edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VotePart 11 Repeal revocations and amendments to other enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Part 11 stand part.The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendments to clause 383 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 40New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 11 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 41New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 11 agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Shane Reti's amendments to clauses 363 and 364 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 40New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Brooke van Velden's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 381 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 41New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 10 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 41New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 10 as amended agreed to.
Therapeutic Products Bill — In Committee—Part 10
Therapeutic Products Bill — In Committee—Part 9
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Thanks for your patience members. Dr Shane Reti's amendment to clause 332 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Noes 41New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Brooke van Velden's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 378 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 41New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Noes 71New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 9 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 41New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 9 as amended agreed to.
Therapeutic Products Bill — In Committee—Parts 7 and 8
VotePart 8 EnforcementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 8 the debate on clauses 283 to 329 and Schedule 2 Enforcement". The question is that Part 8 stand part.Dr Shane Reti's amendments to Part 8 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Dr Shane Reti's amendment to clause 253 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of committee.The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment to clause 253 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 383 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 8 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 8 as amended agreed to."
VotePart 7 Regulatory mattersCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 7 which is the debate on clauses 202 to 237 Regulatory matters". The question is that Part 7 stand part.Shane Reti's amendments to Part 7 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 7 as amended agreed to."
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Dr Shane Reti's amendments to Part 6 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Dr Shane Reti's amendment to clause 192 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendment to clause 194 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment to insert new clause 194A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 383 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.Part 6 as amended agreed to.
O'Connor GregDEPUTY SPEAKER: The Government has indicated they wish to conclude urgency. Therefore the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.The House adjourned at 11.46 p.m. (Wednesday)
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you. I commend this bill to the House. I also want to say that we've had an interesting debate and I think the points that have been made by the National Party I don't need to rehearse at length but suffice to say that our position has been for a start there were many pressing priorities for the New Zealand Defence Force at the moment including low morale high attrition—which two things that are the wrong way around of course—and the stated need for an increase in public confidence in the defence force we don't think is sufficient justification. We don't think there is low confidence in that in the defence force.We don't think therefore this is a measure that would be needed to increase public confidence. We think that the basis for legislating in this way is not made clearly because in fact these things all can already be done without the need for bespoke legislation or indeed the position created.All these reasons—National continues to oppose this bill.
Leavasa Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): I commend this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National): I was going to do a short call but now I'm going to tell a story about the Speaker—ha ha! It's only a little story but I'm sure everyone will want to hear it!But no the National Party wants to pay tribute to our defence forces the men and women involved that do a tremendous job. There's many that are in this House that have served our country and we just have to look around these walls. We thank them for their service and their contribution and we look forward to their continued service in the future.
White Helen; O'Connor GregHELEN WHITE (Labour): I commend the bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call—how can I forget your name? I think it's late at night. It's a mental blank. Come on someone give me a hand.Hon Members: David Bennett!DEPUTY SPEAKER: David Bennett.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): A lot has been said about this bill from across the House in support and in opposition to this bill. I just want to thank the officials who worked around the clock to make this bill what it is. The members of the committee with all disagreements they have done a good job and all the submitters including the five submitters who submitted in person. So I'd like to thank everyone for the work that they have done and I commend this bill to the House.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): The circumstances just outlined by the previous speaker Dan Rosewarne do not change because there is an Inspector-General of Defence. If there is to be any breakdown in the trust between the New Zealand public and the military it would be because an event has occurred; not because the inspector-general existed.The inspector-general just becomes a mechanism for dealing with events that have happened and I go back to my point before: Operation Burnham was rare. It was an unusual circumstance and there was a mechanism available in order to have a better look at it. To tip the entire system upside down by putting in place an inspector-general who ultimately will become the veto office on the activities of the military is I think very short-sighted and somewhat disrespectful for those who commit their lives to military service.I've said all I need to say on this bill. It is not something that we support.
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Effective democratic civil military relations is a central tenet to any functioning democracy. As the only agency in power to inflict organised violence on an adversary the public needs to have confidence that its armed forces will behave in a manner that's in line with their values even if the enemy does not behave in that manner. Having served a large chunk of my life in some of these hostile regions of world that we've been working in as part as a coalition it takes years to build that trust with the communities you're serving in but then also the public and it only takes a second to lose it. The trust of the public can only be maintained through transparency and certainty that the military is reporting faithfully to the public and the Government.In closing the Inspector-General of Defence will be an independent office that if required will investigate operations carried out by New Zealand's armed forces. This a very important piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.
