edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Lorck Anna; Rurawhe AdrianANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise as an active member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I also rise as a business owner a small-business owner. There's been a lot of talk in the House today about how hard it is for small business. What this bill does is support small businesses when they're faced with the real struggle of having to pay rent when they can't get into the building.I look back on COVID-19 when it first hit and I was a business with a landlord that immediately dropped the rent by half. There were many businesses in Hawke's Bay where that happened and those businesses and those landlords and tenants did that without exception. What we are talking about today is those businesses with landlords and tenancies that do not have an agreement who cannot work together to make it fair and reasonable. This is what the difference is in this bill that will absolutely matter to helping small businesses get through the hard times that they face especially in Auckland right now.I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of my select committee colleague Helen White who cannot be in the House today but who has contributed enormously to helping with this legislation zooming into the meetings and listening to the contributions that have been made by submitters. That is one of the things that's been really tough for people during this lockdown. But it's important that we work together and it's important that when we do need to move through legislation that can have an immediate impact an important impact that we've heard about today from businesses. That's why I support and commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. Joseph Mooney—five minutes.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): The one thing that Andrew Bayly got right in his speech was the need for cash flow for small business and what this bill does is it provides that cash flow through providing a fair proportion of rent. I do not understand how the National Party can sit there on one hand and say that they want to support business they want to support people through this really difficult time—especially businesses in Auckland—and at the same time take away what rent relief might be available to them through the changes to the Property Law Act.This is not anti-landlord. This is about getting fair rent and about being able to imply into contracts the assumptions that were not considered by either party when they went into the contract because the situation was so unforeseeable. How many businesses knew that the law would require them not to be in business? Many many of them did not and they are the ones who came to us at select committee and said Please can you make this meaningful for us and not only can you give us rent relief but backdate it so that it goes back to a meaningful date of the beginning of the lockdown so that the legislation is not a toothless tiger?" All credit to our Minister for listening to the select committee and introducing the Supplementary Order Paper and listening to the many many small businesses and businesses in New Zealand that operate on thin margins and saying "Yes we will backdate it because these circumstances are so unusual that the law justifies us in doing it."This is not disregard or the flick of a pen as Mr Bishop would have had you believe in the committee stage. This has been a very considered process by a hard-working select committee who have listened to what retailers want who have listened to what hospitality want who want to be fair to landlords and to tenants and who like every other New Zealander I'm sure want us the team of 5 million to get through this together to be able to see Christmas together and to be able to keep our businesses operating. That is what the property law amendment schedule does and I commend this to the House."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora. Thank you Mr Speaker. Just a couple of comments really. I'm perplexed by Mr Bishop who seems to think there's no precedent in the law for looking back and adjusting contractual arrangements in the light of extreme circumstances. It's worth just remembering that in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 there is already—which had in fact been there for a long time in the Frustrated Contracts Act 2008—a provision that says that when it's impossible to perform a contract—I'll read it: the court may if it considers it just to do so having regard to all the circumstances allow the party to retain or recover the whole or any part of the money that was paid or [is] payable." So there you go; you have it. All this clause does is say that in commercial leases where it's impossible to perform—where the landlord cannot provide free access in quiet enjoyment to the premises—then the parties are the first to put their heads together and try and sort it out but if not they can go and get it arbitrated. Nothing surprising about this at all. The parties never turned their mind when they created a lease to a global pandemic. What we are doing here is saying "Well look don't worry. We'll think about that for you. We think the appropriate thing to do is in all the circumstances take everything into account and arrive at a just and reasonable resolution where an appropriate amount is paid. Nothing surprising there—common sense good business. I commend it to the House."
