edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I'll take a very short call on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. We've long campaigned for the rights of water in this country. This is a critically important piece of legislation because the regulation and the basic maintenance of the infrastructure have been neglected for a really long time. So this is an important part of the solution.I do just want to very quickly respond to the previous speaker Jacqui Dean and all of the talk about needing to work with the local government and acknowledge the importance and the ownership of water infrastructure in the local community. There's a sense of irony for me of having gone through in the last term of Parliament local government legislation introduced by that side of the House that sought to enforce amalgamation on councils that all of local government rebelled against quite solidly in terms of National Party mayors threatening the National Government for doing exactly what that member was suggesting Labour would do. I've got to say that this Government has been showing a complete commitment to partnership in doing this work and it has to be part of it—and that is we also see in this legislation a commitment to partnership with Māori and a recognition of the importance of their rights in this area. We support this legislation.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens are proud to support Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. Along with all of the main points that my colleagues and the Minister have put on the floor on this bill I particularly wanted to pick up with enthusiasm further work with the Minister to protect whenua Māori under the Public Works Act and will continue to have those fruitful discussions about how to make sure we are protecting the small bits of whenua Māori that we have left. We commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.Bill read a third time.
Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Jackson WillieHon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): I just want to tautoko some of the kōrero that's gone on. I'm really pleased this has gone through because it clarifies the position in terms of partners—particularly Pākehā partners. There's always a lot of controversy sometimes in terms of rights and who gets rights—particularly when there's a death—and all this sort of thing that carries on and this gives some clarification in terms of what happens in terms of partners' rights. So I'm really pleased about that. I'm also pleased—and a lot of people out there said this to me—that the position of whāngai is being clarified a lot more here. Whāngai is so important in terms of tikanga Māori in terms of their positions in terms of family. What rights do they have? Of course they have rights. Maybe they don't have the toto—or have the blood—but they have rights because they're part and parcel of that whānau and have made contributions and they're just as important as anyone who has the bloodline. The third part that I'm particularly comfortable about is that we've brought in mediation because things can get a bit volatile between whānau when we're talking about whenua and we're talking about whenua rights—land rights. We've incorporated some of the mahi that we do—particularly in the industrial relations side of things—into this tikanga process when whānau get into arguments about who owns what who gets what etc. etc. So I'm so pleased that we've got the professional mediation coming in to sort things out and to clarify things. So well done to the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and well done to our Minister for Māori Development. Finally we're going to get some light at the end of the tunnel for this very very important kaupapa. I'm very happy to support the bill. Kia ora tātou.
SpeechALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I also commend this bill to the House. I'd like to make a couple of comments on Minister Nanaia Mahuta's speech. I thoroughly enjoyed the language that she was using. It was extremely positive. It's words that I like to see and should be used more frequently in this House—words like reducing compliance" words like "simplifies" "sustainable development" "opportunities" "housing opportunities" "removing obstacles" "enabling" "housing aspiration" "complexity and compliance"—removal of the above—"resolution dispute systems" "mediation programmes" all for the benefit of this country as a whole but particularly for Māori and the complexities relating to the landownership issues that are faced and are you know a hindrance to Māori development. So with those words I commend this bill to the House."
