edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. Question No. 2—Regional Economic DevelopmentJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 2—Regional Economic Development2. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How is the Provincial Growth Fund helping tackle long-term issues in our regional communities?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Over the last three years the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) has addressed the long-term deficits in both infrastructure and social investment to the tune of $1.1 billion to infrastructure projects up and down the country; $100 million to skills. On top of that we've seen 11000 people enrol in PGF-funded skills and training initiatives and we have addressed the degradation of rail the state of the roads in Tai Rāwhiti and boosted digital connectivity up and down our regional communities.Jenny Marcroft: What recent announcements have been made relating to addressing long-term social issues in our regions?Hon SHANE JONES: I'm sure all members of the House have had the awful experience of encountering the social negative consequences of the P drug. The Minister of Police Stuart Nash and I announced an investment of up to $20 million in regional programmes to help reduce the damage that P causes to whānau and businesses. This particular initiative was driven by identities associated with business associations employers who are at their wits' end in our small provincial areas. We are working with the police and the health department to identify additional providers who have a proven track record and we are keen to scale up their programmes to enable more Kiwis to move on from this demon drug and take jobs in enterprises. Jenny Marcroft: Was this investment part of the recent reprioritisation of the Provincial Growth Fund and if so why?Hon SHANE JONES: Yes it was. Our Cabinet agreed to allocate up to $20 million to meth prevention in the regions. This is reflective of the fact that we do want Kiwis taking jobs in enterprises near their place of residence. We cannot rely as historically we have on unfettered access to pools of migrant labour. Small communities are under considerable stress in the post-COVID lockdown and there is the threat of economic uncertainty. For those reasons we believe this is an overdue investment in employee health and employer resilience. Jenny Marcroft: Which regions will benefit from this funding allocation?Hon SHANE JONES: For meth prevention we've identified nine community-based providers: Otago Tai Rāwhiti Hawke's Bay Bay of Plenty and—strangely enough—Northland. Hon Members: Oh!Hon SHANE JONES: A number of the programmes will target gangs but—there may be a bit of raucousness in the House—sadly the projects will need to give support to children whānau and grandparents dealing with the reality of raising mokopuna or grandchildren because of the blighted lives of their parents as a consequence of excessive addiction to meth.
Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. We are women hear us roar in numbers too big to ignore"—and that's 40 percent. That's what can happen when women across the House join together and collaborate to progress types of legislation that are obviously relevant to women in Aotearoa New Zealand. So I want to say congratulations to Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP); to the members who joined that collective that have enabled us to collaborate to form an alliance and in doing so to actually give effect to the voice of women in New Zealand our ethnic women our migrant women; to the FGM Education Programme; to Ayan and Nikki; and to our immigrant communities many of you who actually were brave enough to talk about female genital mutilation (FGM) as a heritage practice but also about the relevance of that heritage practice here in New Zealand. We through your voice were able to come together and use our position and status here in Parliament to amend section 204A of the Crimes Act.We have now ensured that all forms of FGM are illegal in New Zealand and that will mean that we are sending a clear signal that FGM in any form is the subjugation of women. It is sexual violence it is sexual abuse and it is sexual exploitation because fundamental to the practice actually is the labelling of women as sexual things for men. That was the whole intention of it: take away women's sexual pleasure; she only has one role and that is to be a sexual object for her husband. So we're rejecting that and in doing so we're changing the lives of women and girls.I'm incredibly proud of our Parliament. I want to thank the Business Committee who enabled this to happen. So Madam Deputy Speaker I want to thank you for your role as a member of CWP and your voice within that context that has enabled Golriz Ghahraman Priyanca Radhakrishnan Jenny Marcroft and my very good mate Jo Hayes to be part of this multi-member bill. We have created history. I also need to acknowledge David Seymour who was insistent that his name be on the bill. He was very clear though in the end that this was a CWP kaupapa. He's not a member but he—and I also want to acknowledge Jami-Lee Ross because they could have objected when we brought this kaupapa to the House for our ability to do it. So without further ado I really want to commend this process and the alliances that we have formed across the House as women and also obviously this bill to the House. Kia ora.Bill read a third time."
Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
SpeechJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll take a very short call now in the third reading of the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill and acknowledge the co-sponsors of this historic multi-members' bill. Congratulations to all those in the House all those who have worked on this bill to see it tonight as we're about to pass it into law. I congratulate you and I thank you that we have together been able to work across the House in unison sharing our many voices to say Do not take the power from women from young girls any longer." We will not accept it and we want to return their power to them so that they can live good and wholesome lives. There are no health benefits to female genital mutilation; therefore there is no point to it whatsoever other than to control women and to keep them in a place that is not where we expect our young women and girls to be as we move into the 2020s.So on that note I'd like to say thank you to you all. It's been a pleasure to work with you. I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechJOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. Tonight we do make history in New Zealand Parliament with the multi co-sponsors of the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill. I want to thank all the submitters the Health Committee and my co-sponsors of this bill. Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians are there to actually support women to stand for office but we have gone much further this term. We have given a voice to children who were forced to be married; to end this term by protecting children—well girls—and women from the heinous actions of female genital mutilation. It is my pleasure and my honour to thank everybody for their contributions for their support of this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you very much.
Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Radhakrishnan PriyancaIn CommitteePRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. We didn't make that easy for the Chair did we but anyway I'm on my feet now. Look thank you to the members who have spoken in the debate both this evening and at the first part of the first reading. This bill is quite simple and that has been identified by my colleagues Lawrence Yule and Denise Lee. Lawrence outlined that this bill came as a result of a considerable amount of work that was undertaken in 2015-2016 by a group of New Zealanders who consulted widely about what were the aspects of red tape that could be improved in people's interaction with local government with their regulatory functions and their public services. So this is the genesis of this bill.Willow-Jean Prime—thank you for her contribution—who sought to define who the customer is: well that is exactly the point. The customer in this instance is that person who approaches their local authority for assistance with delivering a public service or in regards to a regulatory function. In order for me to define it any clearer than that would've resulted in a schedule of about 17 or 18 or 19 pages long—quite simply.I also didn't want to prescribe to the chief executive just how they would enact a public service in their organisation. Further I am not arguing there should be more consultation and Willow-Jean Prime again in her contribution to the debate—I wonder whether she was beginning to confuse customer focus with consultation as did the Minister. Consultation is merely having a discussion and getting people's views whether that's a statutory requirement or whether councils do that as a matter of course in their public outreach. I'm talking about something completely different. I'm talking about providing excellent service to all those who approach the local authority for assistance with a public service or with a regulatory function. I do commend this bill to the House.
SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I've been told I'm speaking now Madam Chair so I'm just going to take—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Someone should have told the member in charge of the bill. LAWRENCE YULE: —a very short call because what this bill is about is work that the Hon Jacqui Dean did on the Rules Reduction Taskforce. While we can sit in this House and criticise who are the customers and what does it mean if you go and ask Joe Blow Public" particularly in the consenting and business side of council most of them will tell you that there is a lack of customer focus in the delivery of those services. That's all this bill does and I wish the members opposite would support it going to select committee as a way of looking at what improvements could be made in the focus of local government. I commend this bill to the House as I support my colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean."