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Sue Wells requesting that the House initiate an inquiry into banking services provided in rural areaspetition of Trish Castle requesting that the House repeal the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Annual reports for 2020-21 of Kiwi Group Holdings Crown Asset Management Crown Irrigation Investments MetService Orillion AssureQuality Pāmu Quotable Value Meridian Energy Ltd Airways KiwiRail New Zealand Railways Corporation and KordiaStatement of Corporate Intent 2022-24 for PāmuMinisters' reports on non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2021: Vote Business Science and Innovation Economic and Regional Development Portfolio and Vote Business Science and Innovation Tourism Portfolio.SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled The Problems Progress and Potential of Performance Reporting. I also present reports of the Ombudsman on the unannounced inspections of the four facilities in the grounds of the Rātonga-Rua-O-Porirua Mental Health Campus under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill and on the report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Billreports of the Health Committee on the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill on the report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill and on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2)interim report of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 6) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 7) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021 and COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021 andreport of the Social Services and Community Committee on the briefing on the 2020 performance of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading and the interim reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.
Hipkins Chris; Woodhouse Michael; Mallard TrevorBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today the House adjourns until Tuesday 9 November. In that week legislation to be considered will include the second reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill the committee stages of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees Levies and Costs) Amendment Bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill and the third reading of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. Tuesday's sitting will be extended into Wednesday morning. Wednesday afternoon will be a members' day.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. Given that it's now more than five years and four months since the Local Government and Environment Committee referred the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill back to the House can the House now take it that it is not the Government's intention to pass that bill and if so will it discharge it from the Order Paper?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): No the member can't take that inference from that. It is a shame that the last Government made such a hash of it which means it wasn't in a position to pass when we became the Government. But I am confident that the Ministers in charge of the bill on this side of the House are doing a much better job.Hon Michael Woodhouse: In response to that Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: Hang on I just want to make sure that this has to do with the business of the House over the next couple of weeks and—Hon Michael Woodhouse: It may well do. SPEAKER: It's Thursday afternoon and I don't know whether to say we all want to go home or we're acting up but I just want to warn the member that we've had a sort of a question and a reply in a light-hearted way. If the member has a serious follow-up then of course he can have it.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order Mr Speaker. An interesting description of the Leader of the House's reply being light-hearted but it did have an unambiguous political statement in terms of the previous Government. If that now is allowed in the Business Statement I think that would be an interesting development.SPEAKER: Right. Well I think they always have been allowed. They've generally been allowed in response to what have been seen as less than deadly serious questions from the Opposition.
Rurawhe AdrianTHURSDAY 28 OCTOBER 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERS ADRIAN RURAWHE (Deputy Speaker): Ā kāti rā tēnā rā tātou. Kia inoi tātou.E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene. [Well thanks everyone. Let us pray.Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Wednesday 27 October 2021 (continued on Thursday 28 October 2021) - Volume 755
COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill — In Commitee—Clause 3 (resumed)
Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill — Third Reading (resumed)
Voting — Correction—COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill
Dean JacquiVOTINGCorrection—COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members before we move on we have a correction to a vote taken during the committee stage of the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. The vote on Chris Penk's tabled amendment inserting new Schedule 1A was wrongly announced as Ayes 43 Noes 75. The correct result is Ayes 53 Noes 65. The record will be corrected accordingly.
COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill — Vote Correction—In Committee
Bishop Chris; Dean JacquiVOTINGCorrection—COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation BillCHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Sorry Madam Speaker. It's come to my attention that the way the National Party voted on—I know this is slightly unusual. But the way the National Party voted in relation to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) from the COVID-19 management measures bill there was a bit of confusion about two SOPs from the Green Party. Essentially what I'm seeking leave of the House to do is to change our vote in relation to the two SOPs and flip from one to the other.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.CHRIS BISHOP (National): OK. So in relation to SOP 70 which is the Hon Julie Anne Genter's SOP National voted in favour of it and we want to vote against it and in relation to SOP 69 which is the SOP in the name of Golriz Ghahraman National voted against but we wish to vote in favour of it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a great privilege to stand and take the final call on this very important bill third and final reading. Many have reflected today on the significant mahi very personal mahi that has gone into this bill and the development of it—the submitters and the members of the select committee. I acknowledge you and your work. This legislation is immediate and so impactful as many of you have said very eloquently. It improves our ability to take care of our most vulnerable. That unity that we've seen in the House today I think shows that today we say to our most vulnerable and those who care for them: we see you. And the other thing that I think would be really important to do as the last speaker is to look forward. I'm really pleased to hear the support across the House to stand collectively and do this very important work to build a new mental health Act that has mana it has aroha and human rights at the heart of it so I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill— Third Reading
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I also believe that we need to move this with urgency and speak as quickly as possible on what is a very important part of this in protecting the individual rights and safety of patients and the public. When we do this we know that we're doing it from across the House; it has been widely supported. And it was good to hear earlier from the other side that they think that this bill is in good shape. And with that as well I will commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Mālō ni Madam Speaker. In my electorate of Mana we had the largest psychiatric hospital in the country in operation from 1887 to 2007 and the saying if walls could speak" springs to mind. This bill is evidence that something had to change. He Ara Oranga was evidence that something had to change. The stories shared in the House today are evidence that something had to change.These amendments in the bill are intended to improve the protection of individual rights the safety of patients and the public and to enable the Act to work more effectively. We don't need to take long calls on this side of the House because we know change is needed. There is consensus across the House. So therefore I lend my support to this bill and I commend it to the House."
Pallett Sarah; Dean JacquiSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Health Committee I'd just like to add my grateful thanks to the submitters who very courageously in some instances and at personal cost submitted to make this piece of legislation even better. Some of the things that we did—obviously make changes as we do in select committee to make this legislation even better. One of the things we did was requiring the reasons for audiovisual technology use to be recorded which was something that we heard several submissions on. We're going to be requiring practitioners to report the reasons for the use of audiovisual link technology to the Director of Area Mental Health Services and these can be included in the quarterly reports by the director of mental health and this will be so that it doesn't become a default option.This is a good piece of legislation which addresses some pressing issues whilst we continue the work on repeal and replacement of the Mental Health Act. I commend it to the House. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Chris Bishop—five-minute call.
Kerekere ElizabethDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. It's a pleasure to stand in support of this final reading of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. I speak on behalf of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick who joined the Health Committee to support this bill through this process.I particularly want to acknowledge even though this is a small piece of legislation my colleagues in the suicide prevention sector who will be relieved that this is going through. I want to just say in the context when we consider Te Whare Tapa Whā the Māori health model this particularly relates to the taha hinengaro our psychological and mental wellbeing but also our taha wairua our spirituality and our connectedness to all things in the universe—because the Greens realise that interconnectedness is critical when we're talking about the mental health and wellbeing of our people. So whether it's a warm dry home enough income to live on enough food to eat a life free from violence and harm access to healthcare and support people when they need it acceptance of diverse genders sexualities and sex characteristics—but a safe place to go when you're in a mental health crisis that is not your local jail.We also await the overhaul of the mental health system. We're very excited that the Government has announced that consultation is now open. We will be strongly encouraging people to submit into that process.So this bill eliminates the human rights violation of indefinite orders that particularly discriminate against Māori people. It provides safer transport processes