Court Simon; Little AndrewSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister the legislative statement proposes that the Inspector-General of Defence's functions duties and scope includes to assess and identify potential improvements or additions to policies and procedures governing NZDF activities. Today Janes published an article under Defence News saying that New Zealand faces procurement challenges" in defence and that the 12 procurement programmes under way during 2021-2022 face some significant impacts. The review of those programmes says that Defence faces significant challenges on budget that Defence prefers to hold to fixed price contracts and benefits which is a measure—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Court this is not relevant unless you are going to make it relevant—SIMON COURT: The question is for the Minister will the Inspector-General of Defence also be enabled to inquire into procurement practices at New Zealand Defence Force?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): The organisation principally responsible for procurement is the Ministry of Defence—works with New Zealand Defence Force of course but the actual practical exercise of procurement of investigating options preparing budgets preparing advice to Ministers principally the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance is the role of the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence is not covered by the Inspector-General of Defence powers.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Minister. So which entity then would have responsibility for reviewing the procurement approach and whether there is value for money in procurement?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): I don't want to give the member a primer on Government but there are a number of entities that do that—Treasury is playing a critical role in being a check and balance on effective procurement procedures. The Auditor-General plays a role in ensuring value for money. But I can say that for the Ministry of Defence because of the centrality of procurement to its role it is continually learning from every procurement exercise it undertakes and improving its processes. I have to say in my engagement with Treasury one of the comments that they do make about the Ministry of Defence is to talk up the quality of the procurement processes that it utilises and has described it as some of the best procurement processes across Government."
Salesa Jenny; Utikere Tangi; Little AndrewIn Committee Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. Members we come now to Part 1.TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There is none. Part 1 of the debate on clauses 3 to 6 and Schedules 1—sorry; it is actually taken as one.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you Madam Chair. Just really by way of introducing the committee of the whole House stage of this bill I acknowledge the members' contributions in the second reading and I want to reiterate the point that the purpose of this bill is to strengthen the civilian democratic oversight of our military and to ensure—to the extent that vehicles such as military courts of inquiry and general military discipline do not deal with the issue including issues arising out of combat or peacekeeping operations—that there is a means to investigate those issues. But most importantly it is to make sure that those charged with civilian oversight—the Minister other Ministers as well and indeed Parliament as a whole—can be assured that the advice and information they are receiving about military operations is accurate and is assured.The genesis of this bill was from a series of events during a combat episode a peacekeeping operation where the Minister was not properly informed—and on successive occasions the Minister was not properly informed.I have every confidence that our brave members of our New Zealand Defence Force when they are in conflict situations are carrying their doctrinal training and subject to the disciplines of their profession and their craft as soldiers and sailors and aviators know what to do. But there are occasions when events happen when misjudgments can be made whether at the leadership or senior officer level or at other levels and where an independent investigation outside of a court of inquiry is appropriate. This bill sets out the vehicle to do that.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It is a privilege to take a short call on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. Can I begin by acknowledging the brave and selfless men and women who are members of the New Zealand Defence Force and I know that all of our Parliament would concur with that.I do want to pick up on some comments made earlier in the evening by Mr Bayly when he was referencing some earlier comments from my colleague Dan Rosewarne and I've read through the comments that Mr Rosewarne made around both the workings of the New Zealand and Australian Defence Force. I just want to I guess correct Mr Bayly's interpretation of that because Mr Rosewarne was not saying that what happened that was investigated through Operation Burnham or that the practices of the New Zealand Defence Force are comparable to the events that are currently in the media in Australia. That is not what he said. I think it's really important that I place on the record that it's not the comments that he made.What he was saying was the need for as part of the work that New Zealand and Australian Defence Forces do in partnership—which is something that as New Zealanders we are very proud of the partnership that we hold with our Australian comrades—was that as part of that work there is a need for those assurances around having an independent inspector role sitting there as part of that work. That was the point he was making. He was not saying that the events that led to Operation Burnham were comparable with what's currently being discussed and being addressed in Australia. I just want to make sure that's very very clear.Some other comments have been made tonight around the importance of us as a Parliament protecting and upholding the role of the Defence Force and just ensuring that as politicians that that is appropriate.One of the things that this bill does is that it actually creates a mechanism for members of the Defence Force to whistle-blow to raise issues up so they have a place that they can take things if they are seeing things that is of concern to them; and that actually that inspector component is again independent of politicians as well so that it can ensure that it's not tainted through politics—that it does have that genuine independence about it. So that is a way for us to provide greater protections to as I said the brave men and women of our Defence Force. It's our job as politicians to ensure we are putting every mechanism in place so that they can do what is the most difficult role in the world on behalf of New Zealand in a way that New Zealanders feel they can trust and are proud of which is what we are. On that note I commend the bill to the House.
