bill progressed a lot of things have been cleared up and I would like to remind Stuart Nash the previous speaker that it is actually the Government's role to keep people safe. The agencies it uses to do that all play their part in it. If the Government decides one agency needs to charge another agency for services it is purely the Government's decision and I do not think it has got anything to do with the efficiency of the police or anyone else for that matter. I have got to declare a vested interest in this as I am chairman of Special Olympics New Zealand an organisation that uses police vetting processes for an awful lot of police checks. We have 7000-odd athletes whom we need to keep safe on an annual basis many of whom are vulnerable and we use the police vetting service an awful lot. There was some nervousness in that organisation about where this bill would get to and I would like to congratulate the Minister of Police on her strong signal that there will be a waiver progressed for registered charities through regulation. I think that has alleviated a lot of the concerns that many of us had in the course of this select committee process. As I said at the beginning of my speech the Government's role is to keep people safe and if the Government needs to pay bills to other Government departments then that is the Government's choice. So I think this bill has played out pretty well in the end despite some nervousness on the select committee's behalf—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. This bill allows the Policing Act 2008 to enable cost recovery for certain police services. The New Zealand Police force does a fantastic job to support New Zealanders.We need to understand why the Act is being amended what the reason behind it is and what the background is. There was extensive consultation which took place in December 2012 and 147 submissions were received. Discussion went on and some recommendations were made and that is why this bill was introduced. We have examples over in the Australian jurisdiction where a cost-recovery regime is already available.It is important that we understand why we are trying to do this. We expect the Police to perform within the budget we have set like all other Government departments. Here I would like to emphasise one thing: the New Zealand Police is doing a fantastic job which is not only recognised by New Zealanders but also well recognised worldwide. For example the police in New Zealand were asked to go and assist the Australian police during the G20 summit which was a few years ago. That is a reason we are well recognised and well appreciated all over the world. We also know that the Police deliver many services like investigations prosecutions and responding to calls as well and we expect them to work within their budget. We have to understand that the Police as we expect them to work within their budget have to recover some costs. When there are personal benefits then the Police can recover the cost and that is why the definition of demand services" is being clarified in this bill.As the bill was introduced the Minister of Police was empowered to introduce any fees or give any exemption or waiver to NGOs or charitable organisations. But as the submissions were heard from time to time by the select committee concern was raised and then it was recommended in the select committee process that we should ask the Commissioner of Police to have that regulatory power to exempt NGOs and charitable organisations if he or she feels that they should be exempted from these fees. It is again in the hands of the Commissioner of Police as to what to charge and as to fixing what the vetting price should be. It is about ensuring that there is a greater and better use of public money and police resources and time.As with all things in life we need to create a balance between our demands and for the police force also we have to keep that balance. The bill seeks to create a balance between public service and commercial activity. When a business seeks to make a profit from its activities but wants the general public to foot the bill for some of these activities it is unfair I think to use public money therefore I believe the balance should be sensible. It is a sensible piece of legislation and I hope that it will go through this House. I commend this bill to the House."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I would hate to see the House fall into silence on such an important bill. The Statutes Amendment Bill as we have heard is quite non-controversial and really would probably explain the rambles that we have been hearing particularly from the other side of the House. I thought that we should talk about what is important in this and I think the amendment to the Commodity Levies Act 1990 is actually fantastic. It gets the law right into line so that a levy order lasts for 6 years from the date it comes into force rather than the date that it was issued which I think is really very important. The commodity levies go up for election every 6 years. It is very important to those industries that they have those levies but it is also important that they have industry support. Also the Fisheries Act 1996 amendment provides for a notice to temporarily close a fishing area or restrict fishing methods to be automatically revoked 2 years after coming into force. I think that is really important because fishing areas are coming increasingly under pressure because of overfishing quite often by recreational fishers. Although they are taking only a small amount each because they are fishing constantly and with new technology with fish finders that can virtually home in on the area where the fish are—so fishermen are no longer leaving it to chance. They are actually finding that area very quickly so it is important that the Minister has the opportunity to close fisheries should he or she need to. I think it is also important that fishing methods are covered in that because for example in the Marlborough Sounds at the moment we do have a complete ban on scallop fishing particularly the damage that dredges appear to be doing to the sea bottom. That may well have effects on other fish species spawning in the little sea grasses that grow on the bottom. Because you are effectively ploughing the bottom of the sea those little fish do not have the area to live in. That could really have a major impact all the way through that food chain so it is really important that the Minister has an opportunity to manage that as needed. I will just finish on the Land Transport Act 1988 amendment which removes the retention of logbooks for 12 months. That is really important for the administrative process. So I would like to just reiterate that I am quite honoured to be able to bring some good sense back to this debate and stop all of the ramble that was coming from the other side. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a second time.
Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Statutes Amendment Bill in its second reading. Some Opposition members are most uncharitable. I have sat here and listened to some very mean-spirited people particularly talking about Mr Nuk Korako. I think he has got an excellent bill. It is interesting that Opposition members feel that it is their divine right to determine what should go forward in a statutes amendment bill and what should be put forward as a member's bill. I do not subscribe to that view. But it is actually an auspicious occasion today because this is one of the rare times I have been in this House and actually heard that New Zealand First is going to support one of our changes one of our bills. Its history is always to say no—no to everything. This is a very rare occasion and congratulations on doing that. I have listened to a number of the speakers talking about various aspects of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I thought I might just pause for a moment on the amendments to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I have not heard anyone talking about this so I thought we would just spend a moment or two reflecting on these excellent few changes. Amended section 94A in clause 75 amends the Act to support a proposal to enact some regulations which means in effect that there would be a standard explanation of the effects and implications of an enduring power of attorney. The reason I am picking up on the enduring power of attorney is that it is very important and there are about six changes. Amended section 94A also talks about the donors of mutual enduring powers of attorney receiving the required explanation and having their signatures witnessed by the same authorised witness. New section 94A(7)(ab) goes on to talk about these donors and witnesses to certify that the donor understands the nature of the instrument;" and the potential risks and consequences. I am sure that many of us in this House and many of the members of the public have had a lot of trouble trying to get appropriate enduring powers of attorney. When you want to change them you have to go through a full rigmarole of reassessing them rewriting them and getting new consent. So some of the changes in this are quite simple and it is perfectly adequate that they are dealt with through the Statutes Amendment Bill and I think they go some way to making sure that we get the rights of powers of attorney in place. They are good practical solutions. These are just one of a series of measures that this bill deals with and I fully commend it."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill in its second reading. I do sit on the committee—the Government Administration Committee—that considered this bill. As other members have said it is the nature of a statutes amendment bill that the provisions are not controversial and that they should be simple and technical in nature. But that does not mean that they are in any way unimportant. In fact the provisions which I will come to are extremely important—so there too is the role of the committee on the bill.The committee spent a great deal of effort in analysing and hearing submissions and listening to officials to reach the positions it did and that included some very valuable amendments—for instance the amendment in a new section around the witnessing of donor signatures of an enduring power of attorney and the amendment in the area of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to clarify common practices and to improve the suggested change that was there. The committee also recommended the removal of the amendments to the Charities Act 2005 because it felt that they were better addressed as a child bill to this Statutes Amendment Bill and it has undertaken that process.Within that and within the bill as it is returned to the House there are still some important albeit small changes that we hold should take place. For instance in the Accident Compensation Act 2001—the very first principal Act to be amended—the changes will amend section 139 to prohibit the ACC from using its own employees or any subsidiary to conduct reviews as part of the statutory dispute resolution process. It is pretty simple to understand. It is pretty obvious in its nature you would think. So very clearly the legislation as it currently stands does not prohibit that. It makes sense to tidy up that small anomaly. There are more clauses still that give changes of import even if the change itself seems somewhat minor.This Statutes Amendment Bill will amend section 149L(3) of the Crown Entities Act 2004 which changes a reference from another entity's responsible Minister" to "another Minister". One might wonder why such a potentially pedantic change of wording? If we look at the changes in Government entities over the years and with entities such as the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment being such a large and very encompassing agency it makes sense to acknowledge that wording that may have been right in the past would no longer be.The one I want to finish on is one that I felt my colleague Chris Bishop a man who has a great and warm heart might like to see take place. The Statutes Amendment Bill will amend section 23(1)(a) of the 16th Act the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013. I am sure Mr Bishop would wish very well for his erstwhile opponent in the Hutt South seat—for this change will enable the Speaker to authorise travel services to continue for a reasonable period after a member of Parliament vacates his or her seat. And I am sure Mr Bishop wishes Mr Mallard all the best. I commend this bill to the House."
