edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I actually wasn't intending to do a call on this bill but I do feel compelled to respond to the Hon Scott Simpson particularly his invocation of former Prime Minister—I'm aware that I'm also standing between members and their weekend as we end urgency. But I do just really really really need to respond to the invocation of former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher and particularly that statement: The problem with socialism is you run out of other people's money." I want to ask members of the National Party where on earth they think money for the roading projects that they love so much comes from. It is largely from everybody because they are not particularly in favour of user-pays policies for roading projects. What that means is that people like myself who do not own a car end up paying for the roads that the National Party is so keen on.Just to make it really clear to members of the public who may be actually listening and hoping for some content of this legislation to be discussed what the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill does is create a framework that brings planning and funding of the rail network under the land transport planning and funding regime set out by the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Currently that Land Transport Management Act deals with the planning and funding of public transport State highways and of local roads. So to add rail into that mix is simply actually to become more agnostic towards the types of projects that we are funding. As an Opposition that so often gets up in the House and talks about ideology I would really love them to reflect on the ideological obsession that they have with roads at the cost of all other projects.Particularly on that point just finally I want to respond to the point made by the honourable Brett Hudson which is that most people use roads—he's not honourable. Well my learned colleague my learned friend Brett Hudson—SPEAKER: No no he's not even learned.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Oh OK Brett Hudson from the Opposition.SPEAKER: That's for lawyers only.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yeah. What he was saying is that most people use roads; therefore we should just continue to fund only roads. That has got to be some of the most broken logic that I have ever heard from a member of Parliament. We've always done things this way; therefore we must always continue to do things this way even if it particularly doesn't work and is one of the major drivers for increasing carbon emissions in this country. We have an opportunity to do things differently. And actually the core logical point made by Brett Hudson is that if you build it they will come and they will use it. Therefore it's a great argument for investing in rail.So the Green Party are really glad to be supporting this piece of legislation today and I wish all members of the House a great weekend.SPEAKER: The question is that—Ian McKelvie: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Oh—I call Ian McKelvie."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I'm not going to take too long because I endorse the comments made by my colleagues on this side of the House. We don't support this bill. We don't think it adds value. I think it was Margaret Thatcher former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who said once that the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. This is a bill that is designed simply to rob Peter to pay Paul and to divert money away from road users to obsolete railway. So we oppose this bill and that's it.
SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's no surprise and should be no surprise to anyone that we are supporting this bill because New Zealand First is the party for the regions. What do we need in the regions? We need investment and especially we need investment in rail. I think that the Minister Phil Twyford quite eloquently set out in detail what this bill will do in regards to ensuring that we are able to invest in rail concentrate on rail build rail especially in our regions. I think that he also outlined why it was so important.What is hollow to me about the National Party not supporting this bill is the reason because it's opposite to what this side of the House is which is we are the regions and we want to invest in rail and that side doesn't. The last speech that we heard from Tim van de Molen was that they want to invest in roads. Well New Zealand First is supporting the Labour Party and this coalition Government and supporting this bill and we commend it to the House. Thank you.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's disappointing to hear that—and really some fundamental misconceptions about how the funding of State assets works. It's no good expecting Mainfreight to put more freight on rail if the rail system is absolutely derelict through years and years of neglect. I speak for Canterbury here because we would love to see some rail down in Christchurch—better freight passenger rail; would love to see it there but the state of the network at the moment simply doesn't work.If we can get some of that freight off the roads on to the rail free up congestion and use those funds for improving the rail network it'll be better for everyone. People will move more freely freight will move more quickly carbon emissions will go down and you know what? That's the work that this Government has been doing for the last three years and will continue doing into the future and this is part of that plan. I commend it to the House.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I will hopefully do justice to the member Brett Hudson's question. In this country we have a world-leading transport funding and planning system based on the principle of hypothecation. So all of the contributions that are made through road-user charges and through fuel excise duty—every cent of that money is spent on transport in one way or another so it's completely hypothecated. It's certainly been our Government's policy that rather than investing all of that money only in one mode that actually in the 21st century we have to take a more intelligent approach and invest across the modes in order to deliver the best outcomes for New Zealanders—whether they are motorists whether they're catching the bus or the ferry or walking and cycling—that way we can get a truly efficient and sustainable system.I'll give the member one example of why that's important. If you look in Auckland at the success of the Northern Busway that cost about $400 million to build a decade and a half ago it's taken three lanes of traffic off the Auckland Harbour Bridge and actually saved the country billions of dollars. By investing in a busway it's created a massive benefit for motorists. That's why we have to take a multimodal approach including rail which delivers year on year as the EY report demonstrated three years ago. It delivers $1.5 billion of economic and social value to New Zealanders every year by getting freight off the roads preventing deaths and serious injuries reducing carbon emissions and reducing wear and tear on the roads. So that's the joined-up approach that underpins this bill.
SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Minister. That was an answer. It didn't answer the element of why it was necessary but it certainly did answer why you want to do it. So my follow-up question to that is: OK we accept that we actually think this integrated planning is a good idea but why therefore is it necessary to legislate to allow the pilfering from the taxes the hard-working motorists pay for their roading network to fund the decisions that follow from that planning process? Oh come on. Do you want me to ask another one?
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I thank the member Brett Hudson for his questions and it provides a useful opportunity to set out the reason then the purpose of this bill at the beginning of this debate.By statute and by many decades of customer practice in this country the planning and investment in decision making to support the country's rail network has been siloed from completely separate from the broader management of our land transport system and it does seem bizarre that rail hasn't by law been considered land transport. And so our National Land Transport Programme—the three-yearly programme of investment in public transport and roads State highways local roads walking cycling—has not and cannot incorporate rail in its planning. That's why fundamentally we are changing the law to bring rail in from the cold to fully integrate it into our policy planning investment and decision-making framework.And so the bill mandates the creation of a rail network investment programme on a three-yearly cycle. That will be signed off by Ministers but on the basis of advice from Waka Kotahi who are responsible for the land transport system directly addressing this question about integration and coordination. We want all modes to be able to play to their strength. There is certain freight which is best carried by coastal shipping some of which is best carried by rail a lot of which is best carried by the road freight haulage industry—unless we have a good understanding of how they all join up then we cannot make the appropriate infrastructure investments.I hope that's an answer to the member's question. It's certainly the intent of this bill and I want to thank the select committee for all the good suggestions they've made and the amendments that have been incorporated.
SpeechParts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2BRETT HUDSON (National): Like a good gentleman I thought I'd allow the Minister to take a call. But instead I'd just—you know it's a late Wednesday afternoon on a Friday. So I just thought I might just inquire because I subbed into the committee for this bill. So we were keen to understand why it was that a piece of legislation had to be passed in order for people to talk to each other maybe make a few plans—because we actually support the idea of an integrated approach to transport planning which would include discussions about how all forms of transport including rail sit alongside our road network developments and plans. So the Minister might like to stand rather than just let this go through to the keeper and perhaps give us the reason why it required legislation for this. I'll give the Minister an example just to help. So if we take the integrated service response (ISR) for family harm for instance that's a unit that sees members from multiple agencies about half a dozen maybe more come together the day after a family harm incident each of them having access to every piece of information each of them understanding precisely what happened discussing together what needs to happen what should happen and taking ownership particularly for a lead to make that happen. So it's not clear Minister why provisions in this bill are required for humans to get together and make sensible decisions. So you might actually like to take a call and tell us why we're taking this time under urgency to pass a bill to simply enact what people have been doing since time immemorial and it certainly has worked in Government with the example I used of the ISR. Let's start with that one please.