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Firstly just rising to speak to this member's bill the Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean who I actually sit in postgraduate class with. We have explored in this class lots of approaches to governance different forms of management and how we can better deliver services particularly in the Public Service.I do however want to let the Hon Jacqui Dean know that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. The reason for that is that this Government seeks to amend the Local Government Act 2002. The Local Government Act 2002 actually already sets out how local authorities should serve their communities. I'd note that the former National Party Government in fact took away the four wellbeings which was much to the upset of local governments around this country because that enabled local governments to change or rather to provide services looking at a number of the different variables that are critically important to their local communities.I also want to say just really critically that the Greens' position is that local government across this country is requiring reform at a much larger scale and it definitely shouldn't be sliding in the direction of a more commercial focus. Because when you start to dive down this rabbit hole of talking about customers as opposed to citizens all of a sudden you start having these questions such as who is this so-called customer? Is it solely those who could be characterised or caricatured even as ratepayers? And if that's the case is it only those who own a home? What about those under the age for example of 18 whom historically haven't been particularly well catered for when it comes to the development of infrastructure of parks of walkways of safe cycling and pedestrian access across this country its cities towns and regions?So with only a few moments left I want to acknowledge the fact that we are tonight in this Chamber debating local government and how we can potentially reform it. It looks as though my colleague across the House former head of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Lawrence Yule is preparing his papers to get up and stand and speak to this bill. I hope that he brings to this contribution which he seems to imminently be making the same kind of passion that he brought as the head of LGNZ when he opposed within LGNZ the approach of the former National Government and the revocation of the four wellbeings.We absolutely need to be taking greater focus to local governments across Aotearoa. It is absolutely in need of reform but this is not the direction that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand believes it should be headed. It is with sadness that I think that we are missing an opportunity to reform this area of governance in Aotearoa. But again I applaud the Hon Jacqui Dean for bringing the conversation forward none the less.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: I call on the Hon Paula Bennett to make her valedictory statement.Hon Paula Bennett: I'm sorry Mr Speaker could my family be moved in so that they could—SPEAKER: Oh certainly. Please can we have a bit of shifting around up there and I'll—Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry to disturb Parliament.SPEAKER: Yeah yeah no. Absolutely. Part of the deal is that when the other speeches are finished room is made for the families of the member. If people want to they can come round the other side. [Interruption] Right can I ask those in the gallery to apply their bottoms to seats please. There are plenty over on this side and I'm going to call the Hon Paula Bennett to make her valedictory speech.
Mallard TrevorVALEDICTORY STATEMENTSSPEAKER: Members it is my intention to indicate that at the conclusion of the Hon Paula Bennett's valedictory the House will suspend until 7.30 p.m. so that I don't have to interrupt the celebrations that are occurring at that time. I've also had an indication that the celebrations between the two speeches before that will happen only once after Sarah Dowie's speech just in order to progress along. I now call on Alastair Scott to make a valedictory statement.
Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm really pleased to take just what will be a very short call so that I can leave the last speech before the dinner break or the other speeches tonight for the Labour Party. Firstly can I congratulate Ginny Andersen. This is a fantastic example of one of the very very good members' bills that we have seen. There's obviously a gap in the law and this is a very very good way of sorting that out. Obviously as was evident—and I only joined the select committee at the very end of this process and I didn't get to see those submitters who came to tell their stories. But it is very clear that there is a gap in the law. If you lose a child for example the bereavement leave is available to you but not if you are to lose a child through either stillbirth or a miscarriage. Speakers before me have gone into the changes we made at the Education and Workforce Committee but I just wanted to talk about one in particular and just talk about a personal experience of mine. In the definition of miscarriage" the changes that we made in the select committee make it so that at any stage of the pregnancy the loss of that pregnancy would count in the bill rather than eight weeks' gestation. I have a very very dear friend of mine who was going through IVF and went through three cycles and I went on that journey with her. It was an absolute roller coaster of emotion from being told that she was pregnant to a number of weeks later finding out that that pregnancy hadn't lasted and that she had lost her baby. The emotion and the stress and the grief that she went through was a terrible terrible time for her and this bill allowing her and other women like her to take leave to go through that grieving process is essential in my view. This is a very highly personal issue. I just wanted to say to Jan Tinetti to Marja Lubeck and also to my colleague Agnes Loheni thank you for sharing your stories tonight to give weight to this bill. Again Ginny Andersen for bringing to the House thank you very much and I commend the bill to the House."