makes more transparent use of audiovisual technology which can be useful in assessment and making sure there's whānau support when kanohi ki te kanohi is not possible but also they must be accountable for that use. We very much support that and removing the COVID sunset clause.So while we await the overhaul of the entire system this is a small but important step forward and we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look it's been a privilege to be involved in the passage of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill since it was first introduced in March. As has been said it has been widely supported across the House and it was largely supported during the select committee process with many passionate and some very moving submissions. So I want to acknowledge those people that took the time to make those submissions.The bill has been polished into the final form that we speak to now. The intent of this bill is to bring an outdated piece of legislation into the 21st century helping to secure the human rights improve the safety and safeguard the privacy of some pretty vulnerable New Zealanders. Through the elimination of what is most definitely discriminatory indefinite treatment orders we can achieve that for at least some of the more than 2500 individuals who experience a mental health issue at any given time.At the most fundamental level I think legislation should in some way just improve people's lives make lives better for people. And it's satisfying I suppose in that sense to speak for the final time in support of this bill that really clearly fulfils those obligations. So on that basis I do not hesitate to commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to stand and speak to the third and final reading of this bill which makes a number of really important but small changes in advance of the wider repeal and replacement of the Act. Just talking about the replacement of the Act I'm really pleased to see that consultation is under way and basically that will go right through till 28 January next year because it's important we take the time to get that right because it goes to the heart of a lot of really crucial issues like informed consent and engaging patients in their own decision making. And we need to make sure we've got adequate public input for that.Just on this third and final reading I'd like to thank all of the people that made submissions on the bill because it resulted in a number of changes and also the officials that worked with the Health Committee to get it to this point. While it's quite a brief and technical bill basically if we're eliminating indefinite treatment orders we're making changes to the way special patients are transported and we're extending the use of AV technology but with appropriate safeguards it's going to make a real difference to the patients that come under the care of this bill. So it's a really important bill and I'm happy to commend it to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Faafoi Kris; Henderson EmilyHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Well happy Halloween to that member Harete Hipango for Sunday. Can I thank her for paraphrasing the question that her colleague Joseph Mooney asked earlier in the morning. The measures within the Criminal Procedure Act changes and also the Coroners Act changes are in essence to be made—as I mentioned to Nicole McKee in the question that she asked earlier—to make sure that within the legislation we have the ability to undertake an audiovisual link hearing for the Coroners Act which is already happening as we speak but does not necessarily have the legislative mandate in order for that to happen. So that is a clarification within law to make sure that that can continue. As I mentioned to Mr Mooney earlier in the debate this morning there have been delays with court backlogs and cases predominantly in the Waikato and Auckland areas. Those members who may be from the legal fraternity from that area will know some of the judiciary that serve the likes of the Waikato and other courts may also base themselves in Auckland as well. So the ability to move people across the border for cases both for the representation of people appearing before court or the judiciary during the lockdown has obviously necessitated changes to court programmes and cases have been put off. The changes that the member refers to give the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice the flexibility to make decisions which will be predominantly related to COVID-related backlogs but also in the circumstances that the member talked about. If there's an issue that needs to be brought before the court with more urgency because of an issue of complexity before the case or for any other issue the judiciary has the ability and the flexibility to do that. We want to make sure as Mr Mooney mentioned earlier this morning that any backlogs that result from alert level changes that necessitate cases being put off we can deal with that swiftly not just because we want to make sure that the backlog is dealt with but there are human beings in the middle of these cases as well that we want to make sure they've got certainty and having some flexibility as to how High Court judges can deal with or bring in cases within their purview may be able to increase the capacity of the throughput of cases in the system. If the member thinks as she may have been alluding to in her question that there's anything more to it than that then I think she might also be having a few thoughts that don't match the reality. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I move That the question be now put.HARETE HIPANGO (National): Point of order please Mr Chair. The point of order is that there's been an allegation or an assertion made by the Minister—as the speaker addressed the House—that I have a distortion of what reality is. I take exception to that Mr Chair and would invite the Chair to deem whether that is the case or not.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's not a point of order. [Multiple members interject] Order!