Allan KiritapuLAND TRANSPORT (RAIL) LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question is that Part 1 stand part.KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions of this bill to be taken as one.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill — Third Reading
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. As the chair of the Health Committee I'm incredibly proud of this bill and firstly I want to acknowledge Minister Clark who's here today. This is a flagship policy for you. You've made it your priority you've made it your focus and actually through the He Ara Oranga report process which listened to New Zealanders this was one of the recommendations. So I want to acknowledge that we are creating an independent Crown entity. It will be independent of Government policy and I think that's really important. I want to acknowledge the 99 written submissions and the 42 oral submitters who came to the committee. I too want to thank Team Health" I'd call us. We're incredibly collaborative and again this is an example of that work. The groups that have been identified in Schedule 1A—this was an innovation and I want to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for allowing us that opportunity. All the groups wanted to be listed to be honest because part of the requirement of the commission is to identify priority groups and to consult with them. So obviously as has already been mentioned Māori are there by virtue of our status as our indigenous peoples but we've also prioritised Pacific peoples refugees and migrants the rainbow community—who particularly mobilised I want to say—rural communities disabled people veterans prisoners young people older people children experiencing adverse childhood events and children in State care. I thank the officials. For me I want to highlight the work of Robyn Shearer and the team from the Ministry of Health and I guess my simple message to them is that if they take the people with them and if they build on the relationships through this process then the outcomes will take care of themselves. The only other group I wanted to highlight were men actually because our men are our priority. Our colleague Matt Doocey highlighted that in the rural sector it is men who disproportionately are taking their lives but we also know that in the construction space it's become an emerging issue. So I just want to end with what is the objective of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and that is—and I quote—"better and equitable mental health and wellbeing outcomes for people in New Zealand." I commend this bill to the House."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): The Green Party supports the Privacy Bill and would acknowledge the huge amount of work that the Law Commission did in 2011 with its review and its report finding that the Privacy Act was essentially—the foundations of it were good but it was in need of overhaul and updating to recognise new technology and the challenges that that creates and also to recognise that we've got a view now of privacy and the need to protect it that is evolving in the light of new technology. So this bill retains the flexibility that was in the Privacy Act but the new reforms also encourage agencies to address privacy risks at an early stage so that citizens can be assured that their data their information is protected. The Green Party commends the bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Privacy Bill — Third Reading
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to acknowledge the reference to the age of this bill. This bill's almost as old—or the law that it's replacing the Privacy Act 1993 is almost as old—as me. But it's great to be here to see—Dr Duncan Webb: It's taller.SIMEON BROWN: It's taller than me. That's right—very good point. There's a lot of things which are taller than me including this bill. It's probably quite a big one. But it's great to be in the House to be talking about a piece of legislation which has put forward the review done under the previous National Government the work done by the Hon Amy Adams to update our privacy legislation. These protections which are in this bill are incredibly important to New Zealand and it is important that they do keep pace with ever-changing technology and the way the world is operating. It's important though as well that it does go through due process; so this piece of legislation has gone through a huge amount of consultation from the Law Commission's report review back in 2011 which recommended complete modernisation by repealing and replacing the previous Act and then bringing this bill in which reflects new technologies the way data is stored the way Governments use it and providing new provisions around this. So this piece of legislation will make a number of key changes one of which will be that it brings in a new criminal offence to mislead an agency in a way that affects someone else's information and to knowingly destroy documents containing personal information where a request has been made for it with a penalty fine of $10000. These are important changes. It will make important steps forward for New Zealanders whilst protecting their privacy rights. The National Party commends this bill to the House.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to briefly speak on the bill in support of it as well. What occurs to me as I stand here is that this was a bill that was originally—well the principal Act we're amending was—put in place 25 years ago and yet here I stand with a device on me that tracks where I shop what I look at and develops algorithms about my habits. We live in a vastly different privacy environment to that that was around when the principal Act was put into place and so it's timely and appropriate that this bill is developed at this stage. It's been done so with cross-party support and I strongly commend it to the House.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Well I have to say that this is probably one of the best bills that the Government has brought to this House when you put it up against their reformist agenda like the prisoner voting bill or protecting the name of the Ombudsman. But the reason why this is probably one of their best pieces of legislation is that this is the work done by the Hon Amy Adams when she was justice Minister in the previous Government; so of course we're in support of this bill. The protections in the Privacy Bill are extremely important. The key purpose of the reform is to promote and protect people's privacy and give them confidence that their personal information is properly protected. We support these privacy reforms which were a large piece of work instigated like I said by the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams. I see Darroch Ball looking with admiration as he considers just how good this bill is and thinking thank goodness that actually this Government was able to pass at least one decent piece of legislation while they were in Government. We support balancing strong privacy protections for individuals with sensible use of data and data sharing by agencies. Having sensible and practical privacy laws makes a huge difference to how effective Government programmes are. We're very happy to stand in support of this bill. Thank you.