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker—a pleasure to be able to make a short contribution to this the second reading of the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). I'd like to acknowledge the member Ginny Andersen in bringing this bill to the House. We in the National Party support measures that support women and families.Miscarriage is an important issue and it's a painful one. It's an issue that affects one in four women in this country every year and sadly I am one of those women. I am truly grateful to be a mother of five children but I'll never ever forget the baby that I lost sadly 16 years ago through a miscarriage. That experience was very traumatic for my husband and I and so I support the intent of this bill and as the previous member who sat down said this is about grief.I just want to put some thoughts to that in terms of grief because I do have some issues with this bill. As I said I support the bill but I do have some issues in that we are allowing a grieving process for one part of loss but not for others. We are allowing into this bill grieving to be allowed for women who lose a baby through miscarriage or stillbirth but unfortunately that is not a compassion that will be shown to women that have lost a baby due to abortion.I would like to acknowledge all those that took the time to make submissions on this bill and I want to highlight some points raised in a submission by Catherine Gillies who is a woman that works a lot in the space of post-abortive counselling. In her submission—and I echo the sentiments raised in Catherine's submission about women in post-abortive grief: They need their grief to be acknowledged. Society does them a grave injustice when it says 'it was your choice live with it' and expects them to just pull up their socks bury their grief and get on with it." So as I said this bill creates a class of loss a class of grief where one is acknowledged and one is not.So there is an underlying hypocrisy with creating a law which will undoubtedly lead to women having to lie about their abortion so that they can be considered for bereavement leave under this legislation. In my Abortion Legislation Bill speech I spoke about caring for women who had gone through an abortion. I cared about their mental health and the ongoing effects of grief. It is an intellectual dishonesty by refusing to acknowledge that a woman who has had an abortion has lost a child. They willingly concede that a woman who has had a miscarriage has lost a baby worthy to be grieved over but if a woman has had an abortion—no regard for that loss. Nothing to see here folks—move on.So whilst I support this bill so we can support women who have suffered the loss of a baby due to miscarriage or childbirth I feel that this bill is incomplete. Thank you."
Rurawhe AdrianASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call Agnes Loheni can I ask the members of the public that are in the gallery for a little bit of quiet. There's a really important debate happening on the floor of the Chamber and it would be really helpful for the process of this bill for a little silence.
Rurawhe AdrianDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2)—an amendment bill to the Holidays Act—which we're discussing today. I do want to echo the congratulations to the member Ginny Andersen for bringing this issue to the House. It is through members' bills that I think issues like this can be identified and resolved so I do want to applaud her in the House. Also to my fellow select committee colleague Jan Tinetti I didn't know those stories about what you faced and thank you for giving realism to the bill that we're discussing today and for sharing your story.Look the bill that we're discussing of course has been through a select committee process. I've come in on the back end of that in the select committee. I joined the select committee just as we were putting this report together so I wasn't able to hear the 37 submissions that were discussed or debated but I was involved in the discussions around some of the intricacies of how we actually make this work from a practical basis—for example whether we require proof for bereavement leave and the scope and definition about who this should in fact apply to. I think we've got the balance about right in terms of giving effect to the grieving process.I do want to call out Jan Logie's statement that this is really about just an acknowledgement that it is OK to grieve. For those of us who have been through this process or lost a loved one we know that the grieving process takes time—in fact in most cases far more than the three days that's under the law. But this is just an acknowledgment that look it is OK to in fact grieve for something that has been lost.So I just want to acknowledge all the work that has gone into this process. I want to acknowledge of course the employers out there who have in the past given their staff bereavement leave for this even though they weren't required to under the law. I think on this side of the House we always respect the employer-employee relationship and that is one that is built on good faith and trust. I think a lot of employers had they known in the past that their workers had been through this would have actually stepped up and said Look just take a couple of days off. Take a breather and come back with fresh eyes." And I do want to acknowledge all the employers who have stepped up to the plate and gone beyond the law and actually extended this.But this is an important day for Ginny Andersen. It's an important day for the more than 20000 women out there who go through this process every year and I want to acknowledge the members of the select committee the officials the submitters and I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan—five minutes."
