edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Look I thank the Minister for his answer to my question a few questions and answers back. It seemed to me what he said in response to my question about whether or not it was necessary to have the word research" in clause 3(b)(i) after he appeared to have previously said that research was done using official statistics—I made the point that maybe research was redundant as a purpose of the bill because if you had official statistics research could be done subsequently. The Minister gave an interesting example. He suggested that the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) which a lot of people regard as an extremely useful and world-leading tool was a good example of—well it wasn't clear if it was official statistics or research. But the fact that the IDI accesses data sets administrative data from a range of departments—education health welfare and so on—and integrates them together would be an example of research that is not necessarily official statistics or at least that's what I thought he was saying.So my question is: when he used that example was he trying to say that the IDI is an example of research or is the IDI an example of official statistics? If he's saying yes the IDI is an example of research then what are the constraints on the use of the IDI? If he comes back and says "Well all of the chief statistician's usual requirements are placed on the IDI for the custodianship of official statistics." then how is it any different calling it research if all of the same constraints and protections are there—why don't we just call it official statistics and save ourselves time which gets us back to the original question of: is it not redundant to say the purpose of this bill is research?"
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Before I ask my question it's not our job to do this but I find myself in strong agreement with the Minister on his response to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's question.The Governance and Administration Committee heard from iwi data groups—one in particular that his name eludes me—and I'm pleased to support the Minister's response which is We can't look over our shoulders." Maybe we haven't treated iwi with the respect they need in a statistical sense in the past. There is a remedy. I think this is very strong and they were very satisfied with the level of engagement and the protection of data as taonga. So I just want to put that on record.But the Minister's distinction of voluntary versus mandatory data collection I think was something of a red herring because if data is provided voluntary it's not subject to this legislation. It's almost a legal paradox to say "We need a law to say you can voluntarily hand over information." So the whole purpose of the bill is for a mandatory framework—a legal framework—for the collection storage and use of data.So my simple question and the reason this is relevant to Part 1 is the Minister pretty much rightly said "Look these questions of research are down in Part 3." But the problem we've got is by the time we get there if we recognise that the purpose clause is wrong we passed Part 1. So I think it is worth dwelling on that bit a little longer. So my question to the Minister is this: when he said last night "The Statistician can only make mandatory requests for data for official statistics not for research." Where in the bill is that made absolutely clear? Because it's not clear to me.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I do think as the member has alluded to that that debate properly belongs in Part 3 and I respect what he's saying. I do think you know we need to be agreed on the purpose and then we need to be sure when we come to Part 3 that we've got the right protections in place.I obviously bring the bill here reasonably confident of that. I think the select committee—and the member sat on the select committee—have done a really thorough and robust job over a full select committee process of designing and developing a bill that strikes the right balance in here that carries over what has worked and served New Zealand well over a period of time. But of course the devil is always in the detail and we do need to work through the specifics I think when we get to that part of the bill."
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you. I think my question was quite clear—I know it's early in the morning for some. But I think what the question to the Minister was is: what is this bill; what are you going to do to mitigate? It wasn't about whether there's a work programme in motion or how you now feel good about the group after you've ignored them. It's more about what the bill is going to do to mitigate that. I didn't hear anything in this and we really would like to have that assurance that while you have ignored the advice and the extensive work that they've done for three years there is some consideration to how you're going to implement any of their recommendations or considerations.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Well I don't think there's much point in engaging too far in name-calling and slanderous accusations on this matter. But I do think there is and experienced a very genuine engagement and a lot of value coming from that relationship and the improvement of the bill as a consequence. I do think that the member fundamentally misunderstands the bill. And if she thinks that removing the value of such reports like this one is a good thing with the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) she's put forward on behalf of the Council for Civil Liberties I think that's a real shame because I do think there is huge value that can be added through the use of statistics for research into improving wellbeing for our peoples for our Māori communities for our Māori businesses and for New Zealanders as a whole. So I simply don't agree. Obviously this is not the place to have the debate about that SOP; that comes into a later part of the Act. But I do want to put on record that I think the member fundamentally misunderstands the bill.