edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
White Helen; Costello Casey; O'Connor GregHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I'd like to take the lead of my colleague and ask you to answer this question and be able to just put a simple question to you. I am really concerned about the part of the bill where you get rid of any requirement to limit the amount of nicotine. This is a very very addictive drug and for some reason you've decided to remove that part of the Act which stops the nicotine being at high levels. I simply for the life of me—good faith—honestly want to know why anyone would do that. The only reason I can see for doing it is to sell a highly addictive substance and to hook people on to something that is highly addictive. They can't escape from it.We've heard from some of the other speakers about that tonight including National Party speakers about how hard it is to kick such a habit. So why—why—are you doing that? I honestly would just love to know the answer.Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I'd just reiterate again about the tobacco retailers proposition and what's been discussed. I will say yet again that we are looking at a range of options as we move forward to achieve the smoke-free targets. In terms of why we are taking the action to remove the denicotinisation aspect that is what we have positioned in our coalition agreement and that is what we're delivering. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Could I just say to members that the debate has been going for two hours. A new member coming in and asking a question does not represent new information or a new thing. Just be aware—particularly members who are coming in later—that we are looking for new material. So those that have been here a little longer will probably know a little bit more about what's been going on in the House.
O'Connor Greg; Menéndez March Ricardo; Costello CaseyCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Grant Robertson—but I will challenge Mr Robertson to say that sharp questions don't generally tend to go into four minutes. So if that was what you're attempting to do you might like to—RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order. Thank you Mr Chair. Just seeking your guidance: I'd like to seek leave to request the Associate Minister of Health to table the advice that she just referred to in the previous answer. Is that something that would be possible to do within the process that we have available?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well the member can seek leave. The member seeks leave for the Minister to table the advice. Is there any objection? I've just taken advice that no other member can seek that. If the Minister was quoting from a document that she has with her that can be tabled but otherwise the member is not in a position to actually seek that leave.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Can I confirm when she referred to that advice whether she was reading from it? She talked about seeking a range of advice in relation to my question so if she was reading it—I can't see whether she was reading it.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): So Minister I'll let you speak to this.Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I'll seek leave to table this. It is a media article. It's not advice; it's a media release that was circulated by ASH. I'm happy to table that.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Is there any objection? There is no objection.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It is my first call in this debate so I'm grateful to have the opportunity to begin a line of questioning. The area I want to focus on is retail outlets and in particular clause 9 of the bill which repeals Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the original Act. I want to learn from the Minister what advice she received around the dangers of repealing that subpart of the original Act. I think most members will know that it is a fairly logical connection between the availability of a product and how much product will be used. It is quite a simple kind of connection to make. I'm wanting to find out from the Minister what advice she did receive around risks in terms of repealing the number of retail outlets—in particular whether any evidence was presented to her that a higher density of retail outlets would in fact lead to increased smoking rates; then within that question whether there was any advice to her about any distinctions between youth and adult smoking rates when there is a higher density of outlets. As I say as a person to whom this is not my area of expertise there is a logical connection between more places to buy and more tobacco products being purchased. My question to the Minister is: what advice did she get? If she didn't get advice on that question does she have a concern that retaining the number of outlets that we do now is going to lead to a greater level of smoking particularly among our young in our smoking rates? I've seen the Minister has been getting some advice so I will carry on with one more question and then perhaps come back with a couple more in order to fulfil your earlier ruling.The other point is whether or not the Minister has received any advice on availability having an impact—is there a certain number of outlets or a certain density of outlets that is a threshold when it comes to making a difference because I can imagine that if you have to drive 500 metres you'll be all right and you'll probably go and do that; if you have to drive 3 kilometres you may well not be so inclined to do that. So my second question for the Minister is around—has she been given any advice on a particular threshold that would need to be reached for that type of approach to make a difference? This is important because this is the information that Opposition members would have received and would have been seeking during a select committee process. The kinds of people who do research and studies into whether the density of outlets matters or whether the distance between outlets the number of outlets in a particular area matters; we would have had experts come into the select committee and we'd actually be standing here right now in a committee of the whole House part of the debate being able to assess that advice. So they are my first two questions. I will come back but I'll give the Minister the opportunity to answer those.