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I intend to take just a short call on this bill the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). This is an alteration to the Holidays Act. It's simply a clarification for the death of a child clarifying that actually the death of a child can include unborn children—so up until 20 weeks it is considered a miscarriage and after 20 weeks it is considered a stillbirth.We've heard lots of contributions from the Government benches. I congratulate Ginny Andersen on being fortunate enough to have her member's bill drawn in her first term and as some other women and especially the submitters have mentioned it is something that is significant for some women to experience miscarriages and my own experience of that on a couple of occasions were both quite different. So it's very difficult to determine that you must convince an employer of the pregnancy but also have that entitlement as the member who just resumed his seat said for the ability to grieve and recover.So we have no issues with this bill. It has been through a thorough select committee process. I do note that it has taken the ambiguity out of the language to clarify but it also shows that laws as they are passed and embed themselves into society do require some tweaking over time and this is simply doing that and for a very sensitive issue as well. It will allow for leave for up to three days for women who experience the unplanned loss of a child. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Education and Training Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education and Training Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 544 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 24 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 24 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Education and Training Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
Education and Training Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Motion agreed to.
10. Question No. 10—BiosecurityKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for BiosecurityQuestion No. 10—Biosecurity10. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What progress has been made in the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis from New Zealand?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): New Zealand's world-first effort to eradicate the cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis has made significant progress. Three years to the day since it was first detected in New Zealand there have been 250 properties infected by the disease with all but four now clear of it. As we have with our response to COVID-19 this Government showed leadership made a tough decision went hard and went early. This Government made the decision to put $880 million into eradication because we back our primary sector. It was estimated that allowing the disease to spread could have caused $1.3 billion in economic losses to the sector in the first 10 years alone. As we have with COVID we've been guided by the best science and a technical advisory group made up by world experts. Almost 2½ years into the 10-year effort I'm pleased by the progress we've made. Our farming communities should be really proud of their efforts; this Government is certainly very proud of them. Kiritapu Allan: What changes have been made to the programme over the past year?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The eradication effort has not been without substantial challenges. No one in the world has ever attempted this before so we have been learning as we go. It's not always been perfect but we have learnt and made changes over time. We are serious about learning and improving. Some of the changes we've made include a greater regional focus more farmer-focused processes testing is timelier research is under way to improve testing further and compensation processes have improved for affected farmers. There is still work to be done and there will be more infected farms to find. But we're well and truly on track to do what no other country in the world has done to eradicate this disease.Kiritapu Allan: And what support has there been from industry?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Well I'm very pleased to say that the key to the success of our programme are the partners DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb New Zealand. They were part of the bold decision to attempt to eradicate this disease and have been part of our efforts since the very beginning. The Government Industry Agreement programme has been established jointly funded governed and delivered by the Ministry for Primary Industries Biosecurity New Zealand DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb New Zealand. Through farmer levies industry is funding 32 percent of the cost of eradication. There's also been support from volunteers of the rural support trusts around the country—outstanding organisations—as well as Fonterra Federated Farmers the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand the Meat Industry Association and the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Everyone is united in our common goal to free our country of Mycoplasma bovis.