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I stand to wholeheartedly support this Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I was delighted to be part of the Māori Affairs Committee that examined the bill and we had some very helpful submissions from representatives right across the motu which have been incorporated to improve this bill. This bill is all about you know just making sure that our Māori land laws help our Māori land owners do things better more efficiently and ultimately can help unlock a lot of the barriers I guess that Māori land owners face whether it's through various processes through the land courts and just the mechanisms that are available. So I commend this bill. I commend the Minister for her work. I thank the officials from Justice and Te Puni Kōkiri who excellently took us through our examination of the bill. This bill is going to be fantastic to assist our Māori whānau out there and this is just one part of the Whenua Māori Programme of a whole suite of legislative changes that will be coming through that will ultimately help whakamahana the whenua—help our whānau to warm up our land and make sure that we can unleash the potential of our whenua Māori. So I commend it to the House.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to acknowledge the Minister and the work of the Māori Affairs Committee in considering this bill. Jo Hayes has kept us as a caucus up to date up to speed with the progress of this bill and National supports this Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill.Not having sat on the select committee I can but perhaps give some of the background to the bill and some of the purposes of the bill. So this bill does form part of the Whenua Māori Programme and I note the Minister mentioned in her speech that as well as the bill we are considering today there are further bills to come. The rating of the whenua Māori amendment bill—now that's a local government bill and I don't recall whether it's had its first reading or not but I certainly know it has been considered by our caucus. So there is a legislative programme in place which is co-led by Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Justice the aim of which is to connect Māori with their whenua and provide Māori land owners with the tools to govern manage and develop their land.One of the consequential benefits of this bill will I understand be to provide tenure for Māori land owners to then approach financial institutions to—as a basis to apply for a mortgage to build and develop their land. That surely has got to be a great outcome of this bill. The programme also aims to support whānau to increase the productivity of their whenua with the goal of having the land positively affect their wellbeing and prosperity.I mentioned the legislative reform. I just want to finish my short contribution by noting that the Hon Chris Finlayson had spent a considerable amount of time in the previous Parliament working on this very issue and had brought a bill to the House—I'm not familiar enough with this bill to make any comments at all on the similarity but it does seem to me that the purpose of the work that the Hon Chris Finlayson did together with Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party has the same aim as this bill. So with those brief comments I commend the bill to the House.
Mahuta Nanaia; Smith StuartTE TURE WHENUA MAORI (SUCCESSION DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND RELATED MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I seek leave to put the bill as a whole question. TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Stuart Smith): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is none. It will be taken as one. There is no objection.
Speaker's Statements — Temporary Chairperson—Leave Sought
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSTemporary Chairperson—Leave SoughtSPEAKER: Members we're moving relatively quickly. I'm going to seek the leave of the House for Stuart Smith to act as Chair of the committee for orders of the day Nos 16 and 17 if necessary. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you. I'm very pleased to take a call in the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. I'm quite sure by this stage of the passage of this bill that the detail of the bill will have been well discussed by this House and by the Health Committee. All members in this House have an interest in the provisions in this bill. So I'll keep my contribution very local and note that the changes made in the select committee—which is wonderful news to hear that select committee was able to bring forward some good substantive changes which will clarify the duties of individually funded clients. This is a local issue for me as an MP. I have a number of small to very small communities which are geographically very distant from each other and support workers in the past have found themselves under enormous pressure getting from client to client. They love their work. I've met with a number of them a number of times. Support workers are very committed to their work. They just get very fond of their clients often and want the best for them. But the funding issues and travel issues have always been very problematic for them. So the changes brought by the select committee now mean that support workers can be employed by clients who receive individualised funding from the Ministry of Health. These workers and their employers are included in the settlement agreement but the definition of employer" in the principal Act doesn't cover individually funded clients. So the changes brought by the select committee would ensure that those care workers paid by individually funded clients receive the same pay and conditions including both the minimum wage rates and of course back-pay. As I said this is an issue which has been dealt with initially by the previous National Government and now this current Government. It is for the betterment of support workers across all fields but even more importantly I think it has great benefits to the clients who are in their care. I support this bill to the House.Bill read a third time."
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's great to see the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill pass following of course the historic moment—as referenced by my colleague Jan Logie—of seeing the Equal Pay Amendment Bill pass last night which has been decades in the making. Also great to see that the mental health and addiction support workers who were left out of the settlement by the previous National Government are now getting their invaluable work recognised. I commend this bill to the House.