Ngobi TerisaTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō e lelei Madam Speaker and mālō 'aupito for the opportunity to take just a short call in the House on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill tonight. It will be a short call because we've already heard tonight that it's been well canvassed and actually it's a no-brainer because this bill speaks to the defence priorities for people but also the defence principles of mana and pono by establishing an Inspector-General of Defence (IDG) that will have oversight of our New Zealand Defence Force as recommended by our Operation Burnham inquiry.As I said this bill is a no-brainer. This is about establishing what the service is asking us for. It's also about ensuring that we support our service people—and that's not just in terms of the wage increase that we've recently done but also about making sure that we listen to them we establish the IGD as requested. For that it's a good bill and I commend it to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to take up the point that Mr Bayly has just raised because I'm quite concerned by the underlying logic. This is a situation where five people including a child died. I have great respect for our defence forces but Mr Bayly's argument—if you read the Hansard—is actually that we should not make our Defence Force worried about acting in a situation that's critical because they'll be worried that sunlight will be shone on what they've done. Now that's just not a good argument.This law is about safeguarding democratic accountability. It's about building trust for our force because our force will know that there is an independent examination of what they do. That's a fair examination it's an independent examination and if people do nothing wrong then they will not be exposed to anything wrong. This is a safe way of bringing accountability into our system and making sure that our Defence Force is in fact supported in doing the right thing. Thank you I commend this bill to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate taking the opportunity for a short call on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. I was not a member of your select committee Madam Speaker—the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—but nevertheless I followed along in the debate tonight and I want to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill and for his hearty definition and explanation of the legislation which was very helpful. The policy outcome for the establishment of this is an oversight function independent of the New Zealand Defence Force that will strengthen democratic accountability civilian control of the military and increase public confidence that issues regarding the legality and propriety of its actions are appropriately investigated with the flexibility and durability to respond to the complexity of the New Zealand Defence Force business now and into the future. It also gives those personnel the military personnel another place to apply to or to ask for help or seek advice. I commend this bill to the House.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call in support of the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. Just to respond to Mr Brownlee's comments around if there was a video available about the operation—and Mr Brownlee is forgetting that there were civilian casualties in this operation and that no one is directly blaming that war crimes were committed but civilians were dead. This more or less takes a lot from the integrity of our Defence Force. So responding by establishing an entity like this is good for the image of our Defence Force for the integrity for the mana of the organisation. We cannot afford to have any doubts hanging over organisations like our Defence Force; it's such a critical entity. So this bill is a good bill for the reasons that I've mentioned above and Operation Burnham has significantly undermined the integrity and the image of our Defence Force. Therefore establishing this entity will play a role in facilitating democratic oversight of the New Zealand Defence Force and will provide independent scrutiny. For these reasons this is a good step and I commend this bill to the House.
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): I actually find it quite disappointing. We have gallant members on the other side of the House there. We have members that have held commission within the armed forces and they lack fundamental understanding of what democratic civil-military relations represent. Democratic oversight of the military is particularly important right now and topical in Australia. In a 2020 report the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) found credible information of war crimes committed by ADF in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016 through the Brereton report and recently for the first time in history a court had been tasked with assessing allegations of war crimes by Australian forces. And this defamation trial was a huge moment for Australia both culturally and legally.Going forward my read of the Australian people is that they are going to demand that if the Australian Defence Force enters into a coalition with any of their partners they are going to want their coalition partners to have independent oversight that is commensurate with the society that they are representing—and this Inspector-General of Defence Bill does that. It makes sure that our house is in order so we can work as part of a joint multinational coalition. It enhances our interoperability with our only formal defence ally. So I encourage the Opposition over there to have a look at how it improves our integration how it improves our interoperability with our formal defence ally our coalition partners. So for that reason I commend the bill to the House.