6. Question No. 6—Social DevelopmentPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Social Development6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about supporting employment initiatives in partnership with local government?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On 9 July along with Mayor Phil Goff I announced an extension to our partnership with Auckland Council the Ngā Puna Pūkenga—Skills for Industry programme. The programme will fund up to 700 placements in Auckland through an investment of $4.34 million to support people into infrastructure and related environmental jobs. Of the 700 placements 420 will be for youth in receipt of a benefit; those over 25 with three or more months on benefit; Māori and Pasifika; and our long-term unemployed; as well as people not in education employment or training. A further 280 placements are for people made redundant as a direct outcome of COVID-19. This is a key partnership with Ministry of Social Development (MSD) funding to support pre-work training and job matching Auckland Council providing opportunities for employment through infrastructure projects and industry partners taking up new recruits and supporting them to gain new skills and remain in the industry.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What other announcements has she made in partnership with local government?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I also recently announced alongside the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs another extension of a pilot which supports rural councils to implement employment initiatives focused on connecting youth with local small businesses. This extension will see 19 additional rural councils able to access up to $500000 each to create sustainable employment positions in their regions. The initiative was piloted with four councils—Ōpōtiki Central Hawke's Bay Rangitīkei and South Wairarapa—under alert level 2 and has been highly successful with three of the four councils meeting or exceeding their target of 30 employment outcomes within five weeks. Despite challenging circumstances during this COVID recovery period we continue to see innovative partnerships like these having a positive effect on employment outcomes local communities and small businesses.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why are initiatives like these so important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Partnerships are crucial in our COVID recovery phase. Local government and the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs have important local insights into the specific needs of their communities and are well placed to work alongside the Government to develop solutions that will work on the ground. Establishing effective partnerships means that we can leverage local government projects their relationships with both big and small businesses as well as contribute MSD's expertise of job matching and training and employment support products and services. This Government is committed to investing in jobs people and industries and these initiatives demonstrate this commitment.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Friday Treasury released the latest New Zealand Activity Index for June. This showed economic activity continued to bounce back in June to just 0.9 percent below the same month last year after falls of 18 percent and 6 percent in April and May. The continued recovery in June was led by growth in electronic card spending heavy traffic movements and manufacturing activity all of which were up on June 2019 levels. While the index was dragged down a little by an increase in the number of people on income support other indicators such as light traffic movements business confidence and new job ads posted online also saw a continuing uptick. While the New Zealand Activity Index does not show the full economic picture these are encouraging signs that the economy has bounced back after a difficult past few months.Tāmati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the resilience of New Zealand's economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released a report on the role that land-based industries such as livestock forestry and horticulture have played in New Zealand's economic performance under the COVID-19 pandemic. The report said that whatever COVID-19 has done to other parts of world trade it has reinforced the underlying strength and importance of New Zealand's land-based industries. The NZIER pointed to growth in demand from China and other Asian nations combined with our flexible and adaptable supply chains and strong and effective institutions as the key reasons for New Zealand's strong trading results through the pandemic so far with dairy meat and horticulture sectors up by nearly $1 billion for the year to date compared with this time last year.Tāmati Coffey: What did the NZIER report say about the outlook for New Zealand's land-based industries? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The NZIER said that the general picture for exports is one of cautious optimism based on the continued demand for New Zealand farm products despite COVID-19. However the report did also point to the continued persistence of COVID-19 around the world and particularly in the UK and US as a key concern and one that has been highlighted in many other commentaries including the IMF and the World Bank. The Government is keenly aware of the importance of trade to our economic recovery and of the economic risks from worsening outbreaks and associated restrictions in key export markets. That's why we are working alongside and investing in the future of our exporters including through the Industry Transformation Plan for the agritech sector announced yesterday by Ministers Twyford and O'Connor. The Government is investing $11.4 million in this plan to lift the productivity of the sector commercialise new products and establish for example a horticultural robotics academy.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well I do support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): The National Party does not support this bill.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand in support of this bill. This bill is going to provide the framework for modernising and strengthening the education system and will make a huge difference to learners at all levels. I commend this bill to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is actually with great pride that I stand to take a call on this bill because it's a bill that will modernise and strengthen the education system. It makes some significant changes across the system that will support the progress the achievement and the wellbeing of every New Zealander. So I commend this bill to the House.