Kuriger BarbaraIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. Members we now come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 24 Amendments to principal Act". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Madam Speaker I'm not going to stand here and listen to members opposite parading around on their moral high horses as if they're the Midas of anti-smoking. I'm not going to be lectured to by those who drove our health system into the ground to hear the Leader of the Opposition who clearly cares so much about this that we haven't seen him in the House ever since he spoke.The arrogance of those who would say that their bill their measures in 2022 were all that was going to work to deal with smoking in New Zealand when none of them are in effect. They haven't banned smoking; the ban was going to trickle in slowly over the next 80 to 90 years. Well frankly I say a ban in 90 years is not a ban at all. The only measures that have worked for anti-smoking in this country are those measures that this bill leaves in place. They have halved smoking in New Zealand in the last 10 years and they will get us through the next 10 as well. I commend this bill to the House.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): A member across just asked Why haven't they done the policy work?" and can I just remind the House and those viewing today of a couple of key pieces of legislation: the 2011 Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Act and the 2016 Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Act all under a previous National Government. And there was also a plan to more than halve the smoking rates and haven't we achieved that so well. As Dr Campbell said we are on track to reach Smokefree 2025 where 5 percent or less smoke. And so we are on track to achieving those goals of 10 12 years ago and so I commend this bill to the House."
Cheung Carlos; Kuriger BarbaraDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I would like to acknowledge all the healthcare workers community leaders and volunteers for their contribution to the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal. Under the current legislation we—together—have successfully driven the smoking rate down over the last decade. Daily smoking is down from 16.4 percent in 2012 to 6.8 percent in 2023. The number of year 10 students who smoke has dropped from 11 percent in 2009 to 3 percent in 2022. However this is not good enough. More work needs to be done especially in the Māori and Pacific communities. This Government is committed to the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal. Our new approach will be focusing on those who need—and we'll accelerate progress towards our 2025 smoke-free goal. I support this bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call.
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak in the second reading of this bill. I want to thank the members who have shared their personal stories of overcoming addiction because it is a great challenge here in New Zealand. But I am glad that over the last number of years we've seen a steady decrease in the number of smokers down from 16.4 percent in 2012 to 6.8 percent last year and those rates have been continuing to fall before even this last amendment comes into effect.In the last three years 219000 people have stopped smoking with vaping playing a key role. Importantly close to 80000 of those who stopped smoking were Māori. If these trends continue New Zealand will hit the smoke-free goal of less than 5 percent of the population smoking daily by 2025. We already have a smoke-free generation. Smoking rates for young people have dropped hugely. The 2023 Action on Smoking and Health survey of year 10 students shows youth smoking rates of 1.1 percent. These numbers should be encouraged. We would suggest that people stop smoking but we don't think the previous amendment legislation will do it. That's why we support this bill. Thank you very much.
Uffindell Sam; Kuriger BarbaraSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look there's a lot of passionate debate around this. I want to acknowledge my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick for her contribution—very passionate evidence-based contribution and I continue to enjoy your efforts here.Chlöe Swarbrick: Give us some passion!SAM UFFINDELL: I can bring my own passion and the reality is that the National Party supports this bill. Look we want to be clear on our intent that we want to continue reducing smoking rates in New Zealand. We want to stop young people from smoking and taking up vaping. We're just taking a different regulatory approach. I remember when we were having this discussion last year and—he was the Opposition health spokesperson at the time—Dr Shane Reti put through a few Supplementary Order Papers around vaping which would have made a tangible difference to the significant uptake in youth vaping we're seeing in New Zealand. The Government at that time did not support them and I was very upset to see that but we can revisit that in time.Look Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) says New Zealand's progress is unprecedented and we are on track to hit the smoke-free target. We will provide people with the practical tools to stop smoking and vaping and better protection for young people to stop them accessing vaping products. But you know this is a much better approach to the prohibition-style approach that the Opposition has put forward and planned by the previous Government. We're going to be a lot less punitive than they were. We're going to provide them with more choice to help them quit and we are supporting a package of initiatives to ensure we reach the smoke-free goal 2025. I support this bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a spilt call.
