edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Hopefully I can be slightly softer in my volume Mr Speaker! Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. As we've heard in previous speeches in 2018 there was a change to the Overseas Investment Act. The timing in 2018 related to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership.Hon David Bennett: Do you agree with Kieran? Have you been standing up in caucus on this?RACHEL BROOKING: There is still quite a lot of noise. I might have to be louder! At that time in 2018 there was the special test created for plantation forestry. This is the test that the bill doesn't quite remove but does change for most types of plantation forestry.The amendment does not apply to carbon forests; we've just heard that very articulately said by the previous speaker Kieran McAnulty—that carbon forests have nothing to do with this legislation at all before today or after this bill is passed through the House. Carbon forests are regulated quite separately and as the previous speaker said there is consultation at the moment on whether or not the emissions trading scheme settings should change so that they don't apply to these exotic forests all the time and instead incentivise indigenous forests. That has the benefit of being better for biodiversity. We've heard also from the Hon David Bennett there about the various different tests that are in the Overseas Investment Act that we have currently and how these will apply. He has said that the farm test should apply rather than the normal test but regardless of which one should apply the point here is that the permissive test won't apply to new forestry new plantation forestry. It will still apply to existing forests but not to any conversions.We know that this permissive test in the Overseas Investment Act has led to a lot of foreign investment into plantation forests in New Zealand. We've heard that today this bill is about rectifying some balance in the system because we know as the Hon Eugenie Sage talked about that there has been a hollowing out of communities with some of the additional plantation forestry both from this international investment but also to acknowledge the carbon farming as well that's happening which this bill does not address. We've heard from those rural areas that there are concerns. We also know that there is a balance in terms of letting in and enabling benefits to New Zealand from the capital from foreign investment. So that is what this bill is trying to achieve. We've heard also that it's going to go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; so they will be able to address the concerns raised tonight. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): A timely interjection from you Mr Speaker; I was just going to say that one of the most sensible things I've heard this evening was from the member Ian McKelvie who talked about this piece of legislation getting it right". Certainly the special forestry test at the time—in 2018—was the right test for those circumstances. But all laws need tweaking. Business changes circumstances change and what we are doing with this legislation is tweaking to make sure that we get the balance right between getting the benefit for New Zealand from overseas investment as well as managing the risks. I remember when I first was elected into Taieri having a really good walk around a couple of farms both run by Federated Farmers farmers. One was Simon Davies a former Federated Farmers Otago chair and then Mark Patterson's land. They were pointing out to me where forestry was becoming increasingly popular and showing me where there was overseas investment happening and at that point we could already see that there might need to be some tweaks going forward because of the way that the Act was working. So what this piece of legislation does is it really just recalibrates. It takes out the special forestry test that was introduced in 2018 which was relatively permissive and was needed at the time to support the sector and was also needed to stimulate the forestry investment. Instead it has come up with—as the Minister has shown—seven conditions that prove benefit to New Zealand rather than a whole lot more complex ones. It is much more nuanced and now there is no hypothetical—so it's really looking at the situation at hand rather than trying to do a hypothetical test about what would be of benefit to New Zealand. So this is just about streamlining those regulations and laws worked at the time. Forestry has become increasingly popular; we need to recalibrate we need to get it right as Ian McKelvie said. This is a good piece of legislation that I commend to the House."
