edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Mr Speaker. I don't wish to prolong the debate unduly following on from the very helpful comments from Minister Sepuloni and my near namesake on the other side of the House. I wish to really make two points. One is to carry on from the point that Mr Woodhouse was making about the critical importance of maintaining the independence of the Office of the Clerk. I think that is an important point to make in this debate. It's about what the bill does not do and in my view the bill as it is constructed is pretty carefully constructed to ensure that that independence is retained. I think in my own relatively limited parliamentary experience about one episode where I was chairing a select committee and I had before me an amendment to quite an important piece of legislation and it was my job to rule whether that amendment was in or out of order. The Clerk quite fearlessly gave advice that was clearly not the advice that I was minded to follow. That was an example and I did not follow it. That was a very good example—SPEAKER: The member was wrong.MICHAEL WOOD: —of the way in which the—I won't get into an argument with you now about that Mr Speaker. That would be entirely out of order. But that was a very good example of the role that the Clerk plays in this place and were the services of Parliamentary Service (PS) and the Office of the Clerk to be merged it would be an odd situation in which PS which in many ways is a provider of services to members of this House would also be potentially an organisation which should also be providing free and frank and fearless advice which is very much the role of the Clerk. So preserving that line is extremely important and myself and the Labour Party are very satisfied that that is achieved. Certainly through reviewing the comments of the Clerk through this process it would appear that the Clerk agrees as well and that gives us I think great confidence. The other thing I want to touch on briefly is the way in which I think the provisions of this bill which do allow certain functions of the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service to work more closely together can help us with some of the cultural changes and practices that are recommended by the Francis report. It is a reality of this place—which is you know a close and often challenging working environment—that with effectively three major agencies the Office of the Clerk Ministerial Services and Parliamentary Service all operating within their spheres but overlapping at times that does create I think probably some challenges in terms of reporting lines accountabilities and where to go if certain issues arise. So I think anything which helps to modernise make more efficient and allow those organisations to collaborate together more closely while retaining their core functions is an important and valuable step. So with those two points in mind I happily commend the bill to the House.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party and the shadow Leader of the House to confirm our party's support for this bill at second and subsequent readings and I will be the only one taking a call. I think as the Minister has indicated that this is at least on the face of it a relatively straightforward bill and we will continue to support it but there is a slight qualification in that. But can I first take this opportunity actually to express my admiration for the quality of the support that is received from both the Clerk's Office and the Parliamentary Service. Overwhelmingly members and the public are extremely well served by the work that they do. The Minister mentioned for example school visits. I'm well aware not only of the work that goes on when schools come here to this place but also your initiatives in taking—Hon Clare Curran: That's right. Hear hear!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —the Parliament out to the schools. The Hon Clare Curran and I have benefited from that and so did the—Hon Clare Curran: We learnt a thing or two.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: We certainly did learn a few things. Certainly we benefited from the experience at Bathgate Park School in my case in the not too distant past. My caveat is this though. Quite rightly I think both Minister Hipkins at first reading and the Minister in the second reading have identified the purpose of the bill as the sharing of certain corporate services—I quote the select committee report: the sharing of certain corporate services between the parliamentary agencies to enable cost efficiencies. The Clerk of the House told us he did not see this bill as a first step in merging the two agencies;". That is certainly not the intention but the bill is worded in a way that makes that quite possible.Clauses 4(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) and (c) make it very clear that the Clerk may delegate any of the Clerk's functions to a deputy to the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service or an employee of the Parliamentary Service—any of the Clerk's functions. Now the Minister mentioned parliamentary engagement IT school visits—essentially back-office functions. That's not what the bill says. And conversely the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service may delegate any function duty or power to and including the Clerk or Deputy Clerk. We do have I think actually a bit of a blurring of the lines in an appointment or two that have been made between the two entities. So I simply raise this as a means of putting on record my concern and the party's concern that the intention of the bill actually be followed in practice and that we don't as the Clerk of the House told the select committee drift into a blurring of the key functions. I do believe that that independence that was articulated by the previous Clerk Mary Harris is absolutely fundamental to the excellent support that we would continue to receive. With that not immaterial—but I don't want to overstate the caveat; with those comments I want to just confirm our party's support at second reading."