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd like to start by sharing some of my experience with smoking personally. It's not about a family member; it's about me. You know I was a young builder on a building site smoking rollies without filters for years. It's not a good look.Why did I quit right? I didn't quit because it was made impossible for me to buy. I quit because one day I realised that every tax that I was paying on that cigarette was going to the Government. And as a young ideologically consistent person I couldn't quite do that. I didn't want to be ripped off so I stopped buying cigarettes. I threw a packet out the window and no longer smoked anymore. It took me a long time to lose the cravings so I understand how hard it is to actually quit cigarettes. And I was only smoking for a few years right? It's actually difficult. People who have smoked for decades I can only imagine how much that tears at you. I have family with addiction not cigarettes but I can see how hard it is to quit and how reliant you can become.So the idea that prohibition of nicotine which is essentially what this is was going to have any good result the fact that it was a gradual lowering of the nicotine in cigarettes to the point where it basically was driving people into the arms of the worst to get their fix—and yet the last Government decided that banning outright was the thing that was actually going to solve this not push it into the black market as we've heard about. Addiction as member Hamish Campbell said is not rational. People with addictions go to irrational places to feed that addiction.Chlöe Swarbrick: Decriminalise drug users then.CAMERON LUXTON: Well I mean if you guys had done a better job in 2020 we might be able to liberalise it a bit more.Hon Julie Anne Genter: We weren't in Government in 2020.CAMERON LUXTON: Well you campaigned on it. So the point is—Hon Julie Anne Genter: We weren't in Government.CAMERON LUXTON: You guys had it; there was—look let's not get derailed into a cannabis—Chlöe Swarbrick: You're derailing it.CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah sure. Fair enough—fair enough. I'll get back on topic.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's the Speaker's choice. You can either get into the debate or you can carry on with your—CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah sure. Thank you Madam Speaker.But last week in this House Greg O'Connor gave a speech in which he referenced the book Chasing the Scream and it talks about how prohibition when poorly thought-out leads to bad results. There's evidence accumulating over the Tasman over our own borders and in container ships coming in in my home city with black market tobacco on board. A small and illegal market versus as we currently have a large legal market will invert. We will have a large illegal market putting profits in the pockets of gangs and that is the last thing that we need to have in this country. Thank you.
Costello Casey; Brownlee GerrySecond ReadingHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I move That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a second time. We have seen a lot of emotion and heartfelt passion in the House today and it is to be applauded and acknowledged. This is a truly important issue. Firstly I want to comment that unfortunately even today it is clear that there is a lack of understanding on what is being done and the approach that is being taken. Even today there is commentary about increasing access. It is clear that this is incorrect and it is not what we are proposing.The black market will hit Māori—I can say that as a sad reality. And that is exactly the point why we are wanting to ensure that there are the tools to enable those who are addicted to smoking to quit. And cutting off supply does not reduce demand. There has been much talk of a landmark position and I would have to agree. The landmark is that we are all united on the outcome we hope to achieve. We want collectively to remove the scourge of smoking harm.I can sadly attest to nursing and watching the last breath of people who I've loved more than anything and felt the loss in a way that draws me to anger at the harm that tobacco smoking has caused. This is why I'm so focused on bringing about legislation and regulation that is targeted where it can do the most good. I will bring a paper to Cabinet next week and that will provide for immediate actions and longer-term strategies to achieve our collective objective. We will continue to clearly identify what is working and looking at all options that might help those who remain addicted to smoking tobacco to quit. I think it is important at this time to refocus our thinking and provide some balance.We have heard a lot from the other side of the House about the numbers on which the modelling that drove the development of this legislation we're repealing. The statistics they relied on were from 2019 and 2020. We have had four years of outstanding progress since that time. In the period since the data was used 305000 people have quit smoking. Youth smoking in that time fell from 10.3 to 3 percent. This is the position we are in now and this is the strategy we are focused on to continue to meet our smoke-free targets. This is why we need to calm the noise and recognise that we are focused on addicted smokers who need help to quit. Currently we have 284000 daily smokers that need our help. This is not a contest of who thinks smoking is the most harmful. It is an opportunity to make a real difference and deliver on our Smokefree 2025 targets.