Logie Jan; Mallard TrevorJAN LOGIE (Green): I'm pretty stoked to be able to stand on behalf of the Green Party in support of the third reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. What a great couple of days for women and for justice in this country where last night just on the mark of midnight we passed the pay equity legislation that creates a framework to make it a lot easier for undervalued underpaid women to be able to turn over the exploitation that they've been experiencing for all of their lives. This is a really momentous time for us as a country in terms of righting longstanding wrongs.As we've heard from other speakers this piece of legislation that we've got today is in effect an add-on to the settlement that was initiated by Kristine Bartlett supported by the E tū union the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and a huge amount of work from those union members right across the country against their employers who were supported by interventions from the previous Government on the side of the employer trying to block progress for those women to achieve pay equity. But they persevered and they won and they got their $2 billion settlement. That is a tribute to the power of organising and being in the right.It's fantastic to now today see that being extended to mental health workers and vocational disability support workers because last term when we heard what I think of as the Kristine Bartlett legislation we heard from mental health workers about how it didn't make sense not to include them in that settlement because in effect it's the same group of workers. They were really worried that their sectors would lose staff and be unable to keep providing for people because they'd be going to the better paid jobs in the aged care and the formalised disability sector or non-vocational disability sector. So it's fantastic to see this now that problem being solved and it's a great day for justice.Hon Jacqui Dean: Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: Marja Lubeck.Marja Lubeck: Thank you Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I saw her go before. We'll get to you.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I won't take too long on this. I was fortunate to be the chair of the Health Committee in the last Parliament that pushed through that major piece of work—the $2 billion worth of work. We knew at the time as did the Government the unions and others that mental health and addiction support workers needed to be included. For reasons I won't go into here all those groups understood at the time it couldn't happen. So I'm pleased to see—granted it's taken three more years—that we're here but it's a good win and as I mentioned with an earlier bill it shows that this House can work cooperatively to do what its single purpose is which is to support the people of New Zealand.
SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): This is a very important bill and New Zealand First commends it to the House. Thank you.
SpeechHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak at this reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill a bill that I've had a bit to do with over the years being a part of Cabinet when it was put through. There were a lot of discussions about the affordability of it and at its heart the fundamental principle here is that the people who care for our most vulnerable were not being recognised and not being valued in the way that they should. So with a vast amount of discussion and argument we got to the pay equity settlement in June 2017. That was an extraordinary and historic settlement of $2 billion. I think from memory the 55000 or so aged-care workers around New Zealand were getting around $5000 each a year which is a big difference.Those of us in this House who have had experience with being involved with aged care and with mental health and addiction care as my colleague Matt Doocey has will be well aware of the nature of the vocation of the work that these people do. It is not just clinical skills it is not just doing what is supposed to be done it is going that extra mile showing compassion to people who are vulnerable and lonely. So for me it has always been something that is essential because it was almost as if all of that was being taken for granted.So with the Terranova settlement which really did change the landscape of the professionalism of this group of people who you know are in there for the long haul as carers and workers this has given them a proper structure and a professionalism in terms of their wages. I think that's really important. The yawning gap of course was the mental health and addiction services carers: they were not being recognised there was a lot of discussion and compromise at the time.So the background to it is that this has been something that has been a long time coming. I personally feel that the work done by the mental health and addiction services is every bit as needed and needing to be valued as those of the aged care sector. So this was a very important part of rounding off if you like caring for the carers at the remuneration level. I think also the disability support workers who I had a bit to do with when I was Minister are also people that just keep soldiering on and keep doing what they feel needs to be done. This is an extremely important signal to them—as well as literally valuable to them—that we as a country appreciate what has been done by highly skilled people who do their very best on a compassionate as well as a clinical level. So for all of those reasons and for the length of time this has taken to get to this stage I will delay it no longer. I commend this bill to the House.