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair I've been rising to seek a call all morning and thank you for accepting my call.My question is addressing Schedule 6 within clause 3 which is the Coroners Act but also the Criminal Procedure Act. So my question posed to the Minister in the chair Kris Faafoi noting that these are proposed amendments to a COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill here we have Minister an amendment proposed to the Coroners Act for the use of audiovisual links. I put it—in fact I invite the Minister to answer the question: is this deemed sufficient purposefully for a COVID-19 response or is this a bit of a monster mash bearing in mind we've got Halloween on Sunday where this is a melting pot of a whole lot of convenient instruments and adjustments being made to omnibus bills under the guise under the mask under the masquerade of COVID-19? So my question Minister is: yes audiovisual links are required as a necessity to make more efficient and streamlined in the interests of justice the public's access to justice but Minister really is this a COVID-19 urgent crisis management measure response?Before the Minister rises to answer that question I move now to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011—again a COVID-19 response amendment this is. Would the Minister please answer and clarify the proposed clause 4 for the insertion of section 68A where a High Court judge may reconsider orders made under section 68 in certain circumstances? What are those certain circumstances? Also I draw to the Minister's attention section 68A which is under clause 4 as the proposed amendment section 68A(1)(iii) a jury backlog arising out of particular circumstances (for example compliance with rules to prevent the spread of COVID-19;)". Minister in the drafting of this legislation—and I'm aware that this bill was rushed through under urgency addressing amendments affecting 16 separate pieces of legislation plus one set of regulations rushed through under urgency to the Justice Committee for two weeks—two weeks of hearings of submissions only—and here we are before the committee debating the specifics of what are meant to be COVID-19 response amendments.So please Minister clarity and clarification because lawyers require specifics. Otherwise these matters have to be determined by the judge. There is ambiguity as I have highlighted. What is the difference between certain circumstances and then particular circumstance for example—and again specific reference under as I said section 68A(1) clause 4 which outlines the specificity of a COVID-19 response? So before the Minister rises I've highlighted the ambiguity that has been associated with the fact that this has been rushed through and here we are. Our public requires—our public deserves and on behalf of the public we demand—clarity for this COVID-19 response legislation. Halloween is on Sunday—this is a monster mash Minister."
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I think most of the questions that the member Simon Bridges has just asked have already have been asked in the debate so I'll let him read the Hansard if he wants the answer. I do think Mr Bayly asked a reasonable question around Schedule 5 so to answer his question about whether or not a tribunal in a case of antisocial behaviour will meet the answer to that question is yes. They will meet in lockdown situations and obviously given the nature of the situation will come to a timely decision given the situation.Andrew Bayly: What does that mean?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well because the tribunal always has to deal with different issues; some are more urgent than others. If you've got a situation around safety of either current tenants or a landlord then it could—and I'm pretty sure it would triage the situation to make sure that there is a timely outcome as opposed to it being prolonged. So there's an answer for Mr Bayly's question around Schedule 5.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. OK thank you for that elucidation. I just want to return now to Schedule 5 which is the termination for antisocial behaviour. With the previous Minister in the chair we were traversing some of the issues in this part of the bill and we were talking about the difference between the 28 and the 14 days. But I just want to talk to them and get some advice from the Minister around the termination for antisocial behaviour. As the Minister will be aware if there's a COVID-19 tenancy order that applies to an area the landlords of a tenancy in the area can apply for an order terminating a tenancy on the ground of antisocial behaviour. Then in subclause (3) it talks about how the tribunal must not make the order if it's satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred—for example circumstances of family violence—or the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant which is—that second bit obviously is pretty significant. Perhaps the Minister can help in regard—first of all whilst I think everyone understands the need to make sure that if a COVID order is in place tenants are protected and we don't see tenants being thrown out on to the street during a situation where it's difficult for them to find new premises or they just literally haven't made arrangements where to go and are unable to cross borders if they were still in place—those types of arrangements. So I think the principle of that we all understand. But this issue around termination for antisocial behaviour—and unfortunately there are many examples of this. So just a couple of specific questions. The first thing is: if we were in a COVID-19 order situation how long would it take to get a decision—and whether in fact the tribunal is going to sit? Because we've seen for instance the Ministry of Transport in certain instances; Waka Kotahi in many instances with licensing—just to name some Government agencies that are literally in the situation where they're not prepared to do a certain amount of work because of COVID restrictions. I just want to make sure that there's clarity around if we're in a COVID lockdown whether the tribunal would sit—and how long would they take to respond to those types of issues? The second one is: what does it mean the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant"? Because if it is simply that the antisocial behaviour is being condoned in any way that would be pretty concerning. So I'm trying to understand what is the criteria around when you would not be able to get rid of a tenant for antisocial behaviour because of the impact terminating that tenancy would have on the tenant—what does that mean?"