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that the Minister's made about the Integrated Data Infrastructure but I certainly would agree with him about the importance of it. I want to just support the point that David Seymour made briefly and then sort of add my own clarification of what the problem is that we're trying to solve. I think we all understand that the intention of the Government is to restrict the Government Statistician's and his or her agents' powers to the collection of data for use in statistical analysis. So we have two things: the collection of the data and the use of the data. The collection of the data is restricted to statistical analysis. The data can also be used for research. Now that's fine I think we'd all understand that and accept it. The problem is that's not what the bill says and that's why the Council for Civil Liberties and Transparency International New Zealand are worried that there can be legislative overreach.Even in the Minister's first call last night—which I'll quote back to the committee because I think it kind of highlights the confusion that we have. Dr Clark said in his first call: Like the Act it replaces the bill only allows Stats NZ to collect data for official statistics and research. To be clear the Statistician can only make mandatory requests for data for official statistics not for research." So they can't make mandatory requests for research and yet that's exactly what the purpose clause says.So I think we're in a situation now where we have a Government and Stats NZ knowing what they want to do and how they want to do it within the legal boundaries but the boundaries are too wide because not only at clause 3(b)(i) but also—and we'll come to this in Part 3 I'm sure but it's relevant to Part 1—clause 22(c) says "if the Statistician considers the data is necessary or desirable to enable the Statistician to produce official statistics or desirable for research" it can collect it. And that doesn't sound to me consistent with the Minister's last call in response to David Seymour.So the point I think both the ACT Party and the National Party are saying is: we understand what the Government wants to do—we get it—but we need to be very careful that in the black-letter law we don't provide an opportunity for the Statistician—and as the Council for Civil Liberties says it is more worried about I think the Statistician's agents under delegated powers to collect more data than they need on the basis that it could be helpful for research in the future. That's not how Stats works but the way Part 1 and Part 3 are worded I agree with Mr Seymour.So my question simply is this: have I understood the Government's intentions right—that is a restriction from collection of data for statistical purposes but the use of it for both statistical analysis and research and if so will the Government consider an amendment to the bill? My amendment is only to Part 3 but I think Part 1 at clause 3(b)(i) I think it is should also be tightened to make clearer what the Minister just said albeit it was a bit confused when he said it last night."
SpeechHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): A few points just to cover off there. The Government Statistician is accountable for every decision made by a delegate. So when we're talking about this delegation—I think it's just important to stress this is a baseline understanding for the House. I'll come to the member's specific question. The bill hardwires in legal obligations regarding independence and confidentiality which apply to any delegate and it is a criminal offence to wrongfully obtain data while acting as a delegate of the Government Statistician—clause 79 of the bill. So there are some really clear protections and what we're setting up here is an ethical framework for the handling of data. Now Stats NZ has two internationally recognised integrated databases: the Integrated Data Infrastructure—the IDI as it's known—contains data about people in households and the Longitudinal Business Database contains linked data about businesses. If the bill did not provide the Statistician the ability to collect data for research then all the data collected from other agencies—like justice education training health benefits and social services—could not be integrated and that would make that database completely worthless. So it is important to have that in there.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister engaging on this question because actually the difference between official statistics and research seems to go to the heart of many of the concerns that have been expressed about the bill. It would seem that official statistics" is a term that implies certain restraints and safeguards around the use of data whereas "research" is a much more generic term and of course the confusion between the two is much compounded by the official statistician's ability to delegate his or her powers thereby meaning that you combine the delegation of powers to other entities with the somewhat more diffuse definition of research and suddenly the restraints around the use of data that imbue trust in the Crown's use of it and allow the Department of Statistics to keep collecting data is suddenly eroded. And that really goes to the heart of the problem that people have raised.While I appreciate the Minister giving a more fulsome definition of the official statistics and research all he's really done in my view is highlight what a problem and contradiction we have in clause 3(b)(i)—and I just note for one member it's not 3(b) "I" it's 3(b) "1". That's what they meant the Romans. They meant "1" when they said that. But in any case it says "(i) enable the trusted collection and use of data for the production of official statistics and for research;". Now it would seem based on what the Minister's given as a definition the facts are if research is something that by definition is done with official statistics then it was redundant to include the "purpose of research" in clause 3(b)(i). So if all research is just using official statistics if official statistics have to be collected before that research can be done then clause 3(b)(i) should just say "collecting data for official statistics" and what happens subsequently is a separate matter. But by using the conjunction "and" and saying "and for research" this clause implies that the purpose of the bill is to collect data for the purposes of research separate from collecting data for the purpose of official statistics. And as soon as you bring in that confusion the whole purpose of the bill means that we potentially have the collection of data for purposes that won't be constrained by the usual restraints that we expect for official statistics. So of course the fact that there are two parts of the bill about this Part 4 and Part 5 defining "official statistics" and defining "research" I think brings home the point more clearly. So in terms of a question to the Minister would he consider amending clause 3(b)(i) to the effect that "the purpose of this Act is collect data for official statistics."? If research happens subsequent to that that's another matter but it shouldn't have the purpose of collecting for both."