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Bidois Dan; Brownlee GerryDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise after my whanaunga from the North the Hon Peeni Henare and to follow this for a brief contribution on this bill. I rise as a former smoker—I'm not proud of it and it's something I deeply regret. But I look at New Zealand's track record of reducing smoking rates over the last few decades and the evidence is clear: what has driven that down—the two main reasons are increase in taxes and the second area is a change in attitudinal behaviour towards smoking. It's just not cool.We are absolutely committed to following that line of thinking through actions to get us to Smokefree 2025. My colleague down here pointed that we are on track to achieve Smokefree 2025 aspirations. I just don't believe that this the actions that we're repealing would have actually substantially reduced smoking rates even further so I commend this bill to the House.SPEAKER: I call on Ingrid Leary.Ingrid Leary: Sorry Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: We're done.Ingrid Leary: Thank you.SPEAKER: No sorry. We've actually used up all the speaking slots. Sorry about that.Ingrid Leary: Sorry?SPEAKER: What's that? [Interruption] Oh sorry—Ingrid Leary: I believe it's a first lot—SPEAKER: We're done? [Interruption] Yeah we are done.Ingrid Leary: I would have been happy to take a call but thank you Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I know that you're always happy to take a call and many of us are quite happy to listen. But that concludes the first reading.
Cheung CarlosDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): There is no doubt that smoking and second-hand smoke directly cause and contribute to long-term negative effects on the body including cancer cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease. It is one of the main causes of premature death and disability in New Zealand. This Government is committed to the Smokefree 2025 goal. We want to continue to reduce the smoking rate but we are taking a different regulatory approach. We want an approach that is practical and helps smokers to quit. We are supporting a package of initiative—an initiative that's focused on those who need them the most—to ensure we reach the Smokefree 2025 goal. I commend this bill to the House.
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. Let's be very clear about a few points about smoking: smoking is bad for your health. Second our intention is clear: we want to continue to reduce smoking rates and to stop young people from starting smoking.The nature of addiction is that demand does not respond rationally to reducing supply. While the demand for cigarettes is falling abruptly limiting the number of outlets penalises the 300000 people still dependent on cigarettes. If we take Auckland for an example a 90 percent reduction in retail outlets will cause chaos. That would make for probably about 30 outlets for approximately 90000 smokers. If you do the rough maths they would need to serve two customers every minute which kind of does point out that this legislation—there's no way to make this happen; it does not make sense.We're on track to hit the smokefree target of 2025 and continue to drive down our smoking rates. While we're committed to it we do not think that this legislation will do it. So therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Uffindell SamSMOKEFREE ENVIRONMENTS AND REGULATED PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed.SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to support this bill. Look nothing's really changed. We're sticking with the same legislation that's driven down smoking rates to 6.8 percent last year from 8.6 percent in 2022 and down from—[Interruption]SPEAKER: I'll tell you what; just hold on Mr Uffindell. We've stopped the clock. Would members who need to leave the House please do so quietly with a bit of respect for the speaker on his feet. Please resume.SAM UFFINDELL: Thank you Mr Speaker. And down from 16.4 percent in 2012. Look smoking rates have been falling consistently for some time and that trend will continue under our Government. Labour's changes would have created a black market with more smuggling more ram raids but it doesn't have to be that way.Look this Government is committed to the Smokefree 2025 goal but we're taking a different regulatory approach. New Zealand has seen some of the largest drops in smoking across the world. And in the last three years 219000 people have stopped smoking with 36 percent of those being Māori. If those trends continue New Zealand will hit the deadline smokefree goal of less than 5 percent of the population daily by 2025. I support this bill.SPEAKER: Ayesha Verrall.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe te Pīka. Is it No. 6?SPEAKER: Just a minute—just lost my way here slightly. I call the honourable Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill — First Reading
Trask Laura; Pugh MaureenLAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. Wow! What an animated display we are seeing over this legislation. Quite quickly we're talking about lobbying from the tobacco industry but what about the lobbying from gangs? Because under the legislation the only people that would be profiting would be the gangs: 8.5 million illegal cigarettes were seized by Customs in 2023. How are you not concerned about a black market?We need to ensure people who smoke have more choice and more help to quit smoking if they wish to do so. This includes effective stop-smoking services alternative products such as vaping and targeted campaigns aimed at quitting smoking. New Zealand already has impressive quit rates. The latest New Zealand Health Survey results show that in 2022-2023 6.8 percent of adults were daily smokers down from 8.6 percent the previous year and 16.4 percent the year previous to that. What is in place has been working. What I saw the previous Government legislating was yet again another initiative or another piece of legislation that sounded great but would have an adverse effect on all kinds of people. What about our