Luxton Jo; Dean Jacqui; Bayly AndrewJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I've been listening very carefully to the debate since I assumed the Chair. I was advised when I came into the Chair that the debate was relevant was traversing a number of issues and was lively. I'm going to keep the debate going for a little longer. I'm mindful that there are a number of statutes and a plethora of clauses which are being amended by this bill. But I am looking for new material I'm not looking for repetition and I'm also looking for relevance.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Point of order Madam Chair. I appreciate we've got the Minister and it's good that he is here in the chair. We were under the understanding that we were going to have revolving Ministers. I think there's been a bit of reluctance from our side to—going into new territory—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. [Interruption] Thank you. Not having been in the Chair at the time—probably no excuse—I'm not aware of an arrangement of that nature so what I'm going to do is just take a moment to see if I can satisfy what you're asking for. Thank you members for your patience. Before we proceed with the committee I'm satisfied that Ministers have been available to take questions. There is still a Minister in the Chamber in the chair who is actively addressing questions raised by the committee. We will continue on that basis.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Madam Chair thank you. It'd be really useful if the member would actually read the bill because the subsequent changes from the select committee given the stand-off situation we have with some landlords and tenants has within it an amendment which requires an onus: if a party engages the other party has to respond within 10 days. We did that to make sure that things actually move. The purpose of this bill is not to get to arbitration but it is a backstop if those parties cannot meet an arrangement to get to a fair proportion of rent.Andrew Bayly: They're already in dispute so they're unlikely to.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: In the alternative world that Mr Bayly lives in we should just leave things as they are and have a stand-off where nothing happens and businesses go to the wall.Andrew Bayly: No not at all.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes it is. That's exactly the situation that you're pointing out. So if you want to get traction on the situation that is happening now for those who don't have the ability to come to a fair arrangement with either the landlord or the tenant the change that we've made in Supplementary Order Paper 78 around the onus to engage will do that because if we don't then you're straight off to arbitration. Again I want to reiterate: arbitration is the backstop if the parties cannot come to an arrangement. We do not want that to happen. And as I think some of the members opposite and some of the stakeholders that we have met—there has been an overwhelming number of landlords and tenants who have been able to come to an arrangement. So the question is—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. Could I ask the member sitting towards the back of the House to replace her mask.Hon Julie Anne Genter: I was just drinking water.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Sorry I lost my train of thought there.Andrew Bayly: What happens after the 10 days?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The point is not to get to arbitration; the point is to get to the point where a majority of other landlords and tenants have already got to Mr Bayly without needing the legislation which is why the legislation is necessary. And again in your alternate world we just leave things as they are and leave the stand-off in place which will mean Mr Bayly that the small and medium enterprises that you claim to be fighting for here will continue to have the difficulties that they have had since 18 August and many are stressed out and worried and have mental health problems—as members opposite all know as well—and something needs to be done.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I might just take the opportunity to gather up a few issues that have been raised over the last couple of contributions. First to the Hon Julie Anne Genter in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that she mentioned at the beginning of her speech. The Government is extremely proud of the way that the economy has bounced back after the initial lockdowns and because of that the period for the retrospectivity only goes back obviously to the beginning of this lockdown because we believe the strength of the economy for the initial lockdown has spoken for itself.In terms of the last issue she raised around an SOP around overseas voting as we have said before in the House during question time and in questions from media: we understand that the Justice Committee is going to be coming back with its report on the previous election and if that issue comes from the select committee then we will consider it given the situation that we're in but we're not making any commitment to what that might look like.Also finally Penny Simmonds raised a question around New Zealand Superannuation and an SOP on the Table under the name of Louise Upston. I believe—and I've been advised that there is already some discretion within current legislation—the situation that she outlined at the beginning of her speech would have predominantly covered travel when the quarantine-free trans-Tasman bubble would have meant that the likes of grandparents who went offshore to go and see friends and family—I believe there is some discretion when the travel wasn't for a long period of time and disruption wasn't foreseeable that the Ministry of Social Development takes a case-by-case approach into some of those issues which is why we won't be supporting the SOP that's on the Table. So we believe there is a release valve for those cases already. So that should take care of that issue.