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the member I'd like to inform the House that we've received two new tabled amendments from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. These are available on the Table and on the House papers page. If we receive new tabled amendments I'll advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. I call on David Seymour.
Wednesday 3 August 2022 - Volume 761
Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 37New Zealand National 27 (Bayly Brownlee Collins Dean Doocey Grigg Hipango Kuriger Luxon McClay McKelvie Mitchell Mooney Muller Penk Pugh Reti Simpson Smith Stanford Uffindell Upston Watts Willis); ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 81New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; New Zealand National 6 (Brown Goldsmith Lee Simmonds van de Molen Woodhouse).Motion not agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteSPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on He Puna Hau Pātiki: 2022 Investment Statement.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to. Report noted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43 New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I have a very nice note from Rino Tirikatene warning me that a waiata will be sung at the conclusion of the vote and permission is granted for that to occur. WaiataHaka
Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill — Third Reading
8. Question No. 8—Economic and Regional DevelopmentANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister for Economic and Regional DevelopmentQuestion No. 8—Economic and Regional Development8. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What recent announcements has he made on Government support for the regional economy?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): During the recess I had the very great pleasure to announce several new initiatives supporting the regional economies all across New Zealand. I announced the fourth fifth and sixth investments of the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund as well as a major investment from the Major Events Fund. The investments from the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund were a $6 million loan to a Southland-based oat milk producer Functional Foods; a $1.75 million loan to a Levin-based sustainable timber manufacturer Techlam; and $2 million investment of either a loan or equity stake in Rangitīkei-based sustainable plastic product manufacturer Plentyful. The investment from the Major Events Fund was an $8.1 million grant to support the delivery of six Crankworx Rotorua mountain bike events. It will also secure the future of up to 24 summer series events hosted across the South Island.Anna Lorck: What are the benefits of investments from the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund?Hon STUART NASH: The Government set up the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund to build more productive resilient and sustainable regional economies. For Functional Foods we know we grow oats well in Southland and their being low in water use land use and emissions means they are an excellent raw ingredient for an environmentally sustainable alternative milk option. Producing oat milk locally is a lucrative way to diversify our strength as a quality-food producer. Both Techlam and Plentyful are paving the way for sustainability in the high-tech industry. With their cutting-edge environmentally friendly manufacturing processes from framing for houses to paper packaging for pies there are many products that can be made more sustainably and with a better fit for the circular economy and these companies are at the forefront of this sector-wide shift.Anna Lorck: What are the benefits of investment in the Major Events Fund?Hon STUART NASH: We've held Crankworx events in New Zealand for the past seven years and they have all been highly successful. The cumulative economic impact of the 2015-2021 events has been independently assessed at over $25.9 million which doesn't include the ongoing economic benefit of international visitors who spend on travel beyond the event. This funding will also support extended summer series events which will help distribute social and economic benefits across our South Island communities—in particular to Central Otago Queenstown and Wanaka. You're welcome Joseph Mooney and I'll see you there.
Stanford EricaInstruction to Justice CommitteeERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Point of order. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate regarding Supplementary Order Paper 175 in my name.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.ERICA STANFORD: I move That Supplementary Order Paper 175 in my name be considered by the Justice Committee alongside the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill and that if it thinks fit the committee may recommend amendments to the House.Motion agreed to.