Peke-Mason SorayaSORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Again I am pleased to be able to stand and speak to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. As I said earlier it makes absolute sense to amend the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act as a result of climate change. Something had to be done and we had heard earlier on from across the way over there it is a sensible solution common sense and even an exciting bill. It will fix some of those issues by providing all that relevant and pertinent information to local government to make their decision making a lot better than what it is now given the environment that we now live in. I commend this to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on this bill Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. As we've heard many of our speakers this evening clearly state—the sensible legislation the advantages and changes of the provisions how helpful it will be and it's clear and concise.At this time I do want to acknowledge the many local government representatives across the motu. In particular of the events this year we were very unfortunate of the weather events that happened in Auckland particularly in our area Māngere and very quickly many many people in the community came across to help. But the confusing part was some of the property owners who were not aware of their homes being built in floodplain areas particularly when council comes with information that nothing is going to happen in 100 years—and that was only like four five years ago as a previous member of council.So I do want to just point that out and highlight that. The bill is common-sense it builds resilience for our communities and it will really help property owners to understand and be better informed and manage the expectations. I commend this bill to the House.
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a short call on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill and essentially this bill is a common-sense bill to make that homebuyers are able to get good information about natural hazards that could affect the properties that they are interested in. It also makes common-sense amendments to the provisions in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act that deal with national security information and this is a simple alignment with the Official Information Act.We support this bill because we believe that New Zealanders have the right to know whether properties they're considering buying are in a natural hazard zone. This bill makes sure that councils provide that information to prospective buyers through their land information memorandum reports. It's a good bill it's a common-sense bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Mr Speaker thanks for the opportunity to take a brief call. This bill has been well-canvassed over the past recent period of time. I don't see any benefit for the House in terms of going over the key points again. I commend this bill to the House.
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): It's always great hearing our chair of the Governance and Administration Committee depositing knowledge into the bigger web of ChatGPT knowledge and all of the databases that we will have into the future as well. I spent the first part of my contribution the second reading in the point about making sure that our land information memorandums are up to date in the face of climate change and this reading speech I wanted to use it on the part about our national security. As we go around the country we see different cities engage with diplomacy whether that's sister cities whether that's exchange programmes for economic development and investment. But more and more and more we see—and I do encourage different cities getting out there and getting out into the world and promoting the best interests of their own cities and their own regions. With that does come risk and responsibility and more interest from other parties across the world and I do think that this makes this Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment legislation extremely important. That's why I commend this bill to the House.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm proud to be a member of a busy Government that is working hard for the people of New Zealand and putting forward as the previous member noted a very important legislation like this law that will really help those areas that are potentially at risk of weather or other natural disasters. So it's an excellent bill we've covered a lot of the work that has been done on it throughout the evening and I think it's important that we get this legislation passed to give that certainty to councils so they have the time to prepare for it. They did ask for that extension of time so that we could ensure they had plenty of time to do all the necessary preparatory work so that they're able to actually comply with the bill. So on that note I commend it to the House.
McLellan Tracey; Dean Jacqui; O'Connor GregDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill — In Committee
Court Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister did the future of local government report give you any insights into how local government might deal with this issue of a lack of revenue funding and financing? Because it's quite clear that they need the money and if central government through Budget appropriations is not going to provide the money because it was not provided in 2021/22 and if this is urgent—I mean the bill's here under urgency—does the future of local government report give the Minister any insights or—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I'm just going to make some reflections on the direction that the member is going. If I have a look at the bill—admittedly for the first time. But as I look at the introduction I find the purpose of this bill is to relate to the provision of natural hazard information in land information memoranda (LIMs)". That's what the bill does; that's the purpose of the bill. And while the member quite rightly asks questions around the financing of extra responsibilities that question has been asked several times—and answered—but it is not the main purpose of the bill so I now invite the member in his further contributions he wishes to make to come more closely to the purpose of the bill.SIMON COURT: I just have one further question for the Minister—one further question. Where we're looking at under "Land information memoranda" Part 6A it requires councils to publish "information about other special features or characteristics of the land concerned including … the likely presence of hazardous contaminants". Does the Minister have any insights as to what the quality of information held by local government around New Zealand is about the presence of hazardous contaminants on private property?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I'm not one to pretend to know something that I don't but this is the information the councils have and it's the sort of information we want prospective buyers to have on their land information memorandums."