McKelvie IanASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Before I take a call from Ingrid Leary as I assume the Chair I'm conscious that I've already spoken in this debate. You're stuck with me; there are no other presiding officers available. Ha ha! So I'm just really assuring members that I will try my very best to remain impartial. Ha ha! Ingrid Leary.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to be able to take a call.I seek the House's indulgence just for a quick moment to acknowledge Professor Stephen Levine who's just celebrated 50 years—anniversary—at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington. For those members who have not had the pleasure of meeting Professor Levine you'll see him in Copperfields most days. His stamp will be seen right throughout the walls of Parliament and right throughout the walls of public sector where many of his interns now work. But I have no doubt that some of his interns were probably working for members who ushered both the Overseas Investment Act 2005 or the changes that were made in 2018. It's those changes made in 2018 that this bill revisits.Under the current legislation overseas investors who are wishing to acquire an interest in production forestry can seek approval for the investment by a relatively permissive special forestry test. This reflected the need at the time to support the forestry sector and to achieve the Governments goal of stimulating forestry investment. Since then however the economics of investing in forestry have changed considerably and it's become more attractive for overseas investors.This Government does welcome sustainable inclusive and productive overseas investment. The changes in 2018 sought to simplify the Overseas Investment Act by cutting unnecessary red tape and reducing the number of low-risk transactions being screened. But we needed to also balance that with the overall purpose of the Act: that our resources here in New Zealand are a taonga and we want to make sure that the overseas investment continues to strongly benefit New Zealand.So this bill ensures that the forestry conversions by overseas investors continue to bring broad benefits to New Zealand. These investments will now be considered under the same rules as other investments in sensitive land known as the benefit to New Zealand test" rather than under the streamlined special forestry test. The removal of the special forestry test only means that conversions are now treated the same as any other overseas investment in non-urban land. This will channel overseas investment into the right forests in the right place for the right reasons.It's fitting that this bill comes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee as we scrutinised the last bill. One aspect that I'm really keen to look at more closely is the transitional and saving provisions in Part 2 of this bill; as any astute policy maker will be astute to is that any time you shift tests the question applies as to what happens to current applications for consent—so that transitioning period. So I'm looking forward to scrutinising the bill further and I commend this bill to the House."
Faafoi Kris; Dean JacquiHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move That the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 20 June 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on the day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to. [Waits]Hon Members: Aye aye.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I haven't put the question.Hon Members: Oh sorry.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): It is a debatable motion so I was giving the House the benefit of a few seconds. The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.
Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate a debate which I have been privileged to be a part of. It is always great to be in the House on nights where members are deeply engaged in not only the policy detail but the legal and procedural questions and I thank the members on the other side of the House for that close engagement including the Hon Michael Woodhouse.But we find ourselves in a situation where our COVID-19 vaccination programme is ongoing. It is one of the many tools in the tool kit for which this Government has committed to combatting the worst effects of COVID-19. We're now at stage where a second booster is required for those people who are most vulnerable.These aren't people in an abstract idea; these 85000 people include people like my dad. He's in his late 80s or early 90s; he lives in South Auckland which is a community that forms a buffer around the Auckland Airport; and he lives with his young grandchildren who go to kindy every day in a South Auckland kindy. He has underlying conditions. He's also someone who has a mistrust of the medical system and not a regular GP. He is exactly the kind of person who would not have access to a prescription Pfizer vaccine when he needed it but through taking action in this House tonight we can make sure that people like him have access to the medicines they need to remain well and to lessen the burden on our public health system and hospitals like Middlemore which have gotten through so well in this pandemic and have defied all expectations and managed their resources really well to serve the community.I think the Hon Michael Woodhouse's point around the right way to do it is a good one but when we look at the ability of the Government to legislate in this way where there are checks and balances in place where the director-general must be satisfied that the authorisation is an appropriate measure to manage the risk associated with an outbreak and the spread of COVID-19 within a community but also to individual people and therapeutic value to them must be considered I think that overall this is the best way to undertake this measure and so that's why I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Sharma GauravDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): It's a pleasure to speak on the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) today in the House. It was really good to hear from the other side some very cordial words for the most part. I just want to say first of all that our vaccination programme has been one of the most leading in the world and has been applauded across the world apart from by the Opposition on the other side. But the vaccination programme still continues and as Dr Reti said there is emerging evidence that shows that having a fourth dose can make all the difference especially to our vulnerable population. Studies in Israel and the UK have