edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Little AndrewPart 6 Termination and variation of trustsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): If you can establish a trust then you must be able to disestablish a trust and Part 6 deals with what its title of the part describes as the Termination and variation of trusts". So it lays out very clearly there the requirements that trustees must meet in order to terminate a trust. It is also true that beneficiaries can terminate a trust through a unanimous decision amongst them. It is also pretty standard in trust deeds that sometimes powers or provisions in a trust deed need to be varied. Sometimes the trust objects might need to be varied if they are at least in part incapable of achievement and so it's not unusual that trusts or trust deeds or trust objectives also need to be varied. That also is provided for in this part. It lays out there the beneficiary's right to a share of trust property and the power of the court to waive the requirement of consent by beneficiaries to the termination variation or resettlement of a trust. All those provisions are there and very clear and are just another part of this matrix that makes up this very thorough framework for the operation of trusts in New Zealand.Part 6 agreed to."
Little AndrewPart 5 Appointment and discharge of trusteesHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Obviously if there's going to be a trust then it follows that there will need to be trustees and so Part 5 of the bill covers the very important process of the appointment and the discharge or removal of trustees. So clause 86 sets out who may remove a trustee and who can appoint a replacement and there's a set of processes around there around as to who can be appointed as a trustee where there is a statutory trustee; who may be a sole trustee and how that process is embarked upon; and a process for appointing trustees for sole statutory trusts. There is provision for dealing with a trustee retiring; then on the death of a trustee what happens in that particular instance; then the act of removal of a trustee and the conditions under which that can happen and how that happens; and then there is the optional removal of a trustee. So all of those are laid out there. You'd expect those sorts of things to be in the statute. Many of these things would appear in a trust deed and I expect now when the bill passes its third reading and achieves the Royal assent there will be a flurry of activity in law firms around the country as trust deeds are reviewed and updated and modernised. But they need to do no other than refer to the very clear provisions in this bill to provide for the appointment and removal processes for trustees provided within the bill. They are there laid out and they are very clear and I don't think trustees or settlors will need any further assistance than what is already provided for in this bill. Part 5 agreed to.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Chair and to the committee for the opportunity to speak in this Part 2 of the consideration at this the committee stage of the Trusts Bill.Kieran McAnulty: Filibustering.CHRIS PENK: We have—I'm encouraged to join the Government side in filibustering. In fact we are joining the Government side to the extent of voting for this piece of legislation which is worth supporting. I'll make my contribution reasonably brief for the benefit of all concerned—in particular Mr McAnulty. I wish him better luck in the debating chamber than he had on the cricket field recently. I'll just note in relation to the express trusts being created that it's helpful to have a codification essentially setting out the means by which a trust can be created. It's helpful to have the clarity for something that is actually technically not a matter of law but a matter of equity. That is a thing that has arisen separately to a strict legal construct. So notwithstanding that we have a piece of legislation that actually goes to the trouble of saying what the law is about that area outside the law it is none the less a useful thing for the House to turn its attention to.The maximum duration of trust as dealt with in clause 16 is said to be 125 years. That's a pretty generous period of time. Of course we see also in that clause that The terms of a trust may specify or imply a shorter duration." So there's a limitation rule against perpetuity I suppose in the language whereby we're actually getting some clarity again around that. So just for the purpose of being very transparent we see expressly stated that the common law rule known as the rule against perpetuities is abolished and that's something that has been the bugbear of many law students throughout the ages. Certainly this idea that you can have a trust only for a certain period of time takes some getting one's head around. I think in practice by which I mean in the practice of law and also as opposed to the theoretical application the reality is that in a shorter period of time—for example 80 years as is often prevailed—simply a trust would be effectively continued by the creation of a new trust along similar lines. So to lengthen that out seems to us a pretty sensible idea and we're happy to support that.Part 2 agreed to."
Little AndrewPart 2 Express trustsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'll take a quick call because it would be improper for a piece of legislation this important and this fundamental to the daily lives of so many New Zealanders to go uncommented on. I possibly made the principal of the most important comments about this part of the bill in response to my question to the honourable member David Parker in relation to the rule against perpetuities. But it is this provision of the bill which starts to get into the meat and bones of trust law. The meaning of express trust" is defined. The characteristics of an express trust are defined. There's provisions in relation to sole beneficiaries and otherwise dealing with provisions on the distribution of trust property. So this is really what defines a trust and what trusts are about and I think it is very well drafted and very well-laid-out in this bill."