Sage Eugenie; McAnulty KieranHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister there were a number of submissions—I think about 13—which highlighted the issues around this phrase in clause 8 44B and 44C of the principal Act about the identification of natural hazards to the extent that the regional council in 44C is satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility" that the hazard or impact may affect the land.I think it goes to the issues that others have raised about the clarity around that because submitters were saying there was a range of interpretation possible around what constituted a "reasonable possibility". So is it the Government's intention—and the department's response was that in that controversial case that Mr McKelvie mentioned in Kāpiti Coast District Council with their coastal hazard information that there the court said that land information memoranda (LIMs) were required to provide information identifying natural hazard events known to the territorial authority if there is a possibility that the events may occur in future. The High Court said that possibility means "a reasonable possibility objectively determined."So the court said that but how that's actually applied in practice—there's quite a lot of leeway there. So is it the intention of the Government to potentially have regulations which might provide a bit more practical guidance to councils so that there's consistency across the country about what "reasonable possibility of a hazard event occurring" actually means in terms of the information that they need put on the LIM?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you. I thank the member the Hon Eugenie Sage for her question; it's a fair one. The intent of this of course—or part of the intent of this—is to provide that consistency across the board. We've got some councils that are providing this information in a more fulsome way than other councils are and it's not like that information isn't there; it's just that because of cases that have been raised by other members in the House there is a not unreasonable threat that there might be legal action against the councils if they wish to go out without such guidance as is provided in this bill.I think that's why we saw with the submissions that there was broad support for this across the local government sector. But it does also account for councils to be able to provide in land information memorandums (LIMs) appropriate qualifications and limitations on the information that they have. I mean essentially you only know what you know and you've only got the information that you've got in front of you but if there is that information there we want to make sure that people who are considering the purchase of property have that readily available to them through LIMs."
Dean JacquiIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill.Dr Tracey McLellan: Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill — Second Reading (continued)
Peke-Mason Soraya; O'Connor GregSORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): It's pleasing to be able to stand and take a short call on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. In light of the destruction from climate change such as severe weather and natural hazards it makes absolute sense to amend the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.I have seen the damage myself from climate change having visited Kahungunu after Gabrielle and let me just say: it's devastating to see this kind of damage from severe weather done to our communities. These amendments will provide that critical and important information for local government to be able to make those better decisions around the location of housing land; whatever it is this bill and the amendments to it will help provide a better foundation for that decision making.I'm not too sure that I understand the anxiety that my colleague over there mentioned earlier but what I can say is that this is an important start—a very important start—in terms of providing another tool that can help us to best manage these issues that we live with in this world today around climate change. I commend this to the House. Kia ora.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I also rise to make a short contribution on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister Kieran McAnulty but also the Governance and Administration Committee—I was not a member. And thank you to the submitters for putting their views forward.It's a really important common-sense bill but important for people in our community who are able to purchase a home. We were one of the areas badly affected by the weather events in Auckland—in South Auckland and Māngere—and a couple of those homeowners are still at quite a loss in terms of what they had to face. This bill that is being introduced in terms of the Act will provide better information which is very valuable for the homeowners. The legislation will be very helpful and provides better understanding for the homeowners. It also provides the specific purpose of the natural hazard information. And on that note it's a good bill. I commend it to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to make a very brief contribution on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill—LGOIMA as my colleague Naisi Chen first introduced in this debate. I'd like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Kieran McAnulty who I know is incredibly passionate about all things to do with local government; also like to acknowledge the members of the Governance and Administration Committee and all of the people that have made considered submissions on this bill. Essentially it's a common-sense bill which in a nutshell just allows homebuyers to have the requisite information that they need going forward and to make good decisions. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Strange Jamie; Dean JacquiJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll also take a short call on this bill at the second reading. I'd like to acknowledge the Minister. I'd like to acknowledge all those who made submissions; it certainly has been well received by our local councils. We see the effects of climate change front and centre—you know there's been a lot of wet events over the past few months we've certainly seen sea-level rise and a bill like this is important as we continue to adapt to that climate change. The reality is as much as probably every New Zealander would like to live in Hamilton or Palmerston North we can't take them all in. I mean that's just the reality. I'm sorry to disappoint New Zealanders here tonight and sort of break the collegial mood but the reality is we basically do have a sense of freedom in our country. People can generally live where they want to. However that has been challenged due to climate change and Hamilton and Palmerston North can't take everyone. So it's important that we continue to work through—providing good support for councils and information for homeowners. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Joseph Mooney—a five-minute call.