shown this which is why Israel and Germany as well as the UK have looked into now having the fourth dose rolled out which is what this bill is all about.What we're doing here is just making sure that the Director-General of Health is authorised permanently to be able to make such decisions in terms of additional doses changing the doses interval as well as what the target population should be. For the fourth dose this time there'll be 850000 people who will be affected and that's a large population especially in the winter when we see a lot of people getting respiratory illness from other viruses which increases hospital admissions. So having that alongside having COVID-19 which is still in high numbers in New Zealand just means that we need an extra layer of protection and having a fourth dose can make all the difference.I do want to say however that recently the World Health Organization released its data and said that since March 2020 we have now the lowest number of COVID-19-related deaths around the world and a large part of that is obviously related to the vaccinations which scientists have been able to research invent and actually roll out. This fourth dose will make a huge difference in that. So I would like to recommend this bill to the select committee. Thank you.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I'm the wrong sort of doctor to speak on this bill so it's lucky that I've had my friend Sarah Pallett next door to talk me through this because I think this is what we're doing here and it does answer some of the questions coming from across the room. These are not medicines that haven't been approved; they're approved medicines with a new use. Normally they have to have a prescription from a doctor every time you get an off-list use of an approved medicine for a different purpose. This bill streamlines that so that the Director-General of Health who's no slouch when it comes to these matters can make the decision to make this medicine which is normally required on prescription available across our vulnerable people—85000 or so of them—in an equitable manner. I commend it to the House.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for North Shore in support of the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2). It's been noted by prior speakers on this side including Chris Bishop and Dr Reti National are supporting this bill because it is important for this bill to progress to a select committee process where a number of questions can be asked in terms of the concerns that have been raised across this House before this decision is decided upon.As has been noted before National do support the principle that a fourth dose or a booster dose should be available to Kiwis in New Zealand and particularly those 800000 or so individuals who are elderly and immunocompromised. The reality though as has been canvassed by Dr Reti is that the evidence position on this is still evolving and it is important that we do make an informed decision in regards to the availability of this. The select committee process provides a mechanism in which to achieve that. It is also important to note that actually Kiwis today can access the fourth dose through a process through their GP but it is not readily available to everyone and that's why this process is required.I guess the challenge really in terms of what needs to be achieved from the select committee process is to provide substantiation that actually this bill is the necessary mechanism in order to achieve the outcome of providing availability of that fourth dose to Kiwis. Are there other processes or mechanisms existing or otherwise that could be used in order to achieve this outcome instead of this bill? What is the latest position in regards to the scientific rationale and evidence taking into account where this is on the global stage as well in terms of the appropriateness of provision of this dose to Kiwis and the right target audiences for that?It is acknowledged that National—and I do again reflect on Chris Bishop and Dr Reti who have been able to have input into this process to date to ensure that we are able to have a conversation this evening around this. I think it is important just to reflect the last speaker Dr Tracey McLellan—that this legislation doesn't mandate this fourth dose for individuals. I think that is important as that will be a question by a number of Kiwis out there.National are happy to support this bill on the basis that necessary questions will be asked at the select committee process in order to substantiate that this is the right decision.
McLellan Tracey; Dean JacquiDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker for the chance just to say a few brief words in support of the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2). I think it's very clear as my colleague Tangi Utikere said earlier that the vaccination programme itself has probably been our best tool in the tool kit during this pandemic. It's certainly given us a chance to provide ongoing population protection and as we've done we've been able to adapt our response as the pandemic inevitably evolves. So the two-dose initial primary course and the booster as my colleague Sarah Pallett mentioned has been really efficacious. It's been a really good and lasting protection for most people but the latest advice is that an additional booster is going to be really important for our most vulnerable for the people who need it the most particularly as we move into this winter peak. And this bill allows us to do that. It allows us to adapt our public health measures by enabling the Director-General of Health to authorise by notice the administration of consented COVID-19 vaccines to be used without and to be administered without a prescription. So in that sense it's essentially making a permanent and a bit more of a futureproofed solution to meet those ongoing vaccine requirements. Some of those requirements include as we're talking about now additional doses but also changes to the dose intervals perhaps or targeting different population groups should that be required but always and only should the scientific evidence support doing so. So we know that the second boost dose is effective we know that the second boost dose has no additional safety concerns according to trials that have been conducted to date and we also know that Medsafe actively monitors vaccine safety in conjunction with various other partners around the world. So given the need and given the risk to our most vulnerable I have no hesitation to commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Simon Watts—five minutes.