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'm very happy to answer the question of that curious member and although it appears in Part 2 of the bill I can confirm that clause 16 confirms the maximum duration of a trust: a statutory prescription of 125 years and indeed subclause (5) of clause 16 confirms and I quote The common law rule known as the rule against perpetuities is abolished." So there is now a statutory code that replaces that old rule. It was always expected that property and assets contained in a trust would succeed in ownership at some point. That was an important part of some of the old law. It has continued under this provision but I'm happy to answer even more questions about that when we come to Part 2.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 1 be agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I would like to ask the Minister in the chair a question about the rule against perpetuities. In my opinion the rule against perpetuities and the statutory equivalent of it is the most important rule relating to trusts. That is the rule that we ought not to be able to for ever control the economic lives of those who come after us. People with big fortunes ought not to be able to create trusts that last for ever in a way that controls the lives of those who follow.The rule against perpetuities was introduced by the equitable courts in the United Kingdom because there were concerns that people with large fortunes were effectively writing rules in trusts which determined the lives of those who followed for years and years and years. The rule against perpetuities used to be that the maximum length of a trust could be a life in being plus 21 years I think it was. A life in being was a person who was alive at the date of the creation of the trust. The longest period a trust could last was the life of someone who was alive at the date the trust was completed for the whole of their life plus 21 years. So you could say the class of people that would determine the length of the trust could be any grandchild alive at the date of the death of settlor plus 21 years. That was the limit. Now my understanding—and I'm sure the Minister will be able to confirm this or not—is that effectively we have with this law still maintained the rule against perpetuities because we don't want people of wealth to be able to let their wealth determine the lives of people for a long time in the future and that that is the effect of clause 5(5) of the bill which protects the common law except to the extent that it's modified and that the modification I think elsewhere in the bill says that the statutory equivalent of that these days is to be 125 years. I'd just like the Minister to confirm that because for me that is a very very important rule relating to social justice.
Little AndrewTRUSTS BILLIn CommitteePart 1 General provisionsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): It is indeed a great honour to be talking to this particular bill at this stage and I just want to say of this the Trusts Bill and the rewrite of our principal trusts legislation that I think this has been longstanding. It's been a considerable piece of work. Members of the House have put a lot of time into it and I think this is very well drafted now and a very well-considered piece of legislation. So I think that we can be very pleased that this legislation will provide good guidance to trustees to settlors to beneficiaries and to those who have an interest in this particular area; that we now have a cohesive piece of law that will provide good guidance and leave them in good stead.The first part of the bill really provides an overview. It lays out some very basic principles and we would expect that although the bill focuses its attention on express trusts it is clear also that it has implications for resulting and constructive trusts and indeed other forms of trust that may evolve through particular circumstances. It has application to charitable trusts and to the full range of trust vehicles that many New Zealanders use and rely upon in their day-to-day life. It makes some changes to the common law but otherwise leaves the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court intact in terms of dealing with the many sometimes totally unpredictable issues that arise in trusts and in trusteeship.So I don't want to talk for much longer in this very introductory part of the bill. The meat and gristle of the bill appears in the subsequent parts. But by way of introduction I think this in terms of the layout of the bill generally does a very good job in Part 1 of providing the overview and as I say is drafted in very clear language. Given the range of people who often find themselves as trustees in trusts around New Zealand I think this provides them with a very accessible means of understanding what the law is what their responsibilities are what they should expect to see in a trust deed how to delegate powers and how to discharge their duties and obligations as trustees.So as the debate goes through I know it would be comprehensive and thoroughgoing. I know there are members like Andrew Bayly for whom this stuff creates a level of excitement from which we could power small cities so I am looking forward to his contributions. I know there are other members there—Ian McKelvie who is a settlor and a trustee and commands great experience in this particular area. So I think the committee can look forward to this and indeed the public of New Zealand can be assured that in this committee of the whole House stage this bill will be given the thoroughgoing comprehensive examination that we would expect.