small businesses? Believe it or not ACT has actually spoken to our retailers in our communities our local dairies and many family-run businesses and shops about the difficulties that they are facing. They are constantly being robbed and ram raided. They are at risk of being violently attacked in their own stores. And then the previous Government wanted to push up to 80 percent of them out of business. These local little dairies are sometimes the only shop that people go to in their community. How is that caring about our local communities?It is not the Government's decision to radically reduce nicotine content in cigarettes so smokers who can least afford it will spend more on their habit and in turn do harm to those around them. It is our job to help people quit smoking and to stop young people from starting smoking and vaping. This is a prohibitive Act and we do not support the previous Government's legislation. I support this bill and commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members this debate is interrupted. The House is suspended until 2 p.m. Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Cheung CarlosDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): During the select committee stage a member from the opposite side was talking on behalf of the first generation of immigrants. As an elected MP for Mt Roskill the electorate consists of more than 100 ethnicities and a large population of migrants I can tell you—Steve Abel: Point of order. Just for the clarity of the record Madam Speaker the member said that there was a select committee stage and it should be clear that there was no select committee stage.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I thank the member. Carry on.Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Anyway as an elected MP for Mt Roskill the electorate consists of more than 100 ethnicities and a large population of migrants and I can tell you that people in Mt Roskill people in New Zealand want a fair health system they can rely on. I agree with the member of the opposite side that our healthcare system is broken because under previous Government our healthcare system was delivered based on race not needs. This led to a number of health outcomes continuing to go backwards including the emergency department waiting times hitting the highest level in a decade. We definitely need change and this Government is committed to bring our health system back on track: a health system that can deliver service on needs not race and a health system that can benefit both Māori and non-Māori. I commend this bill to the House.
Weenink VanessaDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. Te Aka Whai Ora—the Māori Health Authority—was never really equipped to undo the health inequities for Māori. Those gaps are huge and the responsibility lies much further outside the health system. It's for the entire economy and it's for all of our Government to take note of those inequities because we can't fix them within health alone; it has to be done across the board. So I don't believe that this change will have any effect other than to get rid of a bureaucracy that wasn't doing anything. Those strong Māori health providers will still be working for Māori health and everybody in the health system will be doing the same. I believe that this change is needed because the only symbolism that I remember was the two waka lashed together—really those two lashed together. What we had was a ship the size of the Titanic with a dingy attached to the back—that's the real symbolism. So now we undo this and I commend the bill to the House.
Campbell Hamish; Pugh MaureenDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill in its third reading.I would like to thank all the members who have actually mentioned health outcomes because that really was the most important thing here. Regardless of organisational form this remains and it needs to be addressed to make sure we have better health outcomes for Māori and also non-Māori. I thank those people that have mentioned the Māori health providers that are caring both for Māori and non-Māori which is great and it will continue as we look into the future. We want Māori providers to provide care for non-Māori and for Māori and we want non-Māori health providers to provide for Māori and non-Māori. I want to shout out to all our healthcare workers in New Zealand working around the clock to provide the best health outcome to all New Zealanders which is currently in a very challenging system. I just want to acknowledge that they will use the best tools they have to their advantage to make sure of the best outcomes. We have aspirin which we have taken from the Greeks; we have quinine which we have taken from the Peruvians; and we take the best to make sure our doctors and nurses can provide the best for their patients regardless of where it's coming from. Therefore that's why I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The next call is a split call.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to firstly acknowledge all the passion and care from around this House especially on the Opposition benches. And I thank the members for their contributions in particular the Hon Peeni Henare you know but I would also add that this Government is focused on outcomes and we like you want better quality care and we want better outcomes for Māori. We acknowledge that Māori are overrepresented in need and I know our Minister is very focused on making sure that a service gets out to those areas where there is most need. We will retain the iwi-Māori partnership boards we want to empower them we want to work with local communities and we—as the Minister stated—believe local situations require local solutions. I want to thank the Minister for his dedication to improving health outcomes across New Zealand. I support this bill.