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. I've listened with great interest to the words of my colleagues and I'd just like to share some information and thoughts from my perspective. What we do know is that a two-dose primary course and a booster provides very good and lasting protection for most people but the latest advice we're hearing is that an additional booster is important for the most vulnerable. Vaccination with booster doses now that the prevalent variant is Omicron don't seem to be quite as good as we would like at preventing infection and transmission but they're extremely good at preventing serious illness hospitalisation and death.Now my father is a really good example of a vulnerable person in the United Kingdom who was able to receive that fourth dose in what they called the spring booster programme for the over-75s. At 86 with lungs that were damaged by tuberculosis infection—unfortunately he wasn't able to be vaccinated against TB due to the war—and asthmatic you can imagine how I felt when although he had successfully managed to avoid contracting COVID for two years he became ill. Having had that fourth dose my father—and bearing in mind this is anecdata; this not part of a study—did become unwell but not seriously unwell and didn't require hospitalisation which was a source of great relief to me. This is what we're hoping will be borne out by larger studies larger than the one that's recently taken place in the UK recently published in The Lancet that has shown that my father's experience is pretty similar.As COVID changes we have to change too and this bill allows us to keep people protected by as we've heard enabling the Director-General of Health to authorise by notice the administration of a consented—consented—COVID-19 vaccine. I would just encourage those in Canterbury. We have two doses at 98.9 percent which is awesome but only 75.8 percent have had those boosters. I'd strongly encourage them to get that done. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Wood Michael; Dean JacquiMEDICINES AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)IntroductionHon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) to be introduced and set down for first reading forthwith and for a legislative statement to be presented on that bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.CLERK: Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) introduction.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That bill is set down for first reading forthwith.
Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) — Introduction
Whaitiri Meka; Rurawhe AdrianHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move That the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 22 June 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Motion agreed to.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Penk Chris; Rurawhe AdrianCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I too shall speak only briefly partly because the issues have been well covered and also I'm looking forward to attending the function celebrating the contribution of Professor Stephen Levine. So thanks for allowing me to have a chance to put his contribution on the record. I had a note very similar to that of Sarah Pallett the member who's just resumed her seat. I had balance privacy and transparency". She's characterised it as "safety and transparency" and I think that's actually a better way to put it not least of all because I acknowledge that the member has had her own brush with unfortunate—actually I'll go further: a quite despicable interaction with members of the public targeting her and others in that area after which I think every member in this House should feel deeply disappointed. It's somewhat of a balance between personal rights and the public good but I think it's worth moving in a direction where we ask people to put themselves their family their parents and others on the line in this way. We've had other discussions in other parts of parliamentary process other bits of legislation actually to do with whether public figures or those who are public-facing including lawyers—everyone's favourite category of New Zealander but you know one's got to stick up for one's own sometimes. Even fellow lawyers are being required to put themselves out there in a way that might not be appropriate certainly if the response from members of the public is not appropriate in the way that they interact with them. There's been talk of better candidates being needed in the local government space. I think some of the speeches in this House at times would indicate that better candidates are needed in the central government space as well—I won't go too long for fear of bringing that to mind for too many people who may still be listening at this late hour. We've had a suggestion from the ACT Party that it could be the "CAT Party". I do quite like the anagram involved there. The member was not pussyfooting around indeed when he said that it wasn't on the fence—which is a cat reference for anyone who is not so familiar—and he was definitely felinely ambivalent about it. So I'll leave my contribution there such as it was and say that we look forward to watching the rest of the passage of the bill. Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee. Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee."