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my job to have the final word on these bills and can I echo everything everyone has said in terms of this being about housekeeping and bringing together a number of pieces of legislation that needed fixing up. On this side of the House we seem to be fixing things up all the time and that's why this may just seem trivial but absolutely not. We are making life easier for Kiwis all over New Zealand in a whole range of ways and ensuring that they can do business that their lives in terms of their everyday know how and can-do is improved. So I'm proud that this is in front of us this evening as we finish off quite an important afternoon. I commend these bills to the House.Bills read a third time.
Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I stand to commend the regulatory systems amendment bills to the House. These are fairly routine fix-ups to pieces of legislation clarifying and updating statutory provisions addressing regulatory duplication and keeping the system up to date and relevant. I sit on the Regulations Review Committee and what is clear is that New Zealand's regulatory system is incredibly complex. Officials can't tell us how many regulations we have which seems extraordinary but is in fact the case. So there is a big project under way at the moment to bring all of our regulations together into one place so that there is more transparency about what they are and they're more readily available to New Zealanders.These sorts of bills are the kinds of exercises that need to occur regularly to ensure that those regulations are in good shape and I commend them to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak briefly on these bills. The one part I'd like to point out that I think is a good change that's included in the vast array of small technical changes in these omnibus bills is the change in Business Connect in terms of what that does to make it easier for businesses to deal with Government. So instead of filling out forms time and time again this would enable one business to fill out a permit or other types of regulatory requirements in one place. If you already have a New Zealand Business Number it automatically populates all of your details into those forms. So for small-business owners in New Zealand those people that take a lot of time to do all their own paperwork this bill provides an excellent mechanism to make daily life easier. So I commend this Government for taking the initiative to put into practice basic steps to make life for those small-business owners easier on a daily basis. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It's a privilege to stand at the end of a busy week—5.30 on a Thursday—for this legislation which basically is a bit like spring cleaning. You go around your house and you tidy up a few areas sort them out. Sometimes it might take me a few hours; it might take the wife just 20 or 30 minutes. She's a lot more effective at that type of thing. An omnibus bill basically has 20 bills chucks them all together and sorts them out as opposed to taking up quite a bit of parliamentary time as opposed to getting them all through the select committee and probably having a much less efficient rate.Just four different bills I'd like to talk about briefly. The amendments it makes to the Companies Act 1993 basically get rid of a wee bit of red tape enough to make a difference. Often people are very busy when they're trying to register a company and maintain company records and so forth every year. The second area I'm quite excited about is the Limited Partnerships Act 2008. Again it looks at compliance costs and it prohibits a bankrupt for directly or indirectly taking part in management of a company. Thirdly amendments to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 basically clarifies and gives clearer definitions and updates those provisions to give the effect to the purpose of the Act which it was originally set up for 17 years ago. Finally the amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1986 are basically changes around safety standards by clarifying what defines a good.It's good legislation and I'd just like to acknowledge the hard work of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. From what I hear they do a good job and I commend these bills to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I will stand to make a short contribution on these omnibus bills. They are as has been mentioned previously housekeeping matters. What they ultimately do is to clarify the purpose of various pieces of legislation and indeed make the regulatory environment fairer as well. So there might be technical reasonably minor tweaks to various pieces of legislation but ultimately what it does is to make the law clearer to make the regulatory environment fairer and ultimately specific groups of people better off. For example in one part of it in terms of the housing amendment it reduces the administrative burden that's placed on registered community housing providers and it ups the penalties for those who breach the code of practice when it comes to retirement villages as well. So ultimately this is important to specific groups of people it makes life fairer for them and I commend the bill to the House.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the regulatory systems amendment bills third reading. This is a great example of good National Party legislation; it's cleaning up regulation cutting red tape making it easier to do business. It's the type of thing which we need to see more of here in this House. This is amending 20 pieces of legislation in one go. I think that's efficient use of Parliament's time and because it's such efficient use of Parliament's time I don't think I should be taking up any more of it. I commend the bills to the House.