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 2
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 1
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you. Look it's certainly an honour to speak to this and I want to acknowledge Minister Faafoi and his elevation to Cabinet also previous Minister Twyford for shuffling this through and getting this to the Governance and Administration Committee and making sure that we now enact and can deliver on this policy. We've heard what the main aims are and if we look at Part 1 I just want to endorse the comments made by my previous two colleagues around that tenant liability. It is important to clarify that law with respect to what the liability for tenants is and I do often get this concern raised in the electorate office. Just spending a bit of time there in the last three weeks there's often confusion over Look this is the situation. Who pays and what's our portion of the damage?" or "Who pays or whose role is it to pay for that and whose role is it to pay for this?" So I'm personally really happy that we've got some clarity there. I'll be able to communicate that a lot more easily to constituents who raise it and I'm glad we've got that clarity in Part 1.The Minister talked about Osaki and what there is and also clarified what the situation is for public housing tenants and when I think about the hundreds of people in our public homes or public housing in my electorate too this will be a welcome clarification for them. A lot are asking about that income-related rent subsidy and how that then relates to this bill and it's interesting when you talk them through it. I've used some of the wording from here because I do sit on this select committee and it's been good to get their feedback and just get some simple comments around "Look that's really clear." and they understand now what that would mean. So I'm really "stoked"—I guess is the word—that this will clear it up for them.Also in terms of getting that balance right for giving landlords some clarity over what they need to then do to inform their tenants and new tenancy agreements that's a lot clearer too particularly when those premises are uninsured. There's some clarity now around excess and making sure that the tenant is kept informed by ensuring that there's a copy of the policy available to them on request. And I know from being located next door to a property management company they're already encouraging their landlords and tenants to have copies available to them so there's no secrecy there's a free flow of information to allow that clarity to take place.I know during the select committee process that submitters did point out that tenants have a right to know and I'm still surprised that there is—I use the term "secrecy" but I guess maybe a lack of willingness to share some of the information to ensure that tenants know what their rights are. And I think that's I guess the underpinning of my speech here. I haven't got any questions for the Minister because I think this is clear in terms of Part 1 and I certainly look forward to talking further on this bill."
New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Waikato DHB) Elections Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I'm happy to address the member. I don't need to consult the officials; I'm happy to address his question directly. Firstly can I thank him for his confidence that I will be the Minister going into the 2022 Waikato DHB (District Health Board) election. That is flattering and kind and I thank the member for that vote of confidence. Into the substance of his question—can I note that in general the elections for DHBs are laid down in the wider Act. So those provisions are already clear at law—the elections happen as they usually would except in any specific bill that is put through such as this one which specifically in Part 2 specifies that the 2019 election is cancelled. So it's one specific provision cancelling one specific election. Other than that normal service resumes. That's the mechanism that we're using here. The repeal clause as I see it is merely a tidy-up to say that this bill falls out of law; it's no longer needed once we pass that time in history because the election has not happened. We don't need it clogging up the law books anymore. Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I do have one question and in fact I seek a reassurance from the Minister that this is the case in Part 2 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Waikato DHB) Elections Bill. Now this bill is modelled on the equivalent bill that was actually introduced in late 2015 to suspend the elections of board members for the Southern District Health Board (DHB). Both the Minister and I are very empathetic and familiar with that process and also the challenges that suspending democracy brings. I note in passing very interestingly that the two minor parties supporting the Labour Party in this Government that both stridently opposed the bill to suspend democracy when the Southern DHB was involved are now actually quite supportive of it. So I do note what appears to be a philosophical inconsistency between the minor parties in Government then when they were in Opposition and now. That is not the essence of the question—the question relates to the clause relating to repeal. In the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Waikato DHB) Elections Bill it's clause 8 in Part 2. In the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill it's exactly the same wording but it was in Part 1 clause 3. The wording is this: This Act is repealed on the day on which elected members of the Waikato DHB come into office after the triennial general election of 2022 in accordance with clause 14 of Schedule 2 of the 2000 Act". Now that presumes that the election actually takes place. If you look at the clause 7 of Part 2 effectively we are suspending the general election for 2019 but we don't have a specific clause which requires the reinstatement of that in any other clause. Effectively what we're doing here is assuming that that election will take place. Now we're right in the middle of this process with the Southern District Health Board because indeed there is going to be an election in September October—whenever it is. So the election will take place and therefore what was in clause 3 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill will become effective. My question is this: does the Minister have the power to suspend again the 2022 election without further recourse back to this House? Because it's not clear to me that it's an automatic thing that has to happen the 2022 election; it may well be. If that's the case I'd like the Minister to check with his officials and give this House a reassurance that if it's intended by the Government of the day not to have an election for Waikato board members in 2022 the Minister has to come back and bring primary legislation to this House because we are concerned obviously about the suspension of democracy. It might be a belts and braces question but I would like the Minister to just put on record his confidence that he cannot further suspend an election without coming back to Parliament and getting a mandate from this Chamber."