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill is not about better candidates although I think it's a rather spectacular self-own that the ACT member who stood earlier thought that women gender-diverse communities and other members of minorities were in fact better candidates. This is about traversing the line between safety and transparency and I'll tell you why. On Friday I put a celebratory tweet up about this bill because it's important to me. It's important to me for many reasons most of which members opposite are aware of. But I had a response to the second tweet. It was actually sending me screenshots of comments on a city councillor's page—messages that threatened to head over to my home and protest quoting Thank goodness the gun grab was a measly 5 percent." There were comments about gumboots concrete gumboots and settling ponds. It is not a small risk that some people take by putting their home address up on pamphlets and on billboards and this bill will give a degree of protection to our local candidates those great candidates that really deserve it."
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take what will just be a short call on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill first reading.Only a short call because I think we've probably traversed the issues enough and have already somewhat descended into the ridiculousness of different-named parties and different-named people. I think it's important to note that we do live in an age unfortunately where there is more abuse more hatred and more polarisation even in local party politics and it is very intimidating for local body politicians to have to put their personal address on a billboard.Just a case in point: my sister stood for the local board at the last elections—Alexis Poppelbaum for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board—and she had to put her home address which at the time was my parents' address because she was moving cities. That was something that really upset her; it upset me having to put my parents' address who I thought would possibly be targeted. It is a real threat. It is a real concern. It does put people off. This is a good bill. It's a shame that it couldn't have been brought a little sooner and we have to have such a truncated process.The National Party will be supporting it through to select committee. I just wanted to say I do agree with my colleague Maureen Pugh who said tonight that Look people don't necessarily want to come and visit our homes; they just want to know how to get in touch with people." I think this bill makes sensible changes to the law and as I say we will be supporting it through to select committee."
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. On this side of the House I am proud to stand with a Government that is making it more accessible for more diverse candidates to stand in local government elections. I am proud to stand here and say that we say to women candidates to Māori candidates to Pacific candidates to candidates from ethnic backgrounds that there is a growing body of evidence that you will be targeted in local elections that you will receive abuse but this Government will put in place legislation which says you do not have to disclose where your children and your family live.It's really important that we don't criticise possible local government candidates who want to stand for local election but feel nervousness around that because this is a serious issue and it is getting worse. That is why the Government is taking action now—because of that evidence that these candidates are facing abuse and are facing persecution from people who wish to do them and their families harm. It's not a simple thing to remove your address from the electoral roll but it is possible; you can opt out and it's not a situation where anyone can access your information in the way that we expect candidates—prior to this change that the Government is proposing today—to do on their billboards on their flyers all around the community.Finally I would just say that the comparison with disclosing pecuniary interests which is only required when local government would be making financial decisions in your interest—as a local board member once you are elected—is not similar to putting your family's home address on your pamphlets. That is why this Government is changing the law in that area and requiring local government candidates to make those disclosures.