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — In Committee
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to start by following in the footsteps of my Environment Committee colleague the Hon Scott Simpson in congratulating the member for ushering this bill through the select committee process and this House. Now on the Environment Committee we didn't visit the site but we did get very good visual material of the site and we saw the different uses that the land is put to. One of those uses is a tennis court and I believe there is a tennis club and it has a lease to use that land. So my question is really if we could have an explanation of what is going to happen to these existing leases. Thank you.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I just have one question—not so much related to the substance of the bill that I think is actually in very good shape but in relation to why we're here on a members' day in the committee of the whole House considering this Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment bill. The reason I ask that is because for the better part of the last hundred-and-something years this Parliament would pass a bill that since 1906 was an annual process and since about the 1930s was called the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. And then in the 1980s it happened every three or four years. Then we certainly hit quicksand under the Key-English Government because of a sticky issue that was part of a bill that was introduced in 2009. But my question to the member is: did he or the Palmerston North City Council pop along to the Minister for Land Information—and if he hadn't he could perhaps do that now; he's not that far away from him—and find out why it is that it was necessary to use members' day time to do what is a pretty straightforward thing but which had in the past happened multiple times?The reason I ask that is because if it becomes the sort of the precedent that a city or district council has to come to Parliament to free up land or otherwise dispose of it or do something different from what the reserve requirements had of it then members' day will become a bit crowded with local bills for that purpose. So I am quite interested—I can't ask the Minister for Land Information because it's not his bill but I would be interested in hearing from the member in charge of this bill what the circumstances were that led to us being here talking about a local bill. I think that's quite an important aspect of the framework we might be using in the future for bills of this type.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order Mr Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that clauses 1 to 6 stand part.
SpeechPALMERSTON NORTH RESERVES EMPOWERING AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the House is in committee on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. It would be helpful if members have questions that they put them together for the member in charge during their call. Members we now come to the debate on clause 1.
SpeechPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Marion Maw requesting that the House urge that people living with obsessive-compulsive disorder have timely and equitable access to effective therapy.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK:Real Estate Authority statement of performance expectations for the year ended 30 June 2023.report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill.Hon David Bennett: Ha!SPEAKER: I am on my feet Mr Bennett. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Controller and Auditor-General annual plan 2022/23.SPEAKER: The annual plan of the Controller and Auditor-General is set down for consideration.
SpeechWEDNESDAY 3 AUGUST 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Thursday 11 August 2022 - Volume 761
Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2 and new clause 2A
VoteHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move Supplementary Order Paper 210 dividing the bill. A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.The bill was divided into the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Bill and the Children and Young People's Commission Bill.Bills to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The committee has further considered the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill and reports it with amendment and divided into the following bills: Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Bill and Children and Young People's Commission Bill. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 53New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 55New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that clause 2 as amended stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 53New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Karen Chhour's amendment inserting new clause 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 53New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Amendment not agreed to.
9. Question No. 9—HealthBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: How many nurses are currently needed to eliminate shortages within the health system and has this number increased since he stated in April We are about 3000 nurses short in our public health system. In the private sector aged retirement it's roughly 1000 nurses"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): As of 31 March this year there are recorded 3335 vacant nursing fulltime-equivalent positions in our public health system. The number of nurses working in our public health system has increased by about 2000 since this Government was elected. In regard to the private aged-care sector there are a number of private data sets that suggest the number of vacancies is roughly the figure that the member has referred to although the latest figure I've seen suggests it's about 900—but 900-1000. As I've already said today there are a number of measures being taken to address health workforce shortages.Brooke van Velden: Why then in reply to my written question No. 24316 does he state that we need 4700 nurses to eliminate the shortage and is this a case of the Minister being unaware of the needs of our nurses and the health system?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No it's the fact that there are a range of data sets around some of which combine both public and private health nurse vacancies; some of which separate them out. I suspect that figure was a combination of both public and private nurse vacancies.Brooke van Velden: Is the Minister aware that between January and March 2021 Australia had over 418 more nurses caring for every 100000 of their citizens than New Zealand did and if the Minister is aware of this why did his Government not put nurses on the Green List straight-to-residence pathway?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not quite sure what the relevance of figures more than 18 months ago are to the current situation. There is a worldwide shortage of nurses. The United Kingdom has a shortage of registered nurses of roughly 50000. Australia has a massive shortage of registered nurses. We have a shortage of registered nurses. We have changed our immigration policies and established the Green List which now makes it easier than ever before for health workers in particular to cross our border and take up jobs here. They are queuing up and they are taking jobs here.Brooke van Velden: Does the Minister agree that his Government has neglected the healthcare sector when the number of nurses working per 100000 New Zealanders has only increased by 5.57 percent since March 2028; yet during that same time period the number of nurses working for every 100000 Australians increased by over 13 percent?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No and I'm not quite sure why the member referred to the month of March 2028."