Clark DavidPart 2 Cancellation of election Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Part 2 of the bill is the actual active Part in cancelling the election in 2019 for the Waikato District Health Board (DHB). I do want to put on record my thanks for the support offered by the Opposition for this measure and the responsible approach taken by the health spokesperson Michael Woodhouse his colleagues from the Waikato local body politicians and others who have recognised the need to take what is actually quite a serious measure. We are here effectively postponing the usual democratic election cycle recognising that the challenges faced by the DHB are of significance to the extent that they need a commissioner put in place to make sure that we can continue to provide the services that are provided at Waikato for the local population. The population needs to be confident that there are high-quality health services available for their population. That has been provided in the past and we need to be sure that it will be provided through clear strong governance into the future. So I thank members across the House for their support.I also thank the Green Party New Zealand First and of course my Labour colleagues for their support in taking this measure. I know that all of these parties have a deep respect for democracy and are all concerned to see that normal elections will resume in 2022. I share that deep passion for democracy; I wouldn't be standing here otherwise. I want to see the regular elections returned but I also want to see a clear plan to ensure that clinical services and financial stability are ensured for the public of the Waikato because they deserve high-quality health services as much as anyone else anywhere in New Zealand. We need to give them that confidence. I thank the commissioner team who have stepped in already and will continue their work with the cancellation of this election. So this Part of the bill is obviously fairly clear fairly straightforward in my view. We have clause 7 which cancels the 2019 election and clause 8 which repeals the Act when the next elections come into effect. So that will be sufficient contribution from me at this stage. Again thanks to all the parties in this House for their support.
New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Waikato DHB) Elections Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): That's all right Mr Chair. We're practically twins! I want to add to the questions that the member Angie Warren-Clark has just asked particularly in the context of the fact that she believes that the Minister is fixing the mess that he inherited. Well I would just like to point out to the committee prior to the asking of my questions that the last full year the National Government was in office the Waikato District Health Board (DHB) ended that year in surplus and it took this Minister less than two years to turn that stable financial position and high outputs according to national health targets into the complete mess we have now—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Angie didn't get the memo!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —clearly didn't get the memo—where he's now presided over a DHB that is heading for a financial deficit of somewhere in the region of $56 million. So my question to the Minister is: if this is his idea of fixing the previous mess might he want to reconsider making the same mess the previous Government made because it was a heck of a lot better than the one he's presiding over?The second question is this: if this is the threshold for implementing a commissioner framework and firing the board when will he act on the other messes that he's been presiding over since becoming a Minister—the fact that the Canterbury District Health Board challenged though they have been on his watch have doubled their deficits from around $50 million to $103 million and counting. Counties Manukau—actually what previously was an exemplar of good financial performance—is now heading towards $45 million in deficit. Even the smaller DHBs—Taranaki $16 million; Bay of Plenty $12 million; Tairāwhiti $13 million—have very very significant challenges all on his watch. So my question to the Minister is this: if he is inheriting such a mess why have things got so much worse on his watch and when will he be appointing commissioners to those DHBs?