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. As the chair of the Health Committee I can say it was our pleasure to shepherd through the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. This third reading allows us to I guess explain what the bill does which is in fact to give effect to two pay equity settlement agreements between the Crown and firstly vocational and disability support workers and as my colleague Matt Doocey has spoken about mental health and addiction support workers. This follows on from the Terranova settlement which gave rise to the principal Act. Essentially that established a matrix of pay rates and I actually say they are akin to the living wage. They were exposed because of the Kristine Bartlett case which highlighted that support workers were being systematically underpaid because the workers were predominantly women.I want to acknowledge the E tū union. I want to acknowledge the Public Service Association. I want to acknowledge the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and I want to acknowledge the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. It has been the union movement that has advocated for our workers. Congratulations to our unions. They show how valuable and vital they are and can I say to Muriel Tunoho that I know your work isn't over and you will continue to challenge the Government and extend the rights of workers as you should. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party to take a call in support of this very important bill that will soon be legislation. Can I just acknowledge the Minister as well for his words and agree with him totally about the sentiment of the importance of pay equity and pay parity. This bill will quite rightly look after two groups of workers—that would be the mental health and addiction support workers and the vocational and disability support workers. I think we can never underestimate the work of support workers across the board. Quite often we focus more on the acute end and on our medical staff who seem to take quite a lot of the status and accolades in caring for vulnerable members of our community but when you look at one of these groups—the mental health and addictions support workers—we do know that these workers provide valuable support on the ground with people with complex mental health and addiction needs. If they get it right it prevents that group of people getting into a crisis and it prevents them going into secondary and tertiary care.I do know from my own background of working in the mental health and addiction sector that it is predominantly a sector with a female workforce and I'd like to think that experience for me has been for the betterment in my career and has helped me see the world differently. It is concerning with an issue around pay equity and pay parity that in today's day and age we are still attempting to address that issue.I do want to pay my acknowledgements to the many people who have worked hard to bring this issue to Parliament. In some way I suppose it does validate that Parliament represents people and the advocacy that those people have taken to get this issue to Parliament. I think it speaks volumes that we have full party support here today. I do want to acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse who did bring the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill here under the former National Government in 2017 as well as Louisa Wall as chair of the Health Committee who I think has done a fantastic job this term in shepherding a large number of very important bills through the Health Committee. I won't take up too much time of the House other than to say that this bill will be significant for a number of people who care. When you talk to a lot of support workers that's in fact what draws them to the profession—it is that they just want to care for other people in their community—and quite rightly they today should get full pay equity and pay parity. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Hipkins ChrisParts 1 and 2 Schedule and clauses 1 to 3Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I'm only going to take a very brief call on this and I wasn't entirely sure which part to do it in so I figured we may as well consider all of the parts at the same time and then I didn't have to worry about that.I have tabled some typescript amendments to this bill just now. The purpose of those is simply to update some of the wording and terminology in the bill to update it to reflect legislation that we have passed in this urgency session relating to the public sector. So there are a few phrases in here that need to be updated because what is now the Public Service Act changes the way we refer to a few things within the Public Service so this bill needed to be updated. So that is all the effect of those amendments that I have tabled. They are all technical amendments drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to reflect other changes to other statutes and therefore hopefully I don't need to add anything more to that.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 1 and Part 2 be agreed to: in clause 7(3) definition of Department of Corrections replace Public Service" with "public service".in clause 7(3) definition of Ministry of Social Development replace "Public Service" with "public service".in clause 7(3) definition of Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children replace "Public Service" with "public service".in the Part 2 heading replace "Employment Relations Act 2000" with "other Acts".after clause 22 insert:23Amendment to Equal Pay Amendment Act 2020(1)This section amends the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2020.(2)In Schedule 1 new Schedule 1 Part 1 clause 5(b) replace "Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017" with "Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act 2017".Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill with amendment.Report adopted."
Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill — In Committee
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianSUPPORT WORKERS (PAY EQUITY) SETTLEMENTS AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I seek leave for debate on all provisions of this bill to be taken as one.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
SpeechALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I too commend this bill to the House. The labelling requirements are useful. The more information the consumer has to make a decision the better. If you can't try before you buy—that would be the ideal—at least you will have a very clear understanding of what is in the video or the film that you're about to view. As the Minister said that's a good thing. You can distinguish between the good the bad and the ugly. Whether it's a colour coding or a star rating like we do with cars for example to understand the safety of the car that's good. That provides the consumer with more information before they even need to get in and try the car for example. So maybe—I don't know—it is a good idea to have a distinction between the good the bad and the ugly. I mean good? Bad? Ugly? [Gestures at parties around the Chamber]So that is a good thing. The more information we have the better for the benefit of the consumer and I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): The Green Party supports the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. I have no puns on film titles but I do commend the Minister and the work that Melissa Lee had done previously. We have Netflix with $15 billion worth of original content each year and we have a voluntary system which isn't working and this is a move to ensure that we have a proper rating system that follows the one that is used for films in New Zealand and has descriptions in terms of consumer warnings. This bill is making sure that that happens for commercial video on-demand products to ensure that consumers when they're watching them know what they're watching. So I commend the bill to the House.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Not only well said and short in the Reo and I appreciate what the member Tāmati Coffey said but I thought as—I don't know—a return gift I won't speak for too too long but I probably will anyway. This is—you know we're parliamentarians. Hey look I'd say this is a sufficient bill—I mean a number of my colleagues have said it's good. So as not to be too heavy on Minister Tracey Martin I think she's doing the right thing. This is a very fraught space to make sure that that which is offensive wrong—ethically morally or otherwise—is blocked particularly when we're thinking of children. But it's always that difficulty of when you begin to move into the spaces where actually it's just objectionable to a group of people in society because they believe something's outdated or inappropriate. So you're into that sort of free speech side of things and that's some of my—Hon Tracey Martin: But we're just labelling it Simon. We're not blocking it. SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh no we know it's labelling. The Minister is quite right that it is just around labelling but even there there's just a few issues. But as I say it's a sufficient bill. I think it's something which this side supports because we do want to see it progress. We do want to make sure that legislation is modern and obviously there's the ongoing streaming services. So we're pleased with that. But I do as somewhat of an advocate of free speech just have a little bit of a concern that classifications on particularly elements of the past will kick in. I think the Minister would appreciate that there's a bit of an allure out there at the moment in certain sectors that wants to ban everything that certain groups define as offensive to them. Our history is what it is and sometimes the best thing that we can do is view in the full sunlight and learn from it. So I wouldn't want to see the system used in that way and I know it's not the Minister's intention. With that which is now a longer speech than intended—and unfortunately I can't even think of any good movie puns at this time of the day—I commend the bill to the House.
Coffey TamatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare i tēnei rā whakamutunga mō tēnei wiki tēnei wiki mahi. Kei te tautoko au i tēnei pire ki Te Whare.[Greetings Mr Speaker on this day the final day of the work week. I support this bill to the House.]Hon Member: Well said.
SpeechDr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to support this Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. Obviously this is a good bill and the Governance and Administration Committee actually spent some time considering various provisions and changes. In the end we believe the bill has been improved. So I thank the committee. I thank particularly Melissa Lee the spokesperson for National and I thank the Minister of Internal Affairs for her constructive approach towards some issues. This is a good bill. Now there's a common understanding that we have a responsibility to try to reduce the potential for harm from viewing these commercial videos on-demand. This has been a growing industry particularly after this COVID-19 stuff. We have seen the dramatic growth in terms of online viewers. So it is important for us to have a consistent policy towards identifying and labelling the content of these commercial videos on-demand. Now we did have some kind of regulation but we did not have a very well-developed or up-to-date regulation in terms of regulating this particular area. This bill is quite a big step forward towards better regulation of online content. It also updates the functions of the Classification Office to ensure that the new requirements for commercial video on-demand content are clearly within the scope of its operation or work.Also the bill replaces the definition of film" in the Act to make sure that it will clarify that it includes the commercial video on-demand content. So the bill itself has made improvements in several areas and for that reason we say this is a good bill. But on the other hand content regulation is a major issue. It's very broad. The bill itself is focused on a certain area a certain part and therefore there is actually more work to do. We believe it is important or it is necessary for us to have a broader review of the media industry particularly to have a holistic approach towards this particular issue to make sure that we are able to deal with not only just the commercial video on-demand but also issues relating to other areas to make sure that we have a better more comprehensive understanding towards the regulation of the content. So this is an issue that should be resolved in the future. Although while we agree that this bill itself is useful in terms of regulating content we believe there is a broader issue that we need to deal with. We also believe that the Office of Film and Literature Classification did a good job in terms of setting up a pilot project that is for self-classification. That is a useful tool and the select committee actually had a good briefing from them and we think they made a good contribution in that area. Overall we believe that this is a good bill and we support it. Thank you."
SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): I shall make a contribution that will last From Here to Eternity. Now just to be very clear National will support this bill. We do actually support the intent and that is to seek to have a broader catalogue of content available for New Zealanders to consume while looking at how to keep New Zealanders particularly our younger New Zealanders safe. So we will support this bill as we have done through the process.The reservations that we do have are around some elements which we understand the intent of but are not yet able to have been resolved such as how onerous either the existing system would be given the volume of content on these platforms or indeed what the self-assessment might mean in terms of the processes they have to go through to achieve that and of course because it is yet unknown the funding model.So exactly what that will mean—ultimately the provider either has to swallow that cost or pass it on through an increased subscription and there is always a risk. There is always a risk because the reality is New Zealand is a small market compared to so many others and a provider might decide whether it's just burdensome or expensive to tightly curate content so that New Zealanders might end up with a bit less than they could otherwise have. That's something that we have to trust now to officials to get right. There was a previous bill which I've just referred to in passing which did raise the point that sometimes people in policy parts of Government can be a bit disconnected with what the public think and I think there's a challenge here to make sure that doesn't happen in this instance because no one is arguing with the intent behind what's happening—just ensuring that it doesn't have adverse results.Another area which was raised but they wouldn't dwell on too much but is a relevant item particularly after recent global events is ensuring that the practices and the self-assessment don't I would say inadvertently begin to censor or curate elements of history tastes that we might consider now to be very poor taste—old cartoons are an example not just cultural references but also some people might say in terms of violence or modelling of behaviours. It's important that we don't see ourselves curating and censoring our history but instead to the extent that any assessment is required that it's practical and reasonable and if it's marked it's marked appropriately which I would say is what did happen overseas. An initial reaction to global activism was some elements of history were removed and then re-established with some tag system. So we wouldn't want what we're doing here to lead to a censorship of history and we trust the censor but we also trust parents given the right information to make the right decisions particularly for our children.So in conclusion we support the intent. There is stuff that needs to be worked through. Some of us are less fond of regulation-making powers than others but look as long as we get it right hopefully we can strike the right balance so we will commend this bill to the House.
Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill — In Committee
McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianFILMS VIDEOS AND PUBLICATIONS CLASSIFICATION (COMMERCIAL VIDEO ON-DEMAND) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions 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 none.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I have to say the Government speakers are ripping through this. If only this would also apply to some speed limits where we could get a little bit more speed going there safely. I might add the 110 kilometres Minister Twyford would be fantastic on some parts of our motorway system and certainly in Auckland—coming back there—to see it sped up a little bit more. This is a good bill. I think it actually in some ways shows the system working rather proactively if you will in response to the MartinJenkins report. The Minister—I think rightly—highlighted the sad catalyst. You don't want sad events like that to have happened and death to have occurred unnecessarily but the system begins to work that a report is done and the Government of the day takes those learnings and implements them and from what I'm hearing the Transport and Infrastructure Committee was working cooperatively and putting forward some very practical changes which are important. I think the role of the Director of Land Transport is an excellent one to actually provide that almost singular focus on to the regulatory requirements of our transport system. It will be incredibly incredibly useful. So I'm not actually going to take up too much time on this one—you know I don't want to fall behind in the speed of others. That causes congestion and problems and people start honking horns. But I'm very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Bill read a third time.
Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Green Party is very pleased to support the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. It does respond as the Minister of Transport noted to a regulatory failure which resulted in a tragic death; it strengthens the regulatory leadership of Waka Kotahi; it centralises the regulatory authority; and particularly it strengthens their role in relation to speed management and enforcement. The work that this Government is doing to improve road safety and to get the death toll down is a key part of the Government's programme and this bill assists that. I commend the bill.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. I will indeed talk about the little scientific test that I did in my electorate. As Mr Hudson pointed out to the House there is a plan to lower the speed limit from Renwick right through to Nelson. A significant section of that through to Havelock is quite unnecessary to have any change in the speed limit. So I invited a journalist and Chris Bishop our transport spokesperson to ride with me to Havelock and back. So on the return from Havelock to Renwick I set my cruise control at 100 kilometres an hour and I didn't touch the break and nor did the car slow for traffic in front of me all the way back to Renwick. So I never had to touch the breaks or take any corners—took them all very safely.Hon Tracey Martin: What are they going to lower it to?STUART SMITH: As the Hon Tracey Martin could appreciate I would not want to do anything dangerous with a journalist in the car. So that demonstrated the pointlessness of lowering that speed limit. In fact further to that I note on another section of road through the Hunderlies the speed limit has been lowered to 60 kilometres an hour on State Highway 1—quite unnecessarily. The local fire chief Ian Walker from Kaikōura is on the public record as saying it will make no difference and the only difference it will make is to make it more dangerous because of the risky passing behaviour. In fact he pointed out to me the other day that all the serious accidents that they've attended on that section of road have been on 45-kilometre-an-hour corners where trucks in particular roll over and they cause other serious accidents as a consequence of that.So the speed limit of 60 kilometres an hour is not going to change that. It could be 100 kilometres an hour; it should be 100. It's absolutely crazy to have these variable speed limits all over the place when they're totally unnecessary. If we wanted to actually reduce the road toll as a reduction we would reduce the speed limit to probably 10 kilometres and it would be just absolutely crazy to do that. No one would ever think of doing it. So you follow that rationale through: 100 kilometres an hour is actually a safe speed for our roads. I think that this bill should ensure that let's hope at least good sense is brought into this argument not some crazy policy wonk that wants to impose their own views on us. Let's hope that doesn't—Hon Phil Twyford: That's a slur on policy wonks!STUART SMITH: Well I've gone outside my remit on that one Minister. But I think it's absolutely the feeling of people out there—the motoring public—that they're sick of these silly speed limits being imposed. The rule only works when people respect it and they do not respect these. So bear that in mind for those people out in policy land if they're listening to this speech. Thank you. I recommend it.
SpeechCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. On Wednesday night I gave the longest speech I've ever had to this House for my valedictory note and today I give the shortest one: I commend this bill to the House.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I seek leave to clarify a detail on an answer I gave in the committee of the whole House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you Mr Speaker. I just wanted to go back to a question that the member Tim van de Molen raised on the provisions in this bill in relation to Waka Kotahi using a more directive approach in relation to using a rule in relation to speed limits. Mr van de Molen asked in what circumstances a more directive approach as opposed to kind of an enabling approach would be used. My answer if I recall correctly was that it would be used in relation to school speed zones. I just wanted to clarify because I would hate—just for the purposes of getting it on the record the bill itself takes an open and enabling approach. It's the policy intent behind the bill that that more directive approach with road-controlling authorities would be used in relation to school speed zones but the bill itself is open and permissive in relation to that. So thank you Mr Speaker.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is a bill the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill that is all about safety. It strengthens the regulatory function of the New Zealand Transport Agency. It is a great bill and I commend it to the House.
Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee
SpeechParts 1 to 4 Schedules 1 to 5 and clauses 1 and 2BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Let's go for value over volume in questions Minister. I'd just like—because again another bill I wasn't on the committee on or I was actually very briefly in the very early stages of the select committee. So just a clarification. It's my understanding that in effect—if not as explicit as possible but in effect—a change in this bill will give the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) authority to require a road-controlling authority to create a speed management plan whereas previously the law was about empowering them to be able to do so as they saw fit for their respective areas of control. Firstly is that the case that there is in effect at least the ability to require that? If that is the case was that intentional to make a step from empowerment to requiring? And the third part to that as they start to get the information for the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Twyford is if it does enable that requirement or requirement setting under what circumstances is it envisaged that the NZTA might use that mandating authority? I think you know road-controlling authorities as they head into this slightly revised world would probably like some degree of certainty as to when they might be instructed to do things that they possibly haven't given consideration to yet or have on a work programme that might be stretching out some months or years yet to come. I'm sure they'd like the confidence and certainty that what might be empowered under the amending legislation won't actually be forced upon them—or at least if it is forced upon them will be forced upon them in circumstances they can foresee and prepare for.
van de Molen Tim; Rurawhe AdrianLAND TRANSPORT (NZTA) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for all provisions in this debate to be taken as one. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Therefore the question now is that Parts 1 to 4 Schedules 1 to 5 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill — Third Reading
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill and to take a short call as others have. Effectively infrastructure is expensive and funding it has been obstructed by lack of this streamlining and this bill introduces that. We want to support councils and we want to support our communities to get going. Just to bring it back to what infrastructure really is because it isn't just roads it is transport but it's also community facilities water services and environmental resilience infrastructure as well—that come under this bill—and of course housing. We know that we did inherit a housing crisis of some magnitude and we are getting on to solving that and this is just one piece of that puzzle. It is good to see the country is moving forward in this positive way to build infrastructure where and when it is needed effectively and efficiently. So I do commend the bill to the House.
SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): It's a pleasure to rise and speak on this actually very good bill Minister Twyford. I can say that because fundamentally it's legislating the same idea that National took into the 2017 election and he knows it—he knows it. It makes good sense—it makes good sense. Our councils are under enormous pressure on their balance sheets their debt limits are pressing hard up against them and there is an absolute certainty. They say there are only two certain things in life: death and taxes. So when we're saying that there is a future revenue stream through rates and in this case a special rate levy as well that ensures that revenue stream to allow them to borrow now to get infrastructure in place so that we can continue to build as we need to for now and in the coming years it makes completely good sense. I'd like to commend to the Minister and I have asked my question or two in the committee of the whole House stage to have a chat to the Minister of Finance because I actually agree with him—as I just have—that this idea of borrowing against those future rates and rates levies to build the infrastructure now including local roads is a very good idea. It seems the Minister of Finance doesn't quite appreciate that when National released its first of the transport packages last week we said that well we're going to pay for a lot of this by allowing the New Zealand Transport Agency to borrow more against the future revenues of the fuel excise tax—which makes complete sense—and in fact the Minister here is doing exactly that same principle in terms of helping councils to build infrastructure today and tomorrow for the houses that we will need against the revenues that will come in over many years. So—fantastic—he agrees with it. If only the Minister of Finance could see sense we might have a road to Damascus moment there as well. This is a good idea. It was National's idea and it's pleasing to see that this Government actually hasn't thrown all of them out. It threw out too many of our very good roading ideas only then to reintroduce them but it's very good it didn't throw this idea out. We do support this measure. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just would like to take a very brief call in support of this legislation the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill. New Zealand First does support this bill. It's very sensible to make sure that we can build the infrastructure that we need not just now but yesterday we needed it. In fact we needed it many years ago so thank you to this Government for ensuring that we build on the work so that we can then get homes built and people living in the homes that they need for now and tomorrow. Elections as the former—the member who just resumed his seat—Simon O'Connor: Former member"—what just happened? JENNY MARCROFT: Sorry the former speaker who has just resumed his—my goodness was that prophetic? We only have a few more weeks to go. But the member who's just resumed his seat Simon O'Connor the former speaker to myself—elections are wrong the member said. No in the election in 2017 the people were not wrong. They made their choice and here we are today. Thank you very much to this Government for moving this bill forward. The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill establishes a new way of funding and financing housing infrastructure. This makes sense to enable councils and developers to overcome those council debt limits so that we can just get on with the job of building. It makes sense and I'll take up no more time of the House. I commend this bill to the House."