5. Question No. 5—WomenANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 5—WomenANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. [Removes mask] Bit of a fashion—DEPUTY SPEAKER: What was that?ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Sorry [Holds up mask] I—DEPUTY SPEAKER: You—just read the question.5. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Women: What progress has been made to ensure greater diversity and representation of women on public boards?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Last week I released the results of the annual stocktake of public sector boards and committees untaken annually by Manatū Wāhine Ministry for Women. I'm pleased to inform the House that as of December 2021 women now hold 52.5 percent of positions on Cabinet-appointed public sector boards and committees. This is the greatest ever percentage. Over 2021 54.6 percent of new appointments were women and this is the second consecutive year we have met Cabinet's 2018 target of 50 percent for women's representation. There is no shortage of various skilled women for governance roles and I am glad many are able to strengthen the governance on public sector boards.Angie Warren-Clark: What improvements have been made to the collection of ethnicity data on public boards?Hon JAN TINETTI: We have received ethnicity data for 98.9 percent of board members. The results show gradual improvement in the ethnic diversity of our board members. Compared with 2020 we have seen increases in the representation of Māori Pacific Asian and Middle Eastern Latin American and African board members. We are committed to increasing ethnic diversity across public sector boards and Manatū Wāhine have been working collaboratively with the Ministry for Pacific Peoples the Ministry for Ethnic Communities and the new Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People and Te Puni Kōkiri to support the development of a pipeline of diverse board-ready candidates. The cross-agency group recently hosted an online webinar focused on preparing a good governance CV which was very well attended. More sessions are planned over the coming months.Angie Warren-Clark: Why is having diverse representation on boards important?Hon JAN TINETTI: It is important that public boards have the relevant skills and expertise and reflect the vibrant diversity of our country. The facts prove that diverse boards bring a wider range of knowledge expertise and skill which of course can only be of benefit to the organisation the board is governing. By making our organisations and boards that govern them more inviting environments for under-represented groups we will attract and retain the best talent and we'll better understand the needs of clients and the wider public. I would like to thank my Cabinet colleagues for nominating and appointing such a talented and diverse group of candidates. I look forward to further diversity across all governance boards in the future.
3. Question No. 3—Arts Culture and HeritageANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Arts Culture and HeritageQuestion No. 3—Arts Culture and Heritage3. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage: What announcements has she made about supporting jobs in the arts sector?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): Last week I had the pleasure of announcing the extension of the successful Aotearoa Touring Programme at the Pacific Music Awards 2022. The programme has been extended until June 2023 and sees an additional investment of $1.5 million. Extending the programme assists the ongoing recovery of domestic music touring and supports the thriving hospitality sector. The programme has a focus on tours that reach beyond the main cities into the regions so that all New Zealanders can experience the magic of live performance. The impacts of COVID-19 were felt particularly hard in Aotearoa's live music scene and with the Government's backing our home-grown musicians can continue their road to recovery.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is this announcement important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This announcement is important because it will continue to help save jobs and protect the livelihoods of artists and musicians who make a living from putting on performances and shows. The Aotearoa Touring Programme to date has supported more than 1700 shows and over 250 artists. It's also estimated that around 200000 New Zealanders have been able to attend shows as a result of the programme. We know the Aotearoa Touring Programme has been successful supporting artists and household names like TEEKS Drax Project Nadia Reid Stan Walker Reb Fountain and Shapeshifter. [Multiple members interject] Not everyone in the House will know all of those people! That's why extending it is important so more Kiwis can enjoy the best of home-grown talent and live music.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What feedback has she seen on the Aotearoa Touring Programme? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Singer and songwriter Reb Fountain said Funding touring with the Aotearoa Touring Programme is the most viable way of supporting musicians to do their work to employ crew and venues and bring entertainment to folks across Aotearoa." She goes on to say "It's great to see the Government prioritising our community and ensuring we can provide exceptional music events for all. Long may that continue." When the heat is on the beat goes on!Hon Grant Robertson: Would the Minister be surprised to learn that funding such as this has been described in this House by MPs as "crap" and what would her response be to that?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: My response would be—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me have a think about that. Hon Grant Robertson: It was a direct quote.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah so far as the Minister has responsibility she can answer.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: My response to that would be that that really is an indication of how out of touch some of the ACT and National Party members really are."