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to take just a very brief call on this part of the debate. There was clearly agreement across the House for what this bill fundamentally does: the disestablishment of the Waikato District Health Board (DHB) the suspension of elections until 2020 and the appointment of a commissioner. I'm already on the public record saying that I support the appointment of the commissioner. Having known and worked with her through a number of roles I think it's a good choice. I think she'll do a good job. The Minister of Health has highlighted the challenges and the difficulty that the previous board had which brought us to this conclusion and I just wanted to highlight indeed in the past 24 hours there's been further information. In fact the Minister commented on the independent report that Derek Wright and the previous board commissioned in I believe April which came into the public domain yesterday. It does indeed talk about some of the challenges the board has had and the $37 million deficit and it actually goes on to say that a large part of that responsibility lies with the board. But I'd also point out the document that came out yesterday from the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists which talks about the significant shortage of specialists at Waikato DHB and how that's been a problem for them too. Their headline article was Waikato DHB survey indicative of national crisis; health minister guilty of dereliction of duty" so clearly they're putting some responsibility—which I do as well—with the Minister of Health to make this work. Certainly in the community we've heard from MP Tim Macindoe and other Hamilton MPs that they have every will and intention to make this work. That's why across the House we'll be supporting this bill. But yes it's quite a hardy track to get Waikato DHB back on board and we wish the Minister every success with that. Thank you."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Madam Chair thank you and I thank the member for his question because it is a very apposite question. The law that we're working on here doesn't actually change the definition of a drinking-water assessor. The definition of a drinking-water assessor or the person who may be one in the Health Act is a suitably qualified and appropriate person. That gives the director-heneral obviously some discretion to deem what is suitably qualified and appropriate. But there's a generally accepted understanding that there is a qualifications framework for drinking-water assessors. They have in essence as I understand it public health training. They are specifically trained in water and also I imagine—and this is getting to the realms of the extent of my knowledge on their qualifications although I know it is over a period of time—in infrastructure and so on connected to their duties.Now as far as I'm aware there's not been a complaint at a system level about the quality of drinking-water assessors. If anything the issue is that we are probably going to need more of them because the system as a whole has been under-resourced in the area of ensuring that standards were met. Historically the Director-General of Health hasn't really invoked his or her powers in enforcing water standards in the way that I think parliamentarians might have expected when we've gone back and looked at the problems that we have uncovered through the Havelock North inquiry. It seems that those powers simply haven't been invoked to really put the pressure on those drinking-water suppliers to meet the standards of the day even.Beyond that of course I think it's widely accepted around the world that standards have advanced and that we will want to see standards raised and indeed this bill does make it easier to change water standards by having a reasonable consultation period as an expectation rather than a specified one that seems to be far longer than is deemed reasonable in other areas of consultation across our laws in New Zealand.So I think the fundamental point comes back to that it is a suitably qualified appropriate person and it is widely understood that that is somebody who has the appropriate training and qualifications and is a recognised drinking-water assessor. So I thank the member for his question. It's not the case that we need to worry too much about that in my view at a system level. Though the member's concerns about whether it's somebody from Opus or somebody with regional knowledge on the surface do have some merit I am yet to be convinced that those kinds of regional details are not taken into account in the training of drinking-water assessors. But if he has other information on that I would love to hear it.Part 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): First of all Madam Chair I'd like to also congratulate you on this your first sit in the hot seat—except when you're bringing a bill through I'm sure.Look I have a very very brief matter to raise and it is really just in regards to the drinking-water assessors. Essentially we have changed the standard. Previously a body or an entity or an organisation could be a water assessor and I just stand to make the very simple point that we have now changed that to ensure that the person is now an individual and that is relevant. We've taken away the standards which were particularly listed as very descriptive and created difficulty with people complying with those standards—so for example they had to have an international qualification which wasn't that relevant to the New Zealand context.So I rise very briefly but mainly also to congratulate you Madam Chair and to just talk about section 69ZX. Thank you.