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I'll respond to some of the points that Mr Bayly has made because I think I've substantively addressed some of them in the debate that has been going on both last night and this morning.To make it very clear for the member we have said to make sure in the legislation that revenue gets taken into account when a fair proportion—that doesn't limit it to revenue alone Mr Bayly. Now we chose not to give guidelines in the legislation because there could be a whole range of gnarly situations just like Mr Bayly has outlined this morning that we don't want to necessarily limit in the legislation—we want to give freedom around the calculations that we could come to because of the situations that may have to be dealt with.The other point I want to speak about Mr Bayly is this: it's not about renegotiation. If some parties already have the Auckland District Law Society (ADLS) clause in it and have come to a fair arrangement then they're sorted. I want to reiterate to those people at home: this piece of legislation will only apply to those who don't have an ADLS clause in their contracts currently. So I just want to make sure we make that very clear.In the conversations that I had with stakeholders from the beginning of this year—or late last year; my memory can't serve me quite precisely—we had the likes of the Auckland District Law Society saying Actually we think an overwhelming majority of the commercial landlords and tenants have actually got the clause within their contract." and I took weight from that. Then we have the likes of the Retailers Association and the Hospitality Association and other small business owners who said "Well actually it might not necessarily be the case."And Mr Bayly I think you've actually made a rod for your own back when you say that the likes of the Hospitality Association and the Restaurant Association believe that only 50 or 60 percent of their members have the ADLS clause in their contract because that actually means the problem is bigger than we probably initially thought so there'll be more people who will be able to take benefit from this change—if they haven't been able to come to an arrangement with their landlord. So which one is it Mr Bayly? Is it 50 or 60 percent? Which number that you're quoting from the Restaurant Association and the Hospitality Association is the right number? Because we had to balance up the likes of the ADLS who said "Actually we think a majority of these clauses are within the contracts." and the likes of the Restaurant Association who said "Actually our guys who can't operate are up against the wall." And the plain hard truth is: that is the truth. And you know that too Mr Bayly which is why your party wants to do something about this too. So there is a problem and we are dealing with it and the best way to deal with it is actually to get those parties together to come to a fair proportion of rent."
Bishop ChrisCOVID-19 RESPONSE (MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clause 3 Amendments to enactments (continued)CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Well that was something I never thought I'd do in Parliament. I think that was enjoyable. I want to just refer back to remarks made by the Minister in relation to the alert level system. Perhaps the Minister in the chair can elucidate further on the remarks made by the Associate Minister of Housing who's just made a contribution.Very interesting language. The Minister in the chair said that this legislation reflects the Government's—I'm paraphrasing to be fair. She said this legislation reflects the Government's changed approach to COVID which is obviously a move away from pure elimination towards some sort of suppression strategy and we're now moving into a traffic light system—but that the Government would reserve itself the power to move back to an alert level framework. That is very interesting because I don't think we've actually ever heard that before from the Government certainly not from the Prime Minister. So that raises a number of intriguing questions for the House actually. To be honest I think we're going to want to interrogate those issues over the next little while because what does that mean in reality? So I suppose the question for the Minister in the chair now is: critically under what circumstances would the Government revert away from a traffic light system operating in New Zealand and revert back to the alert level system? Now there are some similarities between the two systems and various commentators online have attempted to analyse what an orange traffic light for a particular region might mean in terms of the old system in terms of alert levels. There's been analogies drawn and parallels. It's not completely the same but there are some similarities. That would be quite tricky for people I think if we went to a traffic light system and then all of a sudden we went back to an alert level system. Look people are discombobulated enough as it is and obviously the good people of Canterbury obviously are anxious this morning with the news that there's two COVID cases in Canterbury. We had the Blenheim case over the weekend. I know my good friend Stuart Smith the MP for Kaikōura has been in the media around that and you know COVID's now in the South Island and that'll be concerning for people. There will be people in the South Island who've enjoyed a blessed year without COVID sitting there thinking Well where's all this going to go?" And they will be worried about that.So to return to the point can the Minister elaborate further on his colleague's remarks around under what circumstances the Government would seek to move back to an alert level system? Because that is quite a change from what the Prime Minister has said and I think we deserve some clarity in the committee."