Waititi Rawiri; O'Connor GregRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. Mr Speaker I just want clarity. You asked Debbie Ngarewa-Packer co-leader for Te Pāti Māori to apologise for using the word racism". In actual fact there's nothing in the Standing Orders that says that you cannot use the word "racism". If you call somebody racist yes I understand that. But what you've asked her to do is apologise for making the statement and actually she was well within her rights to make it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Mr Waititi if you want to go back and have a look at the record you will see that she actually referred to a member on my right specifically as racist. That was why I asked her to apologise.RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Is this a new point of order?RAWIRI WAITITI: I'm speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Well a new angle.RAWIRI WAITITI: The new angle is I think you need to go back and watch the video because she used the word "racism"; she didn't call that member a racist.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Thank you to that member. And again I'll invite him to look at the record."
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. I begin my contribution by acknowledging that this bill delivers on the coalition commitment of all parties in this Government. I'd like to thank the health Minister for his leadership on this bill and to actually acknowledge the support that New Zealand First will give him as he drives this mission to ensure we have equity of access and good positive health gain for all New Zealanders.New Zealand First and the coalition Government remain committed to improving Māori health outcomes. The coalition Government supports a public health system that is keenly focused on delivering these positive health outcomes for all New Zealanders. New Zealand First believes that equity of access for all based on need—based on clinical need—must be a core foundation in our public health system.My leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters has always in fact been an opponent of the Māori Health Authority as a separatist bureaucratic behemoth. Māori health equity should be matrixed right across the entire public health system because the delivery of Māori health gain is a fundamental responsibility of the entire public health system and it is this public health system that is accountable for its delivery but our health system is struggling. Why would it not be struggling? When you have a previous Government during a pandemic with once-in-a-generation health reforms of course it was going to be struggling.This next layer of bureaucracy has actually failed to deliver Māori health gain. Where are the outcomes? We have not seen any from this. But this coalition Government will continue work to provide better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a split call. Te Pāti Māori and Greens—five minutes.
Trask LauraLAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of ACT in support of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. ACT believes that Māori should have equitable access to healthcare but we believe that all New Zealanders should have the same level of access to healthcare no matter what ethnic group you belong to or where you live in our country. The previous health system had many shortcomings and didn't address local issues such as those of iwi. But the Māori Health Authority provided another level of bureaucracy another central government organisation that was failing to prove its worth. The authority's progress report found that concerns were raised about staff transfers not being focused on skills and expertise but instead on taking Māori staff from Te Whatu Ora. The report also found the authority was tracking behind in its delivery. Removing the authority did not remove provision for the Government to engage and consult with Māori on Māori matters.ACT believes in localism and in empowering communities and that healthcare delivers on needs not race. We believe that healthcare is tailored to the individual. All in the coalition Government believe in better health outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders without the addition of any unnecessary bureaucracy. When we lift the health of New Zealanders we must not leave anybody behind and this Government is addressing that. Thank you.