Clark DavidPart 2 Further amendments to principal ActHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Part 2 is focused on further amendments across—it's kind of; most of the action happens in Part 1 if we want to put it that way in a simple way. It follows on from Part 1; we have Part 2. It makes further amendments through the Act. They are important amendments because we want clear law that doesn't contain those kinds of anomalies that create problems for us where people can dispute things or hold things up on technicalities.We want our water to be safe. The principles that are debated and laid out in Part 1—it needs to be ensured that they flow through if you'll excuse the pun and they flow quickly in the water space. Some of them are very wet and I'm not going to make a splash with them I can see that. So for example if you take in clause 14 amending the interpretation the definition of critical points"—we've repealed one paragraph and we changed the definitions of "designated port or airport" and "medical officer of health". In section 69G we replaced the definition of a "drinking-water assessor" with "drinking-water assessor means an individual appointed under section 69ZK as a drinking-water assessor."These points of clarification make sure nobody can be in any doubt as to what is meant in the bill to make sure that we are clarifying which ports of call are the ones that are being assessed who's assessing them—the why the wherefore we dealt with in Part 1. So I think these things are important. I think again they will enjoy support across the committee. I'm looking across the Chamber to see if there's any objection to these things; I'm not seeing much engagement to be honest—there's a few lights out on the other side of the Chamber today.But I will stop there because I think it's important that this is debated by members of the committee. The facts are that this is the clarification stuff that's needed to make sure that nobody's in any doubt."
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): I want to follow up—I want to follow up on the contributions from my Labour colleague here and I'd invite observations from other select committee members. It seems to me in this—and the Minister may like to take a call—amended section 69V set out in clause 7A Duty to take all practicable steps to comply with drinking-water standards" what's possibly alarming is it contemplates that the suppliers are knowingly doing something either illegal or they are showing such a level of negligence that it approaches criminality. I can't think of a single—because in order for me to agree to that I would have to cast aspersions on the former mayor of the council who was meant to be doing their job which is why we're tidying this up in this House. Now I don't want to do that because you broadly outlined the envelope that I should operate within in terms of Standing Order 120. If it's not an allegation or the odour of criminality and wrongdoing then why exactly why exactly and what is exactly the problem that this assessor—and I presume the assessor is someone with medical qualifications or dare I say it engineering qualifications or it will be the end of the water supply system of New Zealand if you're relying completely on legal qualifications. We need people possessed of common sense who understand the practical application of what exactly the Minister has in mind with the creation of assessors. Is it a statutory position? Is it someone who is accredited to what I think is called the water authority a bunch of grandees who aggregate together and advise Governments on how we can increase our ability to invest in infrastructure? So a little bit of clarity on that particular point.Then upon that person he or she having decided that the water supplier—for example where my grandmother comes from a little place called Te Kao. Now Te Kao unwisely found itself in a situation where a chap from Maunganui was the provider of their water and I think he didn't get the easements in the correct fashion—in the correct fashion—and then that led to a collapse in their water supply.But that aside so what exactly after the assessors come in—who's going to pay the assessor? Is there a legal definition? I can't see it in here; I'm presuming there is in some other labyrinthine piece of legislation. What level of reassuredness can be offered and what level of qualification and in the event that they do decide in a place like Te Kao that the water is not quite up to muster does that necessarily lead to legal action which may require the supplier to be held accountable legally because their lapse is either of gross negligence or so careless that a simple assessor was able to trip them up? It'd be useful to get some clarification on such matters."
Tabling of Documents — Youth Parliament 2019—Letter Calling for Declaration of Climate Emergency
Appointments — Assistant Speaker
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Motions — Silver Ferns and Black Caps—2019 Netball and Cricket World Cups
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I have a relatively simple question for the Minister of Health. It relates to clause 6 in Part 1 of the bill and to new section 69R specifically. We have in Christchurch an extraordinary situation where the city went through 15000-odd earthquakes with many of them—many many of them—over 4.5 on the Richter scale and in all that time there were only four days where there were boil notices on the water as there was some uncertainty about whether or not the initial February 2011 earthquakes had caused any intrusion into the water supply that would be unwelcome. In the end those restrictions were lifted. There were situations where some of the pipework was effectively creating little ponds or wells on the street side and where there were pipes disconnected to the house officials were saying It's OK to take the clean water out of those holes because it's in such a great state." I know this because my street was one of those where that advice was given. Can I just then ask given that we have now got a panicky council down there—a group of spooked individuals who have decided that we need to chlorinate our water for the unlikely event that there may be some well head intrusion even though they've got that massive evidence of security on those well heads and while they are commendably doing some extra work to them the city continues to be mass-dosed with chlorine. So what I'm asking is: given that that mass-dosing approach is very much the mantra of Water New Zealand does this provision in here mean that at least 28 days after the publication of a notice in the Gazette places like Christchurch will have to come up to a standard that will mean there must be chemicals added to their natural water supply?"