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) (remote): [Audio issue] it is and we as the Green Party said is an important step towards making our democracy both safer and more inclusive. In fact I on behalf of the party wrote to the Prime Minister in April asking for this change to be made both at local and general elections. As others have said we know that the requirement to provide either a residential or a business address—a physical address—favours those who are associated with an existing political party. For those of us who run in general election campaigns obviously and everyone in the House at the moment we're associated with existing parties that have been around a while and that have been in Parliament a while. We have access to party offices or electorate offices that have the benefit of Parliamentary Service security advice and of course are removed from our own personal lives in that interaction that would stop others from being able to provide an address at all if they're first-time candidates and if they're independent candidates. And in the local body elections it's far far more the case that—and you know we have a diverse range of candidates from all sorts of backgrounds and all sorts of political leanings even that won't have their access to political parties. As the Electoral Commission and others have previously made this point our democracy is not as available and does not engage all groups evenly. So we know that young people are less engaged with our democracy. We know that women Māori Pacific candidates and other marginalised ethnic groups are less likely to be selected by existing prominent political parties if they put themselves forward and they're far less likely to do so. So to say that once you do put yourself forward as someone from a gender race ethnicity or background that's less likely to be engaged who we need to encourage but is also as we know—and the evidence has shown us over and over again—more likely to then be targeted by the sorts of threats or abuse that make those candidates less safe is antithetical to the purpose of our democracy. So we do see this as a good change as an overdue change because of course with the advent of email and other digital means of connecting people and verifying people's identity it makes little sense that we've had the requirement for a physical address for so long on everything—that's including pamphlets that are distributed all over on billboards and on things that members of the public interact with constantly. And to have something so intimate on there makes little sense now. But we do see this as a change that needs to be implemented at both local and general elections. The urgency is clear and so the report back for such a simple and necessary change makes sense to us. But we do hope that the engagement does occur and that that feedback will hasten the change to be led by Government and implemented for next year's general election as well so that more candidates are made to feel more safe and a more diverse range of political beliefs of backgrounds and of genders is included in our democracy next year too. I commend the bill to the House.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. True democracy requires diversity; it requires systems that ensure that everyone across society feels safe standing for election if they wish to do so. Democracy also requires election ads be transparent accountable and traceable. This is a small change but it is one that meets both of those requirements; it doesn't put them in tension with one another. It's a small change but it will have a powerful wake in terms of its support for diversity at all levels of leadership in Aotearoa. I commend this bill to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This is a small change but a significant one for the upcoming local body elections. This bill removes the requirement to list a physical address on campaign advertising in the upcoming elections for local body. There's been growing concerns that candidates who do publicise their home address may face undue risk to their physical safety particularly women and also visible minorities in our community. And the fear is that this desire for transparency in our democratic process is in fact having a negative impact and discouraging democratic participation. So what has become clear is that the current requirements are in fact doing the opposite of what they intended and we are changing that today by changing the fact that you no longer need a physical address. You can also provide an email address a post office box number a phone number or a link to an internet site. This is a good bill that encourages more people to stand for public office and I commend it to the House.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party as their local government spokesperson to speak on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill first reading a Government bill in the name of Nanaia Mahuta the Minister of Local Government. I acknowledge the contribution by Minister Whaitiri in regards to this bill. National will be supporting this bill at first reading.National do agree around the aspects that have been noted in regards to personal risk to candidates and individuals and are supportive in acknowledging these concerns—that this bill while a small element will make changes that will have benefits for candidates. It is critically important that we have a wide range of candidates across our local government sector. Local government is an incredibly important part of our democracy and any aspect that means some candidates may not put their hand up is an issue for our overall democracy and as such we are supportive.I've had the opportunity over the last few months to visit about half of the local councils across this country from Kaipara to Gore. It's consistent across those visits that the capability of people that work within our local government sector do an amazing job. They do an amazing job under what are often very difficult circumstances and the scale of impact as a result of COVID and the large-scale of reform that our local government sector is currently dealing with is testament to the qualities of these individuals across this country. To those individuals who will be putting their hand up to represent their local community in October I look forward to seeing a large degree of increased capability and competence and diversity in that group.It would be remiss not to note that this bill has come at a time and is being pushed through the House under urgency when it would be fair to say this is not a new issue. This is not a new issue that should have just been identified recently; this Government has had five years in Government in order to be able to identify this problem. So it is somewhat interesting that the Government has chosen the opportunity to push through this bill under urgency and it does demonstrate potentially the degree of planning that is under way on the other side. But nevertheless as we said the bill will change a number of elements in regards to the authorisation statements and that is small in the context. National support this bill.