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koutou katoa. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee we did consider this International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill and essentially what it does is add to the current list of war crimes which were agreed at the annual Assembly of State Parties in December 2017 and as Minister Martin highlighted are microbial agents weapons that injure by fragments and also blinding laser weapons.I do want to highlight the issue of the starvation amendment and it was an issue with timing because that starvation amendment was a resolution of the December 2019 annual Assembly of State Parties; so I want to acknowledge that. But I also want to acknowledge that Labour and Green members supported the officials' recommendation that we add the starvation amendment to this piece of legislation. The National Party took a different position but actually with the Minister intending to add that amendment at the committee stage I'm hoping that the National Party will support it. The reality is that starvation means—and I quote—A method of warfare by depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival." That is they kill people by not giving them food and water. We have to do something about that; we have an opportunity through that bill. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time."
International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to stand and take a call on the second reading of the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill. I don't sit on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but can I acknowledge them for the work that they have done and can I acknowledge the chair Simon O'Connor. I have subbed on to that committee from time to time and I've been impressed at the fairness and the efficiency with which he runs that select committee and the important cross-party work that's done particularly on a bill like this.We do support this bill to incorporate into New Zealand law a number of amendments from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court concerning war crimes. We recognise that domestic legislation is required to bring any international treaties into force and as a result we support the passage of this bill today. We welcome the war crimes amendments and hope that they'll discourage the use of inhumane weaponry.The only closing comment that I would make is that a weapon that is very commonly used around the world in the wrong hands—i.e. with a terrorist group or an organised crime group—is the Kalashnikov 47 the AK-47. While we sit in this Parliament and we pass law recognising that something has to be done around that type of weaponry being dispersed around the globe I think that we need to have a very close look at ourselves in terms of our country and make sure that we haven't got weapons like AK-47s on our streets creating harm and killing people back home here in New Zealand.So although we support this bill and the passage of this bill I'd also caution the Government and say that a very close look has to be taken and some vigilance and focus around the fact of whether or not the weapons that we're condemning and that we're trying to stop the proliferation of around the world isn't in fact happening here right under our own noses in our own country New Zealand. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise to speak briefly in support of the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. It's an important piece of legislation that arises as has been outlined from MartinJenkins' review which identified some clear regulatory improvements that needed to be made. What I'm also pleased about in this bill is that there's a really clear focus on road safety and the need to have an agency that is fit for purpose to do the most important thing that we can really ensure which is that when New Zealanders use our transport system they're kept as safe as possible.So I commend the Minister of Transport for that work. I thank members around the House for their support for the legislation and I commend it to the House.Bill read a second time.
Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. Hello to the other side of the House—no still asleep. That's all right; I'll take a call instead on this Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. They've fallen asleep at the wheel it would seem on the other side of the House which is I suppose to be expected from them on a Friday afternoon.I won't take too long on this bill. Mr Young has done a very job of traversing the key aspects of it but I did just want to highlight a couple of pieces that are particularly relevant in acknowledging the unfortunate incident that led to the identification of some regulatory failings and therefore the need to rectify that through largely the creation of the new director role within this piece of legislation.That actually brings it into line with the Civil Aviation Authority and Maritime New Zealand in terms of having that role that regulatory function of a director. So from that perspective we support that aspect. Having independence though is critical to that and that was one of the amendments that we put forward at the select committee to ensure that when performing a statutory independent function the director must act independently and the Minister agency or secretary may not direct the director performing that function. So that was an important distinction to get in there just to ensure that independence in that regard. The other aspect sitting alongside that was actually time-limiting that to a five-year term as well which I think was an appropriate measure to ensure the ability of that process.I will just touch briefly on two other aspects. The Minister elaborated on the establishment of the register and the speed limit process changes. The speed limit one is I think an important one to again gain consistency across different road-consenting agencies the territorial authorities or local councils to ensure that there aren't conflicting by-laws coming through in that process. So the streamlining and centralising of that is I think an appropriate move in that space.Largely there are some pretty technical and minor changes but the new director role I think is an important function and I will be following with interest how that plays out over the coming year. So we do support this bill and won't hold it up any further.
SpeechJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill and just to acknowledge the detail that the Minister was able to in his allocated speaking time convey after the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee deliberated and reported back to this House.We all know the background to this legislation was the tragic loss of life in a vehicle accident. Mr William Ball lost his life when a seatbelt failed. That ordinarily would have been picked up through an inspection and that of course caused a review of the process that took place and that's where some regulatory failure was identified.So the Ministry of Transport then took on the services of a reviewer MartinJenkins who commissioned a study to bring independent advice to the secretary of transport not only looking at the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)'s processes but also looking at the Ministry of Transport and their role in monitoring the NZTA. They essentially discovered that the NZTA had three different functions that needed to be far better put together. They had the role of being the regulator they also had the role of being the infrastructure deliverer and they also had the role of being the investor. What they discovered was that during the early stages of the NZTA's development—its establishment and development—there were some lacks discovered in the regulatory regime. So hence the review and hence the report which the NZTA the Minister and the Ministry of Transport have all welcomed and the outcome has been I think this bill which has brought certain changes.Certainly I think the most prominent change is the establishing of the role of director. I think that is a very very important role. It creates in a sense somebody who has statutory independence to function to ensure that the regulatory regime that the NZTA Waka Kotahi must follow and also has that degree of independence where the Minister the agency or secretary may not direct the director in terms of performing that function.I think that what this is offering is real strengthening of a very important agency that affects every one of our lives. It ensures that we can have confidence that the regulatory regime that is to enforce the regulations of course particularly around the public safety are strongly in place. I just have to say that the NZTA do have a very strong culture of public safety; it's one of their driving principles. And we know that this is going to improve them even more. So we're very pleased to support this legislation going through the House. Thank you.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. This is a really important bill because as we came into Government we've inherited a huge housing crisis. Certainly down in Invercargill our State houses were sold off. We've got an acute shortage of housing across all different housing classes. And what this bill will do is it allows Kāinga Ora to be that development authority that can pull together and do streamlined and integrated large urban development projects.It's an incredibly technical bill and I want to thank all of those who made submissions on this bill. We had about 133 people that submitted and as a result this bill has ended up a lot better. I also want to really just acknowledge the work that our officials did because again as I say an incredibly complex bill but they worked really hard and we ended up with a good result. So it's a pleasure to support this bill and I commend this bill to the House.Amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority agreed to.