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua mauriora. In taking a call on this Statutes Amendment Bill in this second reading debate I want to first of all congratulate the Minister the Hon Simon Bridges on bringing in a piece of legislation that in amending 28 Acts—we did find two that we thought did not meet the test for a statutes amendment bill because they were not amendments of a minor technical and non-controversial nature. A statutes amendment bill is an important vehicle particularly for a Government like this one which is focused on reducing bureaucracy on making a more streamlined set of regulations and legislation and on not tying up the time of this House—as we saw last week from a desperate Opposition polling at only 26 percent and plummeting in their heartland. We should have been dealing with the housing crisis or the housing matters in this country under urgency and instead those members were focused on palace politics here in Wellington. It is typical of that desperate and failing Opposition. Anyway this bill is a sensible set of measures. Statutes amendment bills have been used for some time in this country—there were brief pauses in the 1950s and the 1990s where the practice fell into abeyance—and they do provide us with an efficient and effective means to make these small changes which are often drafting or typographical error corrections. The two provisions that we did consider at the Government Administration Committee that did not quite meet the test included the Charities Act 2005 amendments which were around I guess appeal processes that were available to people who were not happy with decisions of the chief executive officers. That was broken out as others before me have mentioned into a child bill which is being considered separately. We also saw the removal of the Victims' Orders Against Violent Offenders Act 2014 amendments which were particularly aimed at preventing victims of violent offenders from coming into contact with perpetrators in courtroom situations. I want to congratulate my colleague the distinguished and learned Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams on the announcements that she made today around family violence. We might not have been able to address this urgent and pressing issue through this means but I am proud to be part of a Government that is taking family and domestic and intimate partner violence very very seriously and is introducing practical law changes that will have a real effect in that area. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
Tisch LindsayThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I just want clarification from the member Pita Paraone. Is it the whole Supplementary Order Paper 186 that New Zealand First is withdrawing or is it just part of Supplementary Order Paper 186?Pita Paraone: No. No. Yes the whole.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is the whole of Supplementary Order Paper 186.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 4 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Can I say that I will be talking to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 186 which the Minister in the chair Christopher Finlayson really wanted to describe in such wonderful terms. But his kindness overtook him and so he kindly said that it did not make sense. I just want to give some background to the SOP from New Zealand First. One of the issues that has come about not only in this particular bill but in a number of similar bills where Māori have been appointed to subcommittees on councils to represent their views is that there has been an opposing view from some members of the public saying that Māori are gaining access to these positions without being elected. I think that that argument has some validity. However in this case I did a bit of research and I understand that there are representatives from other bodies who are not elected and who are not Māori. So we have got to exercise a sense of fairness and I thought if that was the case then I would recommend to our caucus that we would withdraw that Supplementary Order Paper for that particular reason in that there are other organisations being represented on these subcommittees that have not been elected. I would suggest to those who have been responsible for us putting forward the original Supplementary Order Paper that they ought to consider the reality of the situation. So on behalf of New Zealand First we will be withdrawing that Supplementary Order Paper. I just want to thank my colleagues on this side for the wonderful support that they have given—yeah right! Tēnā koe Mr Chair.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Whare o te Komiti otirā tēnā tātou katoa. [Tēnā koe Mr Chairman of the House and of the Committee and at the same time to us all.]It is a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill for Ngāruahine. I too want to speak to the Supplementary Order Papers. Labour will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 187 the technical changes to the bill but we will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 186 in the name of Pita Paraone. We think it is really important that the mechanisms in the deeds of settlement for iwi are maintained right through this process and for this one in particular because it is about representation on a committee not on the council itself—it is a committee for the Taranaki Regional Council—it is important that these mechanisms are maintained. I think that the iwi of Taranaki including Ngāruahine have worked very hard to get to this stage in the process of settling all eight iwi settlements and this particular one is one that needs to be mentioned in the House. I think it is unfortunate that Supplementary Order Paper 186 has come to the Committee and I will leave it there for that one. I do want to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for the way that he ran the committee process on this particular bill. There were a number of submissions in particular from one of the hapū that felt aggrieved through this process. I believe that the select committee exhausted every opportunity that it could in coming to understand the issues that that particular hapū had. I think the report back to the House is a very considered one. I think that the committee has made some very good points around that. I think there are opportunities for all members of all hapū of Ngāruahine to participate in the future of their iwi. So I want to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations also for the work that he has done in that area. Apart from those two issues that is the only contribution I will be making tonight. Nō reira e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a tātou. [So it is fitting that I acknowledge us.]