Rurawhe AdrianLOCAL ELECTORAL (ADVERTISING) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDEPUTY SPEAKER: Members we come now to the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill which in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee is available for first reading forthwith.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): The district health board (DHB) system is broken and it has been for years and it has not served rural communities well at all. Today this Parliament has an opportunity to vote for reform that will serve rural communities much better and actually deliver access to services that they have been deprived of for generations. That side of the House are not going to vote for this bill. For all their grandstanding and cheap political points about strategies here and strategies there they weren't going to vote for it anyway. They can stand there and say that they wanted a strategy here; even if they got it they weren't going to vote for it. What a crock. This bill is necessary and I want that side of the House—next time they are in Wairarapa—to explain to the people there why they are satisfied with the status quo why they are satisfied that there are no dialysis services in Wairarapa. I want them to go to Takapau and say that they are satisfied why the Hawke's Bay District Health Board is not funding their community service. I want them to go to Dannevirke and explain why the people there have to pay $120 for an X-ray when those in Palmerston North get it for free. I want them to explain to the people in Eketāhuna why they can't access their closest hospital in Masterton because of some arbitrary DHB boundary in between. They can't. It's broken. But they are not prepared to accept that the Government is going to do something for rural New Zealand. They would rather grandstand and try and present the spurious political argument that is not backed up. At the next election I want to hear how they can justify going back to the status quo that is depriving rural people of access to health. They can't. They know it. It is absolute nonsense. I am proud to lend my vote today on behalf of my constituency in Wairarapa the Tararua district and Central Hawke's Bay to finally give them the access to health services that they deserve.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Speaker thank you. It's my pleasure to rise and take what I understand is the penultimate contribution this evening in support of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill.In doing so can I acknowledge the Minister of Health and his wider ministerial team for bringing to the House a bill that will make an absolute difference. Members opposite might not think so but I know for the constituents of Palmerston North this will make a huge difference.Can I also acknowledge the chair of the Pae Ora Legislation Committee Dr Russell. In my first reading contribution it was my hope that the committee would hear from submitters and they did that and what we have in front of us is a very good bill.There are a number of issues that have led to the introduction of this piece of legislation. A significant one is that of equity—or inequity—for some members of our community and it's unfortunate that we can define those members by a particular cohort: they are our Māori members of the community they are our Pasifika they are our disabled members they are women and they are members of rural community as well.Let's make no mistake. For the benefit of those who are listening and watching at home—and for the benefit of the record—a vote against this bill this afternoon is a vote or a sense of endorsement for inequity; for a continuation of inequity; an acknowledgment that the system ain't broke. That's what a vote against this bill is tonight: an acknowledgment that the system ain't broke.Quite frankly I think it is rather unfortunate that people in this House have that view when we have members of Pasifika Māori—Matt Doocey: Don't make things upTANGI UTIKERE: —and wider community who do suffer from inequity.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Interjections like that Mr Doocey are out of order—as you well know. You will stand withdraw and apologise.Matt Doocey: Withdraw and apologise.TANGI UTIKERE: This bill will allow a dedicated connected health service for all New Zealanders. But we acknowledge that there is some support that's needed for some parts of our community and this bill delivers on that.It is a proud day to be a member of this Government a Labour Government that will create change within health one of the fundamentals of any society. I commend this bill to the House.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Last week I sat in this House and listened as a member of the Opposition said of this legislation sententiously First do no harm. There should be no change because first we should do no harm." But a claim like that ignores the harm that is being caused by the status quo. Retaining the status quo does harm in itself. We know this because of the failures with respect to the health of Māori. We know this because of failures with respect to the health of our Pasifika peoples. We know this because the current system is not working. Contrary to claims of the Opposition decentralisation has not worked for New Zealanders—for all New Zealanders. We all know that the district health board system was no longer working and as the status quo it was doing harm. So change is needed.This Pae Ora legislation is bold transformative change brought to us by a Minister with vision and courage and conviction—a