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is a good effort and I would acknowledge the Government for that. This highlights some of the complexity we have in the planning and development space but unfortunately creating this Urban Development Bill isn't fixing the underlying issue. We've already heard from this side of the House a number of concerns around the Resource Management Act and how that fits in and that is where we need to see some serious reform. Unfortunately the Government has indicated they're looking to review that but that won't happen this side of the election of course so this isn't really landing in the right space. Whilst we commend the effort in terms of trying to create a system that enables a better planning environment and facilitates that development in an expedited way the challenge here is in part that it is tacking another piece of legislation on to the side of that overall framework and it's not addressing the underlying issue it's not providing the right solution and actually in this particular situation with this bill the risk is that it shifts the power too much in favour of Crown-oriented or Crown-initiated developments. In a time like we're facing at the moment where there are significant challenges on the horizon the economy is facing a major uphill battle we need to be encouraging private investment private businesses as much as possible and facilitating them to pick up the mantle and move forward with projects. Our concern is that this doesn't achieve that and it actually skews the balance more in favour of those Crown-initiated projects which is a concern as well. It also seems to be overly complex in a number of facets and we heard actually Auckland Council submit on that and also the Law Society raising some concerns in that regard with the number of Acts this reaches across and the risk of conflicts arising out of that. So look on the face of it a good effort but unfortunately not the right piece of legislation we need at this time so we can't support it. From this side of the House our position remains that we need more wholesale reform of the Resource Management Act to facilitate that better development and that will be our focus post-election should we have the opportunity. So we do not support this bill.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Mr Speaker. It's a funny old game isn't it? The Environment Committee which I chair and which is probably one of the most hard-working committees in this House has been sitting pretty much all this week. The National members were really good on this bill. They worked through it. They tidied it up took on suggestions gave suggestions made sure that the powers of the various authorities involved were suitably limited made sure that the rating powers weren't too extensive and made sure that any excess in the special levies went back to where they belonged and we have a fantastic bill that's come out of the select committee in a fine form—and now they come to the House and don't support it. That's really surprising but I want to thank them for the great work they've done. They've made this bill better and there's going to be better housing developments in New Zealand because of it. I commend the bill to the House.
Wood Michael; Rurawhe AdrianMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise to speak in support of the Urban Development Bill. My electorate is Mt Roskill. I live there; I know the community well. One of the most positive things that is happening in Mt Roskill is that through Kāinga Ora we are leading a comprehensive urban redevelopment of our community to provide the affordable housing that our local families need and to do exactly the kind of integrated planning that the member speaking prior Parmjeet Parmar just referred to—new and improved roads parks community facilities—all the rest of it to actually build a community that people want to live in and that can cater for the urban growth that is happening in Auckland and in many of our main urban centres.This bill is one of the key structural elements that will help us to deliver that on a wider scale and deliver the affordable housing that New Zealanders need. This Government's record is strong in this area. Pre-COVID we had record building consents going through the system. We've got Resource Management Act reform on the move now after 25 years of inaction. We've got a record number of affordable and public houses being built better insulation standards and health standards for people in housing and this piece of legislation will help us to build even more of the houses in the context of good communities that our people need. I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Simeon Brown—five minutes.
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): New Zealand First rises to support this Urban Development Bill this much-needed bill to allow Kāinga Ora to have the tools to do much-needed urban development. I think in the 1970s actually we were building more houses than what we are now. It's clear that there has been regulatory failure. I'll commend the Minister for Urban Development actually for taking some action here. We've heard some fine words from Scott Simpson and Nicola Willis but Scott Simpson was in a Government that completely failed in nine years of power to do anything about the Resource Management Act. This Urban Development Bill seeks to address some of this for a very specific issue. We've had massive population growth particularly in our largest cities and we need to build more houses. So we will get behind this bill. It does have significant powers—I note even things like being able to set their own bylaws and the like. So there is significant powers but we are satisfied that the checks and balances are there in the appropriate community consultation and the like—iwi local government and the private sector as well. So New Zealand First will support this bill. Thank you.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): This is a really good piece of legislation and to put our head in the sand and say that it would be too difficult would be completely wrong. The coordination for the use of land infrastructure and public assets to maximise public benefits in these really complex urban developments is a great thing that this bill addresses. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.
Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Ka pai ki te kōrero e pā ana ki te pire whakatikatika i Te Ture Whenua Maori. Ehara au i te mea katakata nātemea ko tēnei take he mea tino whakahirahira ki a Aotearoa. Kei te tautoko au i tēnei pire ki Te Whare.[I am happy to speak on this Ture Whenua Maori amendment bill. This is no laughing matter because this is very important for the country. I support this bill in the House.]Bill read a second time.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Speaker. Given the last speech you'll see that I'm not really qualified to speak on this bill! But I will expand on why. So now I've got to expand on why. I could tell that Kiritapu Allan came from the East Coast because I very well remember in the last Parliament most of the objection to that bill came from the East Coast too and of course that's one of the reasons that I'm not qualified to speak on this bill. It's a hugely political issue this and I fully understand it coming from a family that's been in New Zealand for a long long time and when you read the title of this bill it's about disputes resolution succession and related matters and I know all about the challenges that that creates for us.But I just did want to mention an issue that Jo Hayes raised earlier because it does concern a large patch in my electorate and that's the area that Mōkai Pātea own in the back of Taihape. It is a very cold place I'd have to tell Kiritapu Allan so she wouldn't be that keen to come down there! It's not often warm there but the Mayor of Rangitīkei Andy Watson has raised this issue a number of times and I know he submitted very strongly and so did the Rangitīkei District Council on behalf of Mōkai Pātea actually on the previous bill that came to the House on this very issue because they do own a large piece of land in there they don't have access to it and that's another story of politics—internal politics that only they will understand. That's the reason this issue is so complicated and it's also the reason that this bill will be back in the House again and I'll bet it's not too long before it is.It is a challenge that we need to get to the bottom of in New Zealand—the reasons for this bill. And this bill touches on some of the issues and it does start to resolve some of them. None the less it's a matter that has to be dealt with in the future otherwise we are going to end up with large sections of our community who are unjustly precluded from I guess benefiting from both their heritage their historic connections their succession or lack of it and the ability to utilise their assets for what they want to utilise them for. So I think for that reason I will certainly support this bill for where it's got to but I do think there's got to be an enduring and long-term solution to this issue and I think it's got to be resolved as quickly as possible. Otherwise we're just losing so much opportunity in New Zealand. That's my contribution Mr Speaker—I kept out of the politics.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I'm not allowed to take too long and I won't but—ah!—the comments from over the other side of the House: absolute crock of rubbish. The bill that they chucked up over the last term was one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation ever seen. You go up and down the electorate—any Māori electorate—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. I've just reflected on her beginning comments. If there is any suggestion that there is a restriction on a member—Nicola Willis: Baa!SPEAKER: Yes well the member behind Kiritapu Allan had better not laugh too loud at that noise. It wasn't a comment from Nicola Willis. The member is not restricted and she should not indicate to the House that she has been.KIRITAPU ALLAN: And I feel absolutely no restrictions. This is a great bill. The last bill in this House was a crock of rubbish and I commend this bill to the House.
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koutou katoa. Actually can I thank the Hon Nicky Wagner who is a member of the Māori Affairs Committee for walking us through the amendments that were agreed by the committee along with Jo Hayes who are here in the House. I just want to acknowledge the work of that committee. This piece of legislation is a collaboration between Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Justice. Essentially it is about connecting Māori with their whenua through whakapapa and also through whāngai. I want to highlight that the new disputes process—and obviously it was something that Jo Hayes chose to speak quite extensively about in her contribution—is I think incredibly important because what we are talking about is Māori on their whenua being able to govern and protect that whenua manage that whenua and develop that whenua for whānau. So this bill is incredibly important and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to this Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill the general intent of and direction of which we've been in support of for a long time. In fact I recall the Hon Chris Finlayson telling me that in his term once he'd been handed his portfolios he said to the Prime Minister John Key I want to have a run at Ture Whenua. I want to sink my teeth into Ture Whenua." And the Prime Minister said "Yep OK go ahead. Have a run at it." And so he did and he did a whole body of work that brought it to—it was already done before we came to this bill. And it just strikes me that sometimes you've got to go backwards to go backwards—is what strikes me—because so much work was already done and we had this through to committee stage and then we've sort of needed to go backwards to substantively come back to what we have here today. It doesn't mean that we won't support it but it seems like there's a whole body of work that was done that was good work that maybe has been pushed aside although I can see some parts of it