Hipkins ChrisDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I just want to follow the chain of this discussion on the enrolment issues or the zoning issues in particular—just going back to what Minister Chris Hipkins answered before about how adaptable the schools were during COVID-19 and how the ministry gave the schools more discretion. In relation to zoning I do have concerns about the way in which the ministry will be taking over the control for zoning and what that means for again more bureaucracy that we're giving to schools. So firstly I've got a couple of schools in my electorate that require school zones and under the current system they would be able to go through a process and determine that zone themselves. I've also got other schools in my community that wish to change their zones and under the current system they would have been able to do that. Under Supplementary Order Paper 544 which you've left with us at the last minute essentially the ministry overrides that and takes that process on. I just want to again challenge the Minister as to how this reduces bureaucracy for our boards and our school principals at a time where—particularly in Auckland—roll growth has been extremely high in some schools and low in others. Therefore there's going to be a desire for adaptability and nimbleness in our schools where schools are able to adapt really quickly given their growth over the next couple of years and all of a sudden they're going to be hit—bang smack—with the bureaucracy of this ministry to seek approval for essentially making a change to the zone. So again I wish to push the Minister to answer the question of how does a change in proposed new clause 69A around enrolment schemes actually reduce bureaucracy for our boards and our principals. If he can outline that that would be very much appreciated.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just to respond to a couple of those issues with regard to some schools having special programmes for kids there are criteria in here that allow for enrolment zones to give priority to students who are enrolled in a special programme even if they are not within the school's zone. So there are provisions there that will allow that to continue to happen. The grandparenting for enrolment zones is for a school and not for an individual family. If the Secretary for Education approves for grandparenting to be allowed that's for the whole school and not for each individual family within that school so I just wanted to clarify that. In terms of the issue around the bureaucracy of enrolment schemes this doesn't really change much with regard to the bureaucracy that's associated with enrolment schemes. It does change the emphasis of where the burden of that rests and so more of the burden of that will rest with the ministry than with the individual schools. At the moment basically the schools have to do all of that work themselves. Now the Ministry of Education will take a lot of that work but of course the schools will still be very involved in that process.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I hope the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins will indulge me because there have obviously been a lot of changes made and there's a lot to go through so if you wouldn't mind. I mean I also didn't sit on the Education and Workforce Committee for a lot of this but I was here for the first and second readings and there was some talk around the police vetting for the home-based early childcare providers.Some of the comments that were made and some of the feedback that I had early on was that initially it was every person that lived at that house would need to be police vetted and there were some concerns around that: whether or not people who weren't working or in that house at the time that the operation was being undertaken—would they need to be vetted. There was a lot of pushback around that. I'm just wanting to know: have there been any changes made around that? What advice has the Minister had? Is it still the case that every single person who lives in that house—regardless of whether or not they work or are there during the time—are still to be vetted? Yeah I just wanted him to clarify because I haven't been able to.
Hipkins ChrisParts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 24 and clauses 1 and 2Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I was very prepared to go through each of the parts as we went along and explain each of the provisions in the bill but perhaps if I could just give a very high-level overview at the beginning of this. I am very happy to engage so you know questions and answers and if members wish to make speeches then of course they're welcome to do that as well.This is a very substantial piece of work. It draws together all of our significant education legislation in one place for the first time in quite a long time. It repeals the 1964 Act and the 1989 Act. The vast majority of the legislation before us—it's a very thick bill obviously but the vast majority of it is simply tidying up the existing statute book. It is bringing all of our existing education law into a more streamlined and coherent form. The Education Act of 1989 I think has been the subject of goodness knows how many amendment bills since then. It's been amended just about every Parliament I think has amended it multiple times and it has become a bit of a mess. If we want people to follow the education law of the land it would be good to actually get it to a point where people can follow it and understand it and this bill will certainly do that by creating a new single Education and Training Act.The structure of the bill follows the process that someone would go through in their journey through the education system starting in early childhood education moving through schooling into tertiary education and beyond. Then there are clauses that relate to the way the system is structured and administered and the central agencies that are in there and their involvement in that.There are some significant policy changes in the bill though. It does implement some of the recommendations that arise out of the Tomorrow's Schools task force report and the work that we have done around that. There are some further changes to the issues around restraint and the use of physical restraint in schools—one that I think has exercised members across the House over the last five or six years since that issue was first raised. We still haven't quite got that right yet and the bill has another go through the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled at getting the balance of that right because I'm not convinced that the balance of that is quite right.There are plenty of other provisions as we go along which I'm sure we can discuss. I do want to indicate to members though if they've got any questions or if they wish me to comment on any parts of the bill I'm here for the duration and I'm very happy to do so.