Finlayson ChristopherParts 1 to 4 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I will take just a brief call now to explain Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 187 and 186. SOP 187 is in my name and deals with a number of technical amendments. It proposes two very technical amendments to the text of the bill resulting from the very thorough and rigorous quality assurance process undertaken by Parliamentary Counsel Office. First it proposes the insertion of new clause 20A which would align the bill with other recent Treaty of Waitangi settlement bills and secondly it proposes the inclusion of new clause 59(6) which is a standard clause in settlement bills where easements may otherwise conflict with the Reserves Act 1977. The second SOP is in the name of Mr Pita Paraone and it deals with iwi representation on the Taranaki Regional Council's standing committee. Whereas my SOP was technical and excellent I regret to say—and I say this with the greatest of respect and affection—Hon Ruth Dyson: His is not.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —that his SOP I say to Miss Dyson not only is not excellent but is bonkers. I oppose the SOP on a number of grounds—Hon Ruth Dyson: Is that a technical term Minister? Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is a very technical term which one deals with in Treaty settlement legislation. First iwi representation on the two Taranaki Regional Council standing committees was specifically agreed to between the Crown and Ngāruahine on the deed of settlement which was signed in August 2014. Secondly a lengthy and collaborative process had been undertaken to develop and formalise in writing a document that sets out the iwi representatives' nomination and appointment process. That document was endorsed by the regional council. It was endorsed by the eight iwi of Taranaki and by me as the responsible Minister. So I contend that the agreed process is robust and appropriate. Thirdly of the 12 current policy and planning committee members four have been appointed from external bodies three of these from each of the region's district councils—who are elected to the district councils that is and appointed to the policy and planning committee—and the other external appointment is from Federated Farmers and is in effect an unelected member. So I really think that what has been proposed and referred to in the deed of settlement and brought into the legislation is a very positive development. I am convinced that the regional council decision-making and the people of the great province of Taranaki can only benefit from having iwi at the table. So they are the two SOPs: my technical one and Mr Paraone's dubious one.