Minister who has the guts to set up a separate select committee which drew expertise with the chair of the Health Committee on that committee with the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee on that specialist committee with people drawn from all areas of the House to oversee this specialist reform this transformative reform.The Opposition opposed it because they do not understand difference. "Everyone should be treated the same" they say. "Everyone should be treated the same." But would they like to be treated the same as Māori? I don't think so. Would they like to be treated the same as Pasifika? I don't think so. What they mean is that everyone should be treated as a middle-aged white man or white woman. But we need to understand and recognise difference in the way we govern ourselves in this country. We need to understand and recognise difference in the way we do health in this country. We need to support different ways of doing health so that we can—as this legislation says right in its purpose statement right at the start—protect promote and improve the health of all New Zealanders so that we can achieve equity in health outcomes among New Zealand's population groups including by striving to eliminate health disparities in particular for Māori and build towards Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) for all New Zealanders.That is the purpose of this transformative legislation. It is an excellent goal. I support this from the bottom of my heart."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I intend to speak only briefly. Like most contributors to this debate I've had an opportunity to do so on similar occasions. I do note that the Minister the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall took the place of her usual colleague in that role the Hon Chris Hipkins. I thank the Minister for her gracious comments in relation to the work of the Regulations Review Committee. It does have a number of excellent members—all its members in fact are excellent with the possible exception of its chair. I'm certainly grateful for the hard work that they do. They are much smarter than me. They're smart enough to make points that I'm just smart enough to understand so we get on just fine. But thanks as always to the work of those who support us namely the legislative counsel and the wonderful clerk committee staff who support the work as well.I'll just speak briefly because I only want to make one particular point which is just following that comment that the Minister made that the committee remains diligent in scrutinising these orders. Of course it does take two to tango and the fact that there are fewer concerns we're bringing to the House does reflect the fact that the relevant Government Ministers and ministries—ministry perhaps; singular; the Ministry of Health—have been taking heed of concerns that we've brought previously. So just by way of example briefly there was in one of the orders that we are considering today—one of those presented in mid-April essentially—a provision whereby those who were staying at a managed isolation and quarantine facility (MIQF)—as defined: one of those facilities—would be able to stay there longer and I say able" deliberately because it would need their consent to be isolating longer in an MIQF than would otherwise be the case. Previously the committee had advised the Government that we thought that someone who was is in that situation shouldn't be penalised in terms of their rights and liberties relative to someone who was able to self-isolate at home. So in a situation where a person doesn't have adequate facilities to self-isolate at home safely and consents to be in the MIQF instead then they are able to do so. So we thought that that probably reflected the policy intent of the Government and of course we consider the way that regulations are made to reflect the policy intent rather than interrogating that policy intent ourselves. So we thought that that was a helpful interplay between the committee and the Government as such. So thanks as always for the opportunity to ventilate some of our thinking and some of the process around this. I won't take up any more of the House's time on this one but as I say we have made it I think tolerably clear that we support the confirmation of these orders and will continue to examine them diligently throughout."
Robertson GrantAPPROPRIATION (2021/22 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLFirst ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2021/22 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Te Paati Māori requesting that the House change the country's official name to Aotearoa and begin a process to identify and officially restore the te reo Māori names for all towns cities and places by 2026petition of Tara Jackson requesting that the House pass legislation that provides for scientific institutions to transition from animal-based methods to non - animal-based methods for research testing and teaching purposes wherever possible. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited Statement of Performance Expectations 2022-2023 and Statement of Intent 2023-2027Lottery Grants Board Annual Report 2020-2021.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Karli ThomasReports of the Regulations Review Committee on:the complaint about exemption to Maritime rule 53.4(2)(a) the complaint about the Fisheries (Hector's and Māui Dolphin) Amendment Regulations 2020 and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 4) 2022.SPEAKER: The reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.