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. Thank you Mr Chair. I am wanting to speak to the title of the bill if I may and—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry to interrupt. Just because a new speaker is speaking on a matter they haven't spoken on before—when we look at repetition we look at who else in the debate has spoken on the same thing. Just a wee reminder that new to the member is not new to the debate. So I'll just start your time again. I apologise for that.STEVE ABEL: Thank you Mr Chair. I have the perhaps terrifying task of disagreeing with the more experienced members in this House from the same side Peeni Henare and Willie Jackson. But in the context of what I will propose as the title for this bill there has to be an understanding of the foundational obligation we have in allowing the fulfilment of tino rangatiratanga for Māori which is a constitutional foundational basis. This bill is taking away that right of self-determination for Māori in terms of their health. In my original speaking to the first reading I referenced Joseph Banks in 1770 who acknowledged the excellent health of Māori as he perceived them: their diet was accompanied with moderation" and "must be productive of sound health which indeed these people are blessed with in a very high degree". But he made a very interesting other observation. He said "Such health drawn from so sound principles must make physicians almost useless." His observation was there was no need for doctors but he wrongly perceived that there was not already medicine being practised by Māori. There were obviously tohunga there were obviously rongoā practices being made.This is what brings me to the suggestion of Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke that this should be called the "Tohunga Suppression Act 2.0" because what it does is it fails to recognise that Māori have their own mātauranga have their own knowledge and systems of understanding how best to apply health to their people. When they had free rein to do it they had the most excellent health that could be observed. So that is my suggestion. The context also for this Mr Chair—and I realise you've asked me to keep it tight so I will—is that underlying the logic behind the removal of the Māori Health Authority is the snake oil equality concept that for us to be more equal we have to take away the rights of another group and the group from whom we're taking the rights is the group who have the supposed privilege of dying seven years younger than non-Māori of having twice the rate of cardiovascular disease of non-Māori; who have the privilege of having child health impacts at 1.5 times the rate of non-Māori. So that lie that somehow there is special privilege here in recognising the right of Māori to determine their own health and manage their own health is absolutely betrayed by this bill and is why it should be called the "Tohunga Suppression Act 2.0". Thank you Mr Chair."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Point of order. I'm just inviting the Chair for some reflections because as soon as you came into the Chair you invited us to proceed with the debate within some specific guidelines. There was I believe just one call of mine I think after you indicated those guidelines and in my case I made it really clear that I had three specific questions. I didn't keep my remarks to reflections of why I dislike the bill and I made sure that these were things that I believed—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you please—RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: But my point of order is I'm just inviting you to reflect on why you would come into the Chair to make a reflection and then only allow for one call rather than in good faith allow the members to scrutinise—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could I ask the member to resume his seat. I did say that I'd been watching the debate. There are a series of Speakers or Chairs sitting in the Chair and I did say that the employment issues had been well traversed [Interruption] and I heard repetition in the member's speech and so—Ricardo Menéndez March: That big wage gap was not—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Please do not argue with the Chair. I've made a decision thank you.
Weenink Vanessa; Kuriger BarbaraDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that debate on this question now close.Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—point of order?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I've started a vote so I'd ask the member to resume his seat thank you.
Reti ShaneHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. Again I thank the members for their questions. An intriguing proposition from the member—not actually possible because (1) you can have only one chief executive for an agency; and (2) it's a board appointment not a ministerial appointment. But I do want to reflect on the excellent working relationship I have had with the CEO and thank her for her professionalism.To the question that the member has raised which is really good around Māori outcomes and what we might look to be commissioning they will be informed by several bodies of work. They will be informed by the good work that's already been done in Pae Tū and in Wakamaua—the action plan. There were really good outcomes in there—Hon Peeni Henare: You're welcome.Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It was good—it was good. My Government policy statement will also express the outcomes—for example immunisation. That will be very very important to me. And it was another really good question around the baseline actually. What will the baseline be so we can measure improvements? And what we will be needing to do is to inventory the data aggregation that has already occurred and what needs to occur to establish a baseline so we can measure outcomes. Part of that as I described last night will be dependent on the capability that each iwi-Māori partnership board has and how we need to all get them to one level and quite quickly as well. And the other member has again—probably the third time the question on data probity has been raised. The data probity issues will follow exactly the same policies that all of Government is required to follow as it relates to data probity so I do have confidence in that.
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): I move That debate on this question now close.