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. This is an important bill and what I'd just like to focus on is clauses 5 and 6 within Part 1 because what this does is it allows us to implement some of the changes recommended by the Havelock North inquiry in a more speedy manner. Previously the Minister of Health was required to consult on any changes to these drinking-water standards but to take a period of at least three years to do that. So what this does is it retains that requirement that the Minister does consult on these standards but it removes the requirement that that occurs over a three-year period. I think that's really important because with advances in technology and other urgent matters it's important for us to be able to change these standards in a flexible manner. For those though who were concerned that this may not result in adequate consultation there are still a number of provisions there. One is that consultation must occur and the second aspect is that these are still disallowable instruments. So if there are any issues with those regulations by the Regulations Review Committee they can potentially be disallowed by the House. But the other aspect that makes it more speedy is that in terms of clause 6. Where previously the drinking-water standards had to come into force at least two years after the date of publication in the relevant Gazette what this does is it changes that to 28 days. So again it is allowing a much more timely process for that to happen. The other thing that it does in clause 5 is it updates the notification of any changes. Previously the Minister had to put notices in the newspapers of some of those cities—for example Auckland Christchurch Wellington and Dunedin. So for Invercargill where I live if there were any changes there actually wasn't any requirement that they would be notified in our area. What this does is it allows the Minister to put some notice on the internet so that people are aware of it more broadly but it also specifies that notices are to be put into the relevant newspapers of the areas affected and I think that gives you much more flexibility in terms of making sure that everybody is aware of what's happening. So just looking at those two particular clauses what we're doing is making sure that as changes come through in terms of drinking-water standards we can do that in a much more flexible and a much more timely manner which allows for changes in technology and allows us to get on and implement many of the changes that will come down the line as a result of the wider Three Waters Review. Thank you Madam Chair.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. In what I hope will be a short call in a short committee stage on this bill I just want to confirm with the Minister in the chair Dr David Clark that there are no amendments to the bill as it was when it passed its second reading and there are no Supplementary Order Papers to consider. I'm getting some shakes from the officials in which case this should be a fairly perfunctory process because the Health Committee canvassed in the second reading of this bill the quite sensible changes that had been recommended and passed unanimously I think across the House. But I would want to just reconfirm my party's support for this as the first stage of indeed a very comprehensive response to the Havelock North water contamination inquiry and it's not for the Minister of Health to be bringing substantive changes to that. It's I think the Minister of Local Government but we are very interested in knowing what progress is being made in that respect. But suffice it to say at least in Part 1 we support and confirm the changes that were made in select committee in this committee.
Clark DavidHEALTH (DRINKING WATER) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Part 2A of principal ActHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I'm delighted to speak to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill which has had support across the House through its readings thus far. It is a sensible bill born out of a response to the outbreak of acute gastroenteritis in Havelock North in August 2016. This bill importantly removes specific periods from consultation as a requirement under the law. It still requires that reasonable consultation take place but it does no longer specify that that should be over a long period of time as it has been a barrier to keeping standards up to date. It's also true that we expect the standards now to be set more frequently.The water safety plans will continue to be a key element of the framework for assuring the safety of drinking water and now we will require suppliers to manage and control critical points in their supply. That will now be an explicit requirement rather than as it was previously an implicit requirement. Also this bill will remove the defence of a reasonable—sorry I must get the legal language right. All practicable steps to prevent the commission of certain offences and in particular availability and affordability have been given precedence over the nature and severity of harm in terms of the criteria for whether action was required. I think the public will agree as this House seems to be in agreement that the provision of safe drinking-water is incredibly important for New Zealanders. The Havelock North report estimated that around 100000 New Zealanders every year are getting sick from preventable illnesses as a result of poor water. Whatever that number actually is we would all agree that it is too many and that if we can prevent people getting sick being killed or indeed suffering lifelong disability through ensuring that we have a safe provision of drinking water through bringing this Act up to date then we should proceed with that and indeed that is what this bill does. I recommend it to the House and I look forward to the ongoing support of members.