Ross Jami-Lee; Tisch LindsayNGĀRUAHINE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLIn CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill to be debated as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Dean JacquiJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The four main objectives of this Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill are to allow health practitioners with the required competencies and knowledge to perform more statutory functions and more functions to make it easier for the public to access health services to allow the health workforce to use its knowledge and skills and to facilitate innovative services and efficient practice. I think this bill achieves those four objectives. The bill as introduced is in seven parts relating to seven Acts that are being amended. The Acts are the Accident Compensation Act the Burial and Cremation Act the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act the Holidays Act the Land Transport Act the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. Our healthcare needs are changing in New Zealand and the way we deliver health services is changing and evolving as well. That is only to the benefit of health consumers people like you and me—well Mr Deputy Speaker probably not yourself but people like myself—who live in a smaller community and will access health services. If I think about people in smaller remoter communities throughout New Zealand there is often a cost to accessing health services relating to travel to access health services. Sometimes the level of expertise and availability of health professionals may not be there necessitating a wait for access to health services and the provisions in this bill go a long way to overcoming those issues for people. Nurse practitioner is a role that—as the previous speaker Louisa Wall rightly noted—is a growing and exciting aspect of being a health professional in New Zealand. I was speaking to a group of nursing students in Christchurch very recently who were in their final months before they were to graduate and then go and find jobs out in the community. I spoke to them about this bill because it was going through the House at the time and they were excited but their tutor was excited because their tutor could see the potential for career development of her nursing students—about 120 of them were in the lecture theatre. It is an exciting advancement in the provision of health services for all of us New Zealanders and it is a wonderful career enhancement for those in the medical profession. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill — Second Reading
Wall LouisaHEALTH PRACTITIONERS (REPLACEMENT OF STATUTORY REFERENCES TO MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS) BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 25 August.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I am happy to take the remainder of my time just to add some statistics to the conversation. We support this piece of legislation and I was highlighting the nurse practitioner vocation and how important it is under this piece of legislation to recognise the expansion of this particular profession. On 31 March 2015 we had 50356 practising nurses of which 142 were nurse practitioners. On 31 March 2014 there were 107 nurse practitioners so we have actually seen an expansion of 25 percent in this particular profession. The most interesting statistic I want to share with the House is that of the 35 new nurse practitioners 15 were Māori. So we have had an increase in that profession over the last year of 43 percent Māori and there were also three Pacific Islanders. Within the context of this expanded scope of practice what it has done is provide opportunities for Māori nurses and Pacific nurses who in the last financial year represented over 50 percent of the nurse practitioners that we had in the country. I think that that is a fantastic development and I am obviously incredibly pleased to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. As the last speaker in the second reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill I want first of all to acknowledge the Minister for Building and Housing the Hon Dr Nick Smith who has brought this bill to the House. It will improve child safety and save more lives. So often members on the other side of the House like to tell us that increased Government regulation is needed to keep us safe that removing any regulations makes us less safe and that the indiscriminate introduction of new regulations proposed by them will keep us even safer. But actually what this bill shows us is that it is about quality of regulations and not quantity. We measure the effectiveness of our regulations by the practical impact that they have on safety not by the amount to which they inconvenience people going about their daily business. The Building (Pools) Amendment Bill reduces the compliance burden on pool owners it reduces the bureaucracy required by councils and most importantly it improves child safety—it improves child safety. Previous speakers on this bill have in their contributions talked about the changes that have been made at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I just want to touch on one that I think is particularly significant to the issue of child safety. The bill as drafted sought to impose a 5-yearly inspection regime. We heard very compelling evidence at the select committee about the need for more frequent inspections and the positive effects that this would have on compliance and therefore on safety. As a result the bill as amended will require inspections every 3 years. I do not want to take any more of the House's time so I will just say I welcome this sensible bill passing through the rest of its stages and I look forward to debating it further in the Committee stage. E mihi atu ki a koutou.Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): I found the last two contributions quite amazing actually because this is the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill—it is about fencing off swimming pools and making that mandatory inspection once every 3 years. The previous speakers talked about the fact that the alarms on doors are very irritating—alarms are irritating. They are supposed to be irritating because they are supposed to be about getting people to take notice that something has gone a bit awry. So that—either an alarm on a door or a self-closing door to pools—has been one of the pieces of this legislation that has been added in. As I said the alarms are there to irritate to bring attention to the fact that something is not quite right. We can do as many things as we like to help prevent children from drowning but as I heard from the Opposition member across the way it is about parents' responsibilities as well.This bill actually does go quite a long way to ensuring that there are certain rules and regulations in law around having a pool and making sure that it is fenced and that the councils are actually going around—it is a mandatory inspection once every 3 years as I have said. Some of the councils have actually done it but not all of the councils and this is making all of the councils do it with independent assessors doing those inspections.The bill also looks at spa pools and hot tubs that already have safety covers over the top of them. They already have a restriction there to prevent children from climbing in because those covers are tightly in place. Therefore the committee resolved that a fence was no longer required around the hot tubs and the safety covers. The bill also drives home the fact that retailers in the past—and currently until this bill receives the Royal assent—did not have to give any safety information. This bill makes them give the safety information when they sell pools spa pools and hot tubs to customers. This is a good bill. It does address a lot of the issues that have been put forward at the select committee. I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Māori Purposes Bill in its second reading tonight. Since 1899 the Wī Pere Trust has managed its affairs after having been initially set up under the direction of a bank. Originally the bank appointed a trustee who had exclusive control over the lands its management and its disposal. But over the years various Acts and orders have influenced the trust. The Wī Pere Trust is a very mature organisation and it wishes to operate effectively and independently in a commercial manner in a commercial environment and without influence from the Crown. This bill is essential for the trust to become truly independent and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.