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support these regulatory systems amendment bills. I agree with the former speaker the Hon Shane Jones who talked about them being house-cleaning bills. And I would just give you one tiny example: this legislation deals with geographical indicators for wine and spirits and it simply details the scenario where the registration has expired and instead of taking it off the register which is the status quo it'll stay there; a good example of house-cleaning. It amends 14 Acts in the workforce housing and economic development areas. I note the comments from Alastair Scott around identifying regulations the need for greater transparency—I know that's been a conversation in other parliamentary circles and I think it is something we need to do to evolve and modernise our Parliament because this is how much of modern lawmaking actually occurs. A key area I spoke on in my first reading speech on this legislation which was picked up by Poto Williams was around parental leave when the situation arises where a spouse dies. And as she pointed out this wasn't anticipated in the original legislation or original regulations but for a very small amount of cases this tragedy can have a huge impact. And here's an example where housekeeping can make a difference for Kiwis suffering in tragedy or in simple more prosaic cases when it comes to registration for wine and spirits. The Green Party stands for improving regulation simplifying it making it more transparent and understandable and that's why we're pleased to support it tonight.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you for inviting me to speak on the regulatory systems amendment bills.SPEAKER: I wouldn't go that far. ANDREW BAYLY: What a hodgepodge speech that was from the Hon Shane Jones; to not know that his colleague had been made a Minister some months ago I just find very very intriguing. And of course he did invite us to maybe help him with what he might do if he left Parliament. I'm just saying publicly that if he wants some vocational training or options I'm very available and I'm sure some of our colleagues on this side of the House would be very helpful in terms of what he might do post-politics. SPEAKER: Well they've already done that once for him but I probably shouldn't interject that. ANDREW BAYLY: Well OK—we've had a wide range and number of speakers talking on the whole aspect to these bills. There's a whole stack of stuff as you know. I just thought I would speak very briefly on their amendments to the Insolvency Act 2006. And this is about bringing up to date some of the elements in the bankruptcy provisions in that particular Act. Specifically what this bill does is it clarifies the value of the tools of—if someone was a builder for instance it means the official assignee who is of course as Mr Speaker will know a court official who actually distributes assets held by a bankrupt and when they distribute that to creditors. What this bill does is it provides some element of flexibility around allowing the people the bankruptcy person to actually have access to their tools so they can continue making a living. Also there are some things around requiring rules stopping bankruptcy people actually going away and working for relatives regardless of whether they're rewarded for that work or not and they must actually get consent for that. Also I think the requirement to provide that official signee with some information—there's certainly stuff around their details their contact details but also where they live and all that sort of stuff which is very very important. But also when a creditor makes a claim and this happens often in bankruptcy arrangements someone will put the company into receivership. That will trigger a distribution after some time and at that point creditors sometimes become aware that they are potentially—there's an option of actually receiving some of the proceeds from the distribution and they make a late claim after the original list of creditors has been formed. What this clarifies is that those people will not miss out and I think it's a very important provision for creditors because after all in this situation we want to see creditors paid as much as they should be entitled to. I think there's also some rules around providing undistributed moneys in the event that there's money left over after a bankruptcy to go to the public trust. Again a good set of provisions and I think an important contribution to the Insolvency Act.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look very very pleased to say what will be a short call. Obviously three cognate bills I just want to keep mine around the amendments to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act of 1992 and that's of course within the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2)—one of the three. Look it's a very very simple change. It applies to community housing providers. It basically says the register that's required of a community housing provider that's to be recognised if you will by the Crown does no longer require that all the details of the provider's board members be provided. They don't have to provided that that board member is no longer a member of the community housing provider at the time—at the time—they get recognised by the Government. So a very simple example is if someone's on the board of community housing provider X and over the course of the year—half way through—that person resigns or steps away and a week later the organisation gets community funding the names don't have to be there. So a very simple technical change.But I'll finish on two points. One is it will be welcomed by the sector in the way anything that makes things more efficient always is. Secondly just to acknowledge the important work the community housing sector does. So it is not an overly emotional or deep change but an important one and I commend the legislation to the House.
Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I will make a few comments—I won't be as long as the Minister Iain Lees-Galloway—in supporting the three bills at the third reading stage. There are a number of Acts as the Minister quite rightly said—14 Acts in fact—affected by this legislation.The one point I'd like to make is that a small change in select committee occurred where clause 7—I'm just going to if I may Mr Speaker—was introduced in the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2) but it had already been affected by a change in the insolvency practitioners regulations just recently. It involved the issue of being a liquidator and the rules around being a liquidator. So it was interesting that this bill was trying to amend that situation around the ability of a person to be a liquidator but it had already been done over here in another bill earlier. You wonder with these repairs and maintenance type bills how often that happens and what regulations are not picked up. It was good that this was picked up but I'm sure there will be situations where regulations are duplicated in other words. I would like to note to the House that there is a good piece of work going on right now which endeavours to grab all of the regulations around Parliament into one portal or into one spot so that we can understand and know where all the regulations relating to a particular issue might be. So that's a bit of work that is going on at the moment and that will assist us all in discovering areas of duplication in matters that have been picked up by the select committee in this instance. With that I commend this bill to the House.
Business Statement (continued)
End of Life Choice Bill — Procedure
Brownlee Gerry; Hipkins ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Noting that the House is looking like it's going to have to gather pace finally as we head towards the end of the year can we expect the Government to make some time to pass the Kermadec protection bill which has been on the Order Paper for quite some time and was an initiative of the previous Government?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course this is a very busy Government and we've got a very busy legislative agenda with a lot of business that we're aiming to progress this side of Christmas. I regret to advise the member that that's not one of them.
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorEND OF LIFE CHOICE BILLProcedureHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following discussions between the parties I seek leave for the debate on the third reading of the End of Life Choice Bill to consist of eight 10-minute speeches and 20 five-minute speeches.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Hipkins ChrisTHURSDAY 7 NOVEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the second readings of the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill; the third readings of the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill and the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill; and the further stages of the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill. Wednesday 13 November will be a members' day and will feature the third reading of the End of Life Choice Bill.
Wednesday 6 November 2019 - Volume 742
Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill — In Committee
Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill — In Committee
3. Question No. 3—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today Stats New Zealand released labour market statistics showing that unemployment continues near historical lows and that employment and wages continue to grow. The unemployment rate of 4.2 percent is the third-lowest in the last decade—slightly up from the 11-year low of 3.9 percent last quarter but below the 4.7 percent unemployment rate that we inherited from the previous Government. Today's data showed 81000 more people are employed under this Government and the number of unemployed people has dropped by 12000 since we came into office. This is a good result showing the New Zealand economy remaining strong amid the global headwinds. Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on wage growth in the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Good news worth repeating. The average ordinary time hourly earnings continued to grow above 4 percent over the past year with growth of 4.2 percent. By another measure the labour cost index Stats New Zealand said wages were rising at their fastest rate in a decade. The data today shows average ordinary time earnings up by $83 a week since the coalition Government took office. This means that working New Zealanders are getting more money in their back pockets and employers are investing in their workers under the coalition Government's economic plan. Kiritapu Allan: What reactions has he seen to the unemployment figures? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Reactions from economists noted that the 4.2 percent unemployment rate indicated near to full employment in the economy and acknowledged that the rate will move around quarter to quarter. Westpac economist Michael Gordon said today's low unemployment rate would be a modestly positive surprise for the Reserve Bank which had forecast 4.4 percent. He said that the unemployment rate remained low and that over the last year it had flattened off instead of rising as some had expected. I am proud to be part of a Government that is keeping our unemployment rate near historical lows at a time when the global headwinds are getting stronger and uncertainty is increasing due to the US-China trade war and Brexit. The New Zealand economy is in good shape.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements and policies? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were made and implemented. Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he stand by his economic policies when today's labour market statistics show the job growth boom his Government inherited has slowed dramatically along with the economy generally? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can certainly say that when I look at the statistics today they show that unemployment is down 12000 since we came into office and on every category—overall unemployment unemployment for men unemployment for women unemployment for Māori and unemployment for young people—all are down since we came into office. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it true that during his two years in Government new jobs have been created at well less than half the rate they were created under the last two years of the National Government? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do know is true is that there are 81000 more jobs since we got into Government 6000 in the last quarter and the underutilisation rate is down. The member is just so negative. He can see the negative in everything and not the positive signs that are going on in the economy. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think there are an additional 22000 people on job seeker benefits after two years of his Government? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This has been covered a number of times in the House. To start with there are more people. We are in a different part of the economic cycle. But the bottom line is that the unemployment rate that we see in New Zealand today is the third-lowest in a decade. The other two lowest were also under this Government. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he surprised that the number of Kiwi young people not in education employment and training has gone up despite the tens of millions of dollars that Willie Jackson has spent on programmes? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well interestingly when you look at the rates of NEETs of people not in employment education or training the area that Mr Jackson's targeting—15- to 19-year-olds—that's gone down. Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Can the Minister confirm that underutilisation is at an 11-year low and that wage growth is at a 10-year high which means that people are not only getting into work; they're getting into full-time work and getting paid well for it? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed I can. That is an excellent summary of the underutilisation rate sitting at 10.4 percent down from 11 percent—the lowest since June 2008—and on wage growth absolutely: up 4.2 percent. That means about $83 a week extra in earnings in the pockets of New Zealanders since the Government took office.
Rurawhe AdrianCRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 5 November.Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we turn now to the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill. When we were last considering this bill the committee had given leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate. At the end of the debate I will put all questions separately. The Hon Tim Macindoe had the call and he has three minutes and 15 seconds remaining should he wish to take them.
Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Thank you Mr Chair. Look they are all great contributions to this bill to add some clarity for our constituents out there. For those who think that our constituents aren't following this debate I received a message from a constituent who raises a case about a particular parking situation they found themselves in in Tāmaki-makau-rau.What it was they had a trailer and as that trailer took up two car parks they paid for a car park. However it was the trailer that was clamped. The constituent of course put up a fight and said The trailer is part of this vehicle. We have actually paid for the ability to park here." And it was their understanding because there was no median barrier that separated what wasn't according to them clearly two identified car parks. They parked across two and paid for the parking for their car. However it was the trailer that was clamped and because of the ensuing argument and debate with what I've heard at least in the debate this evening a cowboy or a rogue operator who wouldn't enter into a communication with the person with the constituent the trailer ended up being towed. In the end it cost the constituent a significant amount of money because of the towing costs for the trailer because of the retrieval for the trailer and of course the fee that goes with it.Like I say most of the contributions have been good. This might be one of those unique one-off situations but isn't uncommon in my electorate given the demand for parking in a place like Tāmaki-makau-rau. I dare say Wellington City is similar and other places around the country with strong urban growth. When a constituent who raises this case ended up—and I quote from their message to me—"It cost thousands to get the trailer back." Now I don't think that that's fair but I wonder if in my question to the Minister in this bill we are happy that for instances like that and I dare say this isn't an isolated incident—some vehicles in particular in places of high urban density. And I've mentioned Tāmaki-makau-rau. I don't have the biggest vehicle but it still looks like I park across two because of the tight spaces that are afforded to users of said car park.So my question is pretty simple: with respect to trailers and perhaps any other thing that might be towed by a car in situations like—Jenny Marcroft: Horse floats?Hon PEENI HENARE: Horse floats—whatever it might be. What do these changes in this bill mean for those particular trailers or whatever it is that's hitched to a vehicle and how does that apply if it's covering two car parks? Is this a case for those operators to charge two $100 fees? I'm not too sure. So I've just got like I say a direct instance where a constituent has raised a concern on a bill that to them is very relevant. So I just wanted in my short contribution to leave that on the table for the Minister to consider and I hope that we can provide to my good constituent of Tāmaki-makau-rau some answers."