Swarbrick Chlöe; Mallard TrevorTABLING OF DOCUMENTSYouth Parliament 2019—Letter Calling for Declaration of Climate EmergencyCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I seek leave of the House to table an unpublished open letter signed by 79 youth parliamentarians calling for this House to declare a climate emergency.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.Document laid on the Table of the House.
Hipkins ChrisAPPOINTMENTSAssistant SpeakerHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following discussions with the shadow Leader of the House I seek leave to move a motion without notice appointing a new Assistant Speaker. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move That Hon Ruth Suzanne Dyson be appointed as Assistant Speaker. The vacancy that we're filling today is created by the appointment of the Hon Poto Williams as a Minister and I'm sure that all members will join me in thanking her for her service to the House as Assistant Speaker since the election and in congratulating her on her new role. Ruth Dyson is one of the most experienced members of the House having been an MP since 1993. She's seen the House from all sides and all perspectives as a member of the Government and the Opposition as a Minister for almost nine years as a select committee member as a select committee chairperson and most recently as senior Government whip. Ruth has as great an understanding of how the House works and of the role and frustrations of being a member of Parliament as much as any of the rest of us of us do. Nobody who has anything to do with her will be in any doubt that she will be a tenacious defender of the constitutional role of the House or that she will exercise her responsibilities with absolutely fairness and disinterest. On this side of the House many of us have benefited from her wisdom and compassion; members on all sides will now have the opportunity to appreciate these qualities. I wholeheartedly commend the nomination of the Hon Ruth Dyson to the House for the position of Assistant Speaker.Motion agreed to.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I join with other party leaders to congratulate our sportspeople on their tremendous recent successes. With regard to the Silver Ferns I have to agree with all the other leaders that the story of the turn-around is absolutely phenomenal. It wasn't so long ago that we had the Silver Ferns crying on television having been questioned about whether they were even proud of the black dress. The diametrical turn-around that they have made in only 11 months is absolutely phenomenal. They should all be so proud of themselves their families should be proud of them and we as a country which has performed so well in the last couple of weeks against other countries whose populations are anywhere from five to in the case of India 200 times greater than ours—if there was ever a country that punched above its weight it is New Zealand. I'd love to say that I stayed up all night watching the cricket but being so devoted to my constituents I was early to bed and it was only when I woke up thinking the game would be over that I tuned in to Scotty Stevenson and the Alternative Community Collective to hear the most extraordinary sporting commentary that certainly I've heard in my life. We could dwell on the fact that they were robbed by poor umpiring but that would be a disservice to the phenomenal leadership and humility that that has been shown by the Black Caps in the wake of that decision and that result. So I'd like to conclude my comments by saying isn't it wonderful to have a Parliament that is unanimous and united around the fine traditions of sporting excellence in New Zealand. Thank you Mr Speaker. Motion agreed to.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the motion that absolutely congratulates our Silver Ferns netball team and our Black Caps cricket team. Noeline Taurua you are an absolute hero. You have been absolutely vindicated as a wonderful choice to lead our netball team into incredible victory: the Netball World Cup which has not been in our grasp for far too long. I loved the little baby of Casey Kōpua in the interview afterwards trying to lick her mum's salty skin. I thought that was an absolute example of what our women athletes work with and work for on the international world stage. We're doing really well in showing that we can do all the things and I want to support my colleague Simon Bridges' call for some equity in media and funding in really acknowledging the true worth of these incredible professional athletes on the international stage. There are a few new fans of cricket. People who have not watched cricket ever before in their lives have suddenly been talking about overs and unders and all sorts of things that never came out of their mouths before and this is testament to the thrilling game right to the bitter end that our cricketers led and it is testament to the dignity and the character and the spirit of that team that was shown around the world. These successes find their roots in grassroots sports all around the country every weekend. Our schools our volunteers our parents our coaches do this for the love because we love our sports and because we love what it brings to our community and our children and this is where these successes are started. I want to congratulate not just our international stars but our grassroots community sports teams and campaigns all around our country. Thank you Mr Speaker.