Hudson BrettMĀORI PURPOSES BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 8 September.BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a privilege to rise and speak in this the second reading of the Māori Purposes Bill a bill that is in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell Minister for Māori Development. I did not sit on the Māori Affairs Committee but I think that if we look at what we are looking to do here we are looking to bring forward the nature of the governance and the operation of the Wī Pere Trust so that it can operate more effectively in a commercial environment—so it can operate without the direct or great oversight of Government and be able to operate better in the commercial conditions of this the 21st century. I congratulate the select committee on the work it has done. I look forward to this bill progressing through the further stages in this House. I particularly look forward to the opportunities it will give to not only the trustees of the Wī Pere Trust but also of course the beneficiaries. If we look at what we are seeking to achieve here we are not seeking to achieve simply some dry theoretical restructure of governance arrangements or even trust provision; what we are really seeking to do is to ensure that that trust is able to better fulfil the needs of its constituents and its beneficiaries now and into the future. So on that note I commend this bill to the House
Barclay ToddTODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to be able to speak in support of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill which is currently in its first reading. I think this is a real opportunity for us to futureproof the education system going forward for the next 30 years. The Minister of Education has already remarked that over the last 30 years we have seen a number of amendments to the Education Act 1989 which has been a solid piece of governing guidelines regulations and laws guiding the system for the administration and the learnings of our 2500 schools our 64000 teachers and our over 40000 support staff across the education sector. But we need to be looking forward into the future. What this legislation does is it provides us with the next step in the next transition of education. I want to positively remark on the contribution that the Hon Hekia Parata has made to education over the last 6 years. I had the privilege of working for her for a couple of those years. I think that the sector has played a huge role in education transformation over the last 6 years. If you look at the Education Council transformation if you look at the Canterbury earthquake-affected schools—the reformation there—and if you look at the performance mechanisms across all aspects of the education sector the amount of contribution that the sector has had in that through the Ministerial Cross-Sector Forum on Raising Achievement has really demonstrated a new way of developing education policy in this country. The Education Act and the funding review that is also going on are the next steps in that. It has really been sector-led and sector-driven and I think it is a credit to what this Government has done in terms of education. We have got a new way of looking at education going forward. This legislation will be good for our sector it will be good for future learners in education in New Zealand and I really look forward to seeing it progress through the House. Thank you.