Hipkins ChrisEDUCATION AND TRAINING BILLIn CommitteeHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Following discussions across the House I seek leave for debate on all of the provision of this bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.
Hipkins ChrisURGENCYHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded to the remaining stages of the Education and Training Bill; the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill; the Public Service Legislation Bill; the Urban Development Bill; the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill; and the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill; the second reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill; the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3); the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill; the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill; the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill; the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill; Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill; and the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill.Tim van de Molen: Is that all?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yeah that's it. Ha!SPEAKER: Don't challenge him!Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This urgency motion continues to reclaim the 60 or so hours of Government time in the House that was lost during the alert levels 3 and 4 of our COVID response. With the House soon to be out of action for a couple of months during the election campaign there is a need to ensure that significant legislation isn't further delayed and that as much of the programme is passed as possible.The urgency motion includes 12 bills that will have their committee stages and third readings remaining two with only third readings one first reading and one second reading. No bill will go through more than two stages in the urgency motion and a common feature of many of the bills in the motion is that they bring about significant change in their sector and a delay in their passing would mean preparations for the implementation would be frustrated.
New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill — Third Reading
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Whakataka te hau ki te uru whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura he tio he huka he hau. Tīhei mauri ora![Be prepared for the westerly be prepared for the southerly. It will be icy cold inland it will be cold on the shore. May the dawn rise red-tipped on ice on snow on frost. Bring forth the life force!]It's not usual that I would begin a committee stage of a bill with a karakia but given the debate that preceded this particular matter I thought it was apt because we have a very significant milestone moment. I'm not going to take a long call because the second reading of the bill highlighted the substantial work that the Māori Affairs Committee did to go thoroughly through the aspects of the bill and I want to thank them for their work as well as Te Puni Kōkiri officials who advised and the clerks of the committee. However I want to highlight Supplementary Order Paper 539 which proposes amendments to correct two incorrect references in the bill. The first is to amend an incorrect Native Land Court Minute Book reference in clause 4(1) and the second is to update the commencement date for the final period in clause 4(7) of Schedule 1. It amends the commencement date for the final report of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute from 1 April 2018 to the now applicable date of 1 April 2020. While these amendments are technically non-controversial they are necessary. It's my recommendation that the House support them and advance with certainty to the third reading of this bill.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 539 and 541 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Preamble Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill — In Committee
Mahuta Nanaia; Rurawhe AdrianNEW ZEALAND MĀORI ARTS AND CRAFTS INSTITUTE VESTING BILLIn CommitteeHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Preamble Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2
Member Vacancy — Rangitata Electoral District—Andrew Falloon
Seymour David; Mallard TrevorDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave to make a personal explanation. SPEAKER: The member has sought leave to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Hipkins ChrisMEMBER VACANCYRangitata Electoral District—Andrew FalloonHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That under section 131(a) of the Electoral Act 1993 a vacancy in the Rangitata Electoral District having arisen in the period of six months prior to the date of the expiration of this Parliament no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that electoral district to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Andrew Hamilton Falloon.Motion agreed to.
Thursday 2 July 2020 - Volume 747