SHAKEOUT 2021 — National Earthquake Drill
Rurawhe AdrianSHAKEOUT 2021CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member. The committee is suspended until the bells ring again. Members we are participating in ShakeOut 2021 the national earthquake drill. Members and staff move under the galleries or into the lobbies then drop cover hold. If you cannot cover under your desk then use the desk as a support and protect your head and neck for the next 45 seconds. Members the Clerk will ring the bells. [Bells ring] Members ShakeOut 2021 is now completed. The committee is resumed.
SpeechChris Bishop: Point of order. I'm sorry to interrupt the Minister but just I'm conscious that at 9.30 there's a national ShakeOut. Do you want to issue some instructions around what we're required to do? Normally Parliament wouldn't be sitting at half past 9 on a Thursday which is I suspect why it was set for then. But I'm conscious it's a couple of minutes away. Maybe we should have some guidance about what we're meant to do in a couple of minutes.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And very soon I will give that.Andrew Bayly: Very soon?Hon Member: We might not be prepared.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well I would have expected members to familiarise themselves with the whole aspect of it.Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to finish that. If a landlord or a tenant did not issue such a termination notice within the initial 14- or 28-day period—Debate interrupted.
COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clause 3 (continued)
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll just take a call to fill the gap in because I can see the Minister would like to answer the question from Andrew Bayly. When you get to my age and you've got more numbers after your name than letters you listen to things quite carefully because you need to. I just want to ask a question with respect to a statement made by the Minister for COVID-19 Response last night in response to his summary of why effectively the Government pulled all the clauses related to local government elections. In that summary where he talked about that he talked about all the reasons why the Government have pulled that and I accept the fact that the Christchurch situation may change today but none the less the whole country's situation could change at any time.The reason I raise this is that he raised a lot of issues in his discussion around the reason for pulling the local government clauses out of this bill last night that in my view effectively make the whole bill null and void other than the property clauses because effectively the reasons he used for getting rid of those clauses were the same reasons you could use for getting rid of every other clause in this bill other than the ones related to the property issue which the Minister's dealing with at the moment. So my question is: if that's the case why are we actually considering this bill at all other than these clauses related to the property sector? I find it quite amazing that the Minister last night used all the reasons that I would have thought legitimately justified throwing this bill out other than the clauses that the Minister's currently dealing with. So that's a question that I've got for the Minister in the chair the Hon Poto Williams. I think it's very odd that we continue to discuss this bill at all given those reasons that were given to us yesterday.Now I accept the fact that the situation in Christchurch could change. The situation in Bulls could change tomorrow; we don't know that. It could change anywhere in New Zealand and clearly the Government as the Minister said very clearly last night have adopted a different approach with respect to COVID since the bill was drawn up. So my question is: why in fact are we considering these issues at all given the answers that we were given last night in good faith by the Minister for COVID-19 Response. I don't understand the reason we'd be doing that and Parliament in my view deserves an answer to that very question.