Smith Stuart; Borrows ChesterSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): When I came down to the House to speak on this bill I did not expect the passion that would come into this Education (Update) Amendment Bill. It is a great bill. Education is important to all of us and it is important to our country—there is no doubt about that and I do not want to minimise that but some of the passion I think is being driven by fear. Change is always difficult I understand for some to accept but I think we really do need to drag this Education Act 1989 into a modern age. It has been amended many times over the 27 years in a piecemeal way as the Minister of Education said and those things have to be sorted out into a logical form for the modern education system. I think we just heard a very good example from the Māori Party speaker Marama Fox of the benefits that can come from this bill. This bill puts achievement and learning at the centre of the Education Act and is that not after all what schools are about? It is about achievement; it is about learning. Unfortunately in the old Act it is about the schools and the management of them rather than what goes on there so it is time for a change. There is a fantastic community of learning (COL) in Marlborough. It is working really well. Those communities of learning really recognise what all the evidence shows: that the quality of teaching and the leadership of schools is what makes schools and is what drives achievement and learning. And the COLs are a—Hon David Cunliffe: Actually the decile area is the biggest driver.Tracey Martin: And you're going to remove them with COLs.STUART SMITH: Well I really find it quite strange. Again you see the fear coming through from people afraid of change and that is a shame but you know we have to accept that. Perhaps through the select committee stage some of those members may actually learn what the change offers and what it could bring to our students and hopefully they will see the benefit of it. The communities of online learning seem to be a real touch-point for them but I think as Marama Fox pointed out it is a fantastic way for some students to learn. It is not the way for everybody to learn; I accept that and it is not part of it. It is not compulsory that everybody does take part in a community of online learning. But diversity drives innovation and that is what we should all remember. Out of those innovations there will be some fantastic learning styles and disciplines that will come through. We will get a far better outcome for our students and that is what it is all about. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call for the Labour Party—the Hon David Cunliffe.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): It is Chinese Language Week and I would like to first of all greet everyone in the House: Da Jia Hao [Hello everyone] ni hao ni hao.Earlier the Assistant Speaker made a comment to some members criticising their so-called reading of their speeches and I would just like to make a comment that for some of us who actually speak English as a second language it does take a little time to process the written word sometimes and sometimes we do need the visual aid to actually get the thinking process done. Sometimes it is in fact a requirement for us to actually read some documents because what we think in our language and what we say out loud are not necessarily the same language and there is a process that happens. So I just want to seek the Deputy Speaker's indulgence if we do in fact refer to our notes occasionally. Also some members—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Reference is fine.MELISSA LEE: I would just like to acknowledge Tracey Martin who spoke passionately about this bill. Sometimes she speaks so passionately that she does it at such a speed that we have the same problem—we need to process that information and it just sounds like noise sometimes so she needs to slow down a little bit. So—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: So back to the bill.MELISSA LEE: Back to the bill. This bill is part of the Government's work to provide the best education service for our children. As members said earlier our children are in fact the future of this country. We need to provide them with the best possible education system and this update—the first update in 27 years—has been a long time coming. When you think about 27 years it is almost as long as I have actually lived in this country. New Zealand—Hon Member: As long as Todd has.MELISSA LEE: Oh that is true Mr—Stuart Smith: It's longer.MELISSA LEE: It might be slightly longer than Todd Barclay has been alive actually. But you know if you think about the changes that this country has gone through in that time I remember mobile technology being introduced. Mobile phones were not that—David Seymour: Are you that old?MELISSA LEE: They were very expensive Mr Seymour back then. They were not as cheap or as easily accessible. I am talking about the lovely cuisines the variety of cuisines that currently exist which did not exist back then either. So times have moved on. Education needs to move on as well to make sure that we provide the right education system for the time. Mr Deputy Speaker I know you actually said bring it back to the education system. I just want to say this legislation will update the Education Act 1989 to be more relevant to modern schools. It will deal with the areas in law that are now obsolete out of date or insufficient for the needs of 21st century learning and it will put better practices into place. The current rules do not actually work effectively for our children. I think this is a great bill and I look forward to the submissions during the select committee process. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Jan Logie.
SpeechThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Once again I am going to issue a comment on the reading of speeches. That member Dr Yang is now quite an experienced member and should be beyond the period where the inexperienced member exemption applies. The member did have some figures in his speech and it would have been appropriate to refer to them but he gave himself away when he regularly looked at his speech for just about every line and then shuffled his pages as he finished one and moved to another. I am watching now quite carefully all members and applying the Speaker's rulings as agreed at the Standing Orders Committee at the end of the last Parliament.
SpeechThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I put the question I am going to refer the Minister of Education as I have referred the Minister once previously to Speaker's ruling 53/4 relating to reading speeches. There is an understanding that Ministers with highly technical matters—or matters where for example in the case of the Minister of Justice the courts are likely to if you like hang on every word—have a lot of flexibility with regard to reading speeches and can read their entire speech. The speech that the Minister just read was one that I think it could be fair to say was not highly technical. Therefore although it is appropriate to refer to notes and sometimes to quote numbers in a similar way I would certainly prefer it if Ministers could take some care to acquaint themselves with their speech notes rather than just read them.