Lyndon HūhanaHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I have a new contribution to our questions to the Minister. It's in new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1 clause 36(4) and it's really related to the CEO of Te Aka Whai Ora. We have heard at length the lift and shift of our kaimahi from Te Aka Whai Ora to Te Whatu Ora but in reading the fine print of new Part 2 we can see that the chief executive officer of Te Aka Whai Ora will not become an employee of Te Whatu Ora.May I speak to the quality of this woman Riana Manuel. She is an inspirational wahine Māori—health leadership in action homegrown in Hauraki and uri of Ngāti Pūkenga ki Manaia Kāinga a wahine toa. She is well versed across the health system and appointed to lead alongside Margie Apa our new direction forward through Te Pae Ora. I was excited myself as a colleague and former kaimahi Māori in hauora to see these two wāhine appointed to the helm of these waka hauora Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora. And yet now we see the loss of talent to the health sector in Riana Manuel now transferring over to Te Whatu Ora which is the right thing to do really because you know the vision was Te Waka Hourua—that Te Aka Whai Ora and Te Whatu Ora would move as one—taha Māori and taha tangata Tiriti. And yet in this legislation we are losing one of our very critical health leaders who has moved us over a number of years to realising our first tino rangatiratanga model in hauora Māori history.So I come with solutions. I'm trying to be positive in this space despite the pāpouri and the hēmanawa that I feel within my heart for hauora Māori today and I offer to the Minister the opportunity to take transformational leadership and appoint Riana Manuel as a co-CEO with Margie Apa to lead Te Whatu Ora into the future. How wonderful would that be for both te Iwi Māori and our tangata Tiriti to work together to lead Te Waka Hauora or Te Whatu Ora. That would give effect to the transfer the vision that Te Whatu Ora would be that vehicle to support improving Māori health outcomes—if we honour the health leadership appointed by the boards Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora to lead the co-design of our new Waka Hauora.So it is my proposal to the Minister that actually we don't need this clause in the legislation and we could remove it and she could be moved and that we recognise the mana of this woman and her hapū her iwi and her contributions to hauora Māori and we put her in place as the co-CEO of Te Whatu Ora alongside Margie Apa. Kia ora.
O'Connor Greg; Kuriger BarbaraREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment and divided into the following bills: the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill. The committee has also considered the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day. The Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 20 August 2024.The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.
Pugh MaureenHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill.
Garcia Paulo; Kuriger BarbaraPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take a call from Tamatha Paul as the Minister has just indicated that he's looking for some more clarification but I believe we are getting close. We've has a lot of time on this bill.
11. Question No.11—Commerce and Consumer AffairsDANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No.11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs11. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has the Government made regarding the economic regulation of water services?Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This morning the Government announced that it is establishing a new economic regulation regime for water providers overseen by the Commerce Commission. The new regulatory regime will ensure that water providers invest in the right infrastructure at the right time so that Kiwis can rely on having fresh clean water at an affordable price.Dana Kirkpatrick: What regulatory tools will be available?Hon ANDREW BAYLY: We've designed the economic regime to provide the Commerce Commission with a flexible range of regulatory powers. The initial regulatory tool will be the use of what we call information disclosure which will require water providers to disclose important information such as the nature or state of their infrastructure and their financial situation. The Commerce Commission will also have the ability if necessary to set minimum or maximum revenue thresholds impose quality standards or performance targets and ultimately it could implement price quality regulation. Hon Phil Twyford: Labour did that.Hon ANDREW BAYLY: In addition—no it didn't. In addition we've allowed the commission to take a proportionate approach to regulation by categorising providers based on their sophistication strategic importance and size Mr Twyford.Dana Kirkpatrick: What consumer protections will be put in place?Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The new information disclosure will allow the commission to collect and analyse information relating to consumer protections such as complaint procedures and customer engagement. If deficiencies are identified the commission will have the power to require further protections. These could include strengthening complaints procedures or adoption of an external dispute resolution arrangement.Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the economic regulation regime ensure appropriate investment?Hon Phil Twyford: We worked on this together actually. Hon ANDREW BAYLY: But you should have listened Mr Twyford; that's the difference. The difference is we're putting it in place; you talked about it. So an important ingredient is that the economic regime requires that the revenue collected by the water providers will be ring-fenced and only spent on investing in their water infrastructure. In essence we're not going to allow spending to be directed into unrelated activities. Local water done well not only keeps water in local ownership and control but also ensures that we get the right level of investment at the right time into our water assets so that Kiwis have access to high quality affordable water.SPEAKER: Well who'd have known that water could cause such unruly behaviour.