that have carried through into this bill. The committee did have 40 submissions—33 organisations a wide range of individuals—and covered a large number of areas. I won't relitigate what my colleague Jo Hayes has gone over in much greater detail than I will but I do want to particularly talk to the landlocked Māori land as we see that as still being unrequited. We can still see challenges with that. On the counter side to that I do want to talk to a particularly good part of the bill and that is the ability for the Māori Land Court to change some of the designations of Māori land—changing Māori customary land to Māori freehold land determining owners or the classes of owners of Māori customary land. I think this is very useful particularly up in the Far North up in Northland where we know there are large areas of Māori land that are unproductive and unable to be used and part of our goal with Te Ture Whenua in our hands was to "unlock" that potential. But there were challenges with title. There were challenges with what the rating implications would be and I throw out a note of thanks to John Carter who has done some good work around rating and Māori land in the Far North so that that Māori land could come back into productivity without the fear and consequence of having large rate demands behind it. I think legislatively this helps that process in that it does without consequence allow Māori customary land to be re-designated. So again our thrust to this bill is that we're in support of it. We were in support of it of course when it was in Chris Finlayson's hands. I want to acknowledge the body of work he did and the additions that have been brought forward through the select committee here and I hope we can continue to move forward with the intent of this bill."
SpeechJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Disputes Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the Minister for Māori Development the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for bringing this bill to the House. It is really a privilege to take this very short call in support of this bill and the practical and technical changes that will reduce the complexity and compliance requirements that Māori encounter when they engage with the courts around their Māori land.I would just like to reiterate the words of the Minister in her opening address to us this morning: that this Government listened to the problems experienced by Māori land owners navigating and complying with the Act and getting involved in decisions about their whenua. And I think that's the key thing for me when I think about the land the whenua that I'm connected to in the Hokianga—a large block of 3000 hectares with multiple ownership. Many people come and have discussions about that land who's succeeded who hasn't and it often creates a lot of tension and argument for whānau that really shouldn't be happening because when we connect to our land we connect to our whakapapa and we have our place and our identity which we can embrace.This is a really sensible bill and I'm really pleased to support it. I commend it to the House.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to talk on this bill which has been a long time coming. We have been looking for changes in our Ture Whenua Māori for a very long time and actually very pleased to see the Minister usher this through the House at its second reading.There is a great desire for Māori to be able to utilise their underutilised Māori land and this bill actually frees that up. It also frees up the Māori Land Court to be able to deal with some things that normally would be quite a big laborious process—anything that streamlines the process for Māori to be able to access their land and develop it should be encouraged. That's exactly what this bill does and so I commend it to the House.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. This piece of legislation is a perfect example that when technology changes and delivery methods change then so must our legislation to keep our young people safe. It's all been said before so I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
SpeechJOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you and it's a privilege to stand and speak on the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill in this second reading. I too want to congratulate Minister Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House. I also want to acknowledge Melissa Lee and Jian Yang who have worked very hard with the Governance and Administration Committee in getting this bill into the House and moving it through into this second reading. Essentially everything that everyone has said about the bill about reducing harm to our children being a priority for this bill—I think it's great that the Classification Office is being empowered. I think it's a great start for the classification of commercial videos on-demand. It's really well-timed to start a lot of—as Melissa Lee my colleague said some of the content that's in some of those videos were pre-internet times and so we need to make sure that we keep our young people safe from harm from those videos. Our side has declared a bit of caution in supporting this bill but I'm sure as Dr Jian Yang has said that will be sorted out with the committee of the whole House period. So I support the bill. Thank you.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to speak on the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. To be on the committee—it was great to hear submissions and it's really good to see that measures are being taken to standardise how not just anybody but our young people also get their video content and for parents to know in advance what children might be being exposed to on some of these new online streaming services. This is an important move it's good to see that the Government is taking action in an area where it's needed and I commend it to the House.