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you. I do want to just say I am very enthusiastic about taking my call and so I really want to get up early. The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill—I like to call it LGOIMA. I think that's probably one of the best names of an acronym ever that exists in politics. The LGOIMA I think is an excellent bill.I know my good colleague Rachel Boyack has talked about Nelson and I look at Auckland and the floods that we had over the anniversary weekend. The amount of property in that city and the amount of property that I used to advise on when we were doing conveyancing at the first law firm that I worked for—all of the land information memorandums that we had to go through and all of the information that our clients expected us to provide but we just simply weren't able to.Because I remember looking at those maps those diagrams of flood plains and they were so limited as to what had happened actually. The devastation and the unpreparedness that Auckland City faced during the anniversary weekend—I really do think information is trump in this day and age making sure that we are ready and prepared to face all of the changes that climate change will bring to our little country and I hope we are prepared. So that's why I commend this bill to the House.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I'm going to begin with a few comments about why this bill is such a serious matter and why it's so important. And I want to acknowledge the Minister who I believe has probably visited a lot more regions and councils around the country than the member who just resumed his seat Simon Watts. Because in my electorate of Nelson that had severe floods last year we have one of the most interesting—for the nerds in the room—natural hazards which is the Tāhunanui Slump. And for those of you who are interested in geology and earthquakes and how land moves I would encourage you to look up the history around the Tāhunanui Slump which sits in the Port Hills above Nelson and has moved for hundreds of years as a result of earthquakes and flooding and road building at the foot of the slump—there are natural springs that sit underneath it. If the council were making decisions today they wouldn't allow people to build there. The impact of this natural hazard has affected lives and livelihoods.So for the other side of the House to suggest that somehow this is only of importance to the Parliament—to the people of Tāhunanui who live in that area this type of reform that local government has asked for is of significant importance to them. The importance for them to know through a land information memorandum the natural hazards that are in the area will affect whether people choose to build or buy in certain areas of my electorate. It's really a serious matter. And for those people that are currently not able to live in their homes and suffering extreme financial distress as a result this bill would have made a significant difference to them if it had been in place. So it's an excellent bill. It is of importance to the people of New Zealand affected by these events and I commend it to the House.
Voting — Correction—Business Payment Practices Bill
Court Simon; Dean JacquiVOTINGCorrection—Business Payment Practices BillSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I seek leave from the House to correct the record of the vote on the previous bill where ACT has the proxy vote for Dr Elizabeth Kerekere and it was not cast.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd just like to have the record corrected for the vote on the previous bill the Business Payment Practices Bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just give them the numbers.SIMON COURT: Elizabeth Kerekere one in favour.LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed.
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Voting — Correction—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill
Dean JacquiVOTINGCorrection—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members when the House was considering the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a third time was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 116; Noes 13. The correct result is Ayes 106; Noes 13. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I've got news for Andrew Bayly the member who just resumed his seat this bill applies to large businesses not small businesses. The businesses required to comply with this bill are those that have $33 million in revenue—more than—and $10 million in third-party expenditure. That's not a small business. Small businesses have told us that one of the critical things for them is knowing that they're going to be paid on time.Dr Tracey McLellan: Read the bill.RACHEL BOYACK: Exactly—read the bill. The other side should do that. One of the critical things for a small business is cash flow. While small businesses of course look at income and expenditure on an annual basis—on a regular basis—if they're running their businesses well I'm sure they are but what is critical is cash flow knowing that the goods and services that they are providing that cost them money to both produce and to provide that that money is coming back to them as soon as possible. And we know and certainly I know in my electorate of the odd large business that doesn't pay on time. And I know of small businesses—Todd Muller: Dear oh dear.RACHEL BOYACK: Don't dear oh dear" me because small businesses in my electorate have told me—and if you are suggesting that I'm somehow making that up I'll tell you that small businesses of the Nelson electorate have told me that there are times they don't get paid. They're not lying to me. It's an excellent bill. It's about cash flow to ensure that our small businesses can continue to thrive and I commend it to the House."