Screen Industry Workers Bill — Second Reading
Rurawhe AdrianDEPUTY SPEAKER: Members this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 23 August 2022. Mauri ora ki a tātou. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. It is no surprise—I guess for us on this side of the House—that members opposite are in opposition because it seems that any time that this Government does anything to help employees get ahead in the workplace they say No. We're not having that. No power to employees. We're not interested in looking after employees. Full stop. Not interested. Not interested."As of 2018 there are 15000 people doing screen production and post-production work in this industry. Of those workers 85 percent—12800—were hired contractors. They were often employed on a "take it or leave it" basis: "This is what we're offering you. Take it or leave it. Whether it's worth your while or not." If you're desperate for work you'll take it. There's been no ability for them to have standard contracts.Regardless of whether someone is union member what does it matter? They are still a human being and an employee that needs to make a living in order to live a good life. That is what this bill is about; it is about looking after employees ensuring that people have the ability to have access to standard contracts and are looked after in their workplace. I commend this bill to the House."
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Mr Chair and I apologise for my tardiness. In terms of addressing the committee and speaking to the title and the commencement I understand my colleague Karen Chhour has spoken to her Supplementary Order Paper in relation to that. Again I impress to the Minister the importance of the relevance and the significance that in terms of the commencement of this bill the priority and the emphasis and the public opinion that's come through is that this should not be proceeding. So commencement is something that is not factoring in the minds in the supportive mode of our New Zealand community. The commencement as is stated in the bill is for this to come into force on the earlier of the following: a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council—interestingly a former Commissioner for Children our Governor-General who will be signing off on this when it does come before her—or 1 July 2023 next year. So insofar as commencement the submission is and the proposal is that this not commence until at least six months after the report back from the royal commission of inquiry into those who have been abused in State care.So in speaking to clause 2 the commencement it's really the proposition and the public opinion that there be a deferment rather than commencement taking into account—and that this Government should accordingly do so—heed and recognise the relevance and significance of the royal commission of inquiry and the lived experience of those who have been abused in State ill-care welfare State care.So with the remaining minutes and moments that are left on this in addressing the commencement seeking a deferment which takes into account public opinion rather than Government convenience and expediency and that in concluding—not that it's going to happen but certainly getting it out in the public domain and on the record for the benefit of the public who have been supportive of this all the way along. This bill should not be proceeding. It should not be commencing as of 1 July 2023 or an earlier date appointed by the Governor-General. This is flawed legislation to be and that in talking to the title I said that this really should be about how blind this Government is how deaf this Government is in saying that this is an oversight with the wraparound of three entities to provide that for our people who've been experienced in State care—welfare ill-care. This is an absolute dismissal an overlooking of the concerns and the regards of those who have experienced to their detriment what the Government has previously done and is striving to do so now with this commencement if it's signed off.
SpeechANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well thank you Mr Chair. The bill that we're considering—we've come pretty much to the end of the committee stage but we're at the point where we are I think unless I've got it wrong discussing matters relating to the title and commencement. One of the issues that I would like to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Carmel Sepuloni is about the title of the bill. It's pretty innocuous and I'm just wondering whether the Minister might be able to give us some information as to the detail as to what advice she received from officials on the particular wording of the bill and why the word oversight" was used when actually many people—laypeople who watch the proceedings relating to this agency—would think that often it's a matter of "undersight" rather than oversight. If the Minister could give me some kind of insight into the reason for the use of "oversight" rather than "undersight" I'd appreciate it."
O'Connor GregOVERSIGHT OF ORANGA TAMARIKI SYSTEM AND CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S COMMISSION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 10 August.Clauses 1 and 2 and new clause 2A (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill. I'll remind members that they're able to participate remotely. If you're on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I'll advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during the call. When we were last debating the bill we were debating clauses 1 and 2 and new clause 2A. The question is that—Tim van de Molen: Mr Speaker?Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I couldn't help but notice that you'd started the vote. It wouldn't be appropriate to take the call.Tim van de Molen: The Standing Orders are quite clear that anyone can seek the call up until the point that you put the vote and you had only started posing the question. So we're not indeed seeking the vote at that point.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Yes the member is correct. I hadn't actually put the question. So I'll give the Hon Scott Simpson the call."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on this piece of legislation. What we have with this piece of legislation—it's an important piece of legislation. We've heard today about the economic performance of forestry here in New Zealand and we've heard about the importance of the right tree in the right place whilst also we've heard about the importance of overseas investors being able to invest here in New Zealand. This piece of legislation I think puts all of those three into perspective and into a good balance. It's been very well-traversed on all sides of the House so I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
SpeechTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): It's a Thursday afternoon. Look I just want to absolutely agree with that previous member Dan Rosewarne who's just resumed his seat. He spoke wisely about the importance of forestry. We talk about the right forests in the right place for the right reasons. Everything that we've done and we've traversed this quite thoroughly in the select committee process in the committee of the whole House—but forestry is actually lifeblood. It's livelihood where I come from in the central North Island. It was off the backs of our grandparents who built the Kaingaroa Forest tree after tree. They wanted to make sure that it was a successful industry and successful economy for New Zealanders going forward for their children and their grandchildren. What we're doing here is we're streamlining things. We're making it more fair. The removal of the special forestry test only means that conversions are now treated the same as any other overseas investment in non-urban land. I commend it to the House.
SpeechDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Good afternoon Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to be taking a call on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. This Government welcomes sustainable inclusive and productive overseas investment. This Government has simplified the Overseas Investment Act by cutting unnecessary red tape and reduced the number of low-risk transactions being screened. We also want to make sure that the overseas investment continues to strongly benefit New Zealand and this bill does that. The removal of special forestry tests only means that conversions are now treated the same as any other overseas investment in non-urban land. So I commend this bill to the House.
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker for this opportunity to speak on the third reading—my third time speaking on this bill. We have had a problem of forest conversion for plantation being incentivised in a way that was predicted to be a good thing and now the tools need to be change. So it's important to note that this has always been about plantation forestry and it's not about carbon forestry. Plantation forestry—those trees get pruned and harvested. And I know a little bit about this: it might surprise you Mr Speaker and other members that one of my summer student jobs was in fact harvesting a pine plantation primary harvest. It was a very hard job and I didn't go back the next summer. So I appreciate the hard work that goes into forestry.Of course forestry is important for New Zealand and the production of timber is obviously going to be very important in the decarbonisation of our construction industry in particular. We've heard from other speeches that the rural community in particular has raised concerns with too much of this plantation forestry from overseas investors and the Government has responded to that with this bill. So on that note I commend it to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): First of all I'd like to congratulate you on your appointment as a Speaker. It's really a great pleasure to see. I just want to talk in support of this Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill for a minute in opposition to what I've just heard from Tim van de Molen. I actually believe there is a place for Government to meddle in the markets and I think this is a really good example of it being done intelligently. It was not acceptable when we were selling land without control. Land is very special and that's been pointed out by the Minister in charge of this bill several times. He's talked about the value of that land and indeed the word taonga" might be the word most appropriately used. What this bill does is it balances the needs of our society. This is long-term investment. It takes back the test from where it was to a better position and it puts it under the "benefit to New Zealand" test. Just to reassure those listening as to what that means in this specific circumstance one of the things that will be asked is: are the benefits to New Zealand proportionate to the sensitivity of the land? That will depend on the quality of that land. So one of the things that will happen as a practical result is that high-quality land will likely not be sold under this test but low-quality land which is not suitable for farming will be. I think that's a really important balance and I commend this bill to the House."