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Mr Chair. A couple of colleagues have asked some questions which I think I want to address. First of all Jamie Strange asked around the issue of signage which I believe was raised during the select committee process as I hope the officials may have pointed out to him and to those submitters who submitted on the issue of signage. There are already regulation-making powers within the Fair Trading Act which can allow regulations to be made which set a standard for signage to be displayed at car parks without needing to amend the legislation. So this could be something that could be looked into in the future if we don't necessarily get the results that we want entirely from this piece of legislation.Also my good friend Paul Eagle raised the business model of some of these wheel-clamping operators which will obviously have to change somewhat if they have been charging exorbitant fees for the removal of wheel clamps off vehicles in some of the car parks that are affected under this bill. Some may be operating in a manner which is fair and offering the removal at a fair price. For some of those who have not operated in that fashion this bill will somewhat change their business model and we hope change the customer outcome.Now we tried to strike the right balance in this piece of legislation. There are obviously some in the parking or towing industry who aren't happy with this piece of legislation. There are also some people on the consumer side who aren't entirely happy with this legislation because they would have preferred to have seen a complete ban on wheel clamping altogether. There have been representations from small-business owners who are worried about people who genuinely infringed and were either parking incorrectly or parking too long in their car parks and giving them the ability to continue to wheel clamp legitimately was something that we wanted to make sure and maintain that they could do if there was a legitimate infringement. So that's why we haven't gone down the track of removing that property right from the likes of small businesses to do that if people incorrectly park but also we didn't want to let continue some of the behaviour that we've seen being done by some of these operators who are charging exorbitant prices.So hopefully that will kind of meet the requirements of some of the questions there in terms of why we're continuing to allow wheel clamping to continue why we came to the $100 mark and also around the signage concerns that may have been raised during the select committee stage.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. The previous speaker Jamie Strange talked about nine years of a previous Government. Well I'd contend with his particular point there but—Hon Dr David Clark: Not nine years of neglect?BRETT HUDSON: —none the less Dr Clark that is no excuse for this Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs giving his officials about nine minutes to do the research on the policy behind this bill.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Noting that short contribution from the member Brett Hudson as I said towards the end of my initial contribution there were quite a lot of years that I sat on that side of the House some of it—and you'll get used to it—as the consumer affairs spokesperson where the Government at the time did not see fit to intervene into this space. Now I'm not going to use the neglect" word but in a simple sense this is one of the issues where the previous Government didn't necessarily see it as a big enough issue to help elderly ladies who were getting their cars clamped from being preyed upon by people who were acting at the edge of commerce. So I'm quite happy to take criticism from the Opposition. If they don't think this piece of legislation is worthy of their votes and they're not willing to back 72-year-old women who can't afford a $700 fine to get a clamp removed from their car and back those who put on clamps for people who have lawfully parked in a car park then fine by me."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure of sorts to speak on this bill—not an incredibly long bill I might say. The point I do want to raise on this rather short bill is it actually would've taken officials longer to type up this short bill than the Minister in the chair Kris Faafoi and the Government gave them to research the reasons and facts behind the policy in the first place which is adequately shown in the regulatory impact statement. Thank you.
Faafoi KrisClauses 1 to 6Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I think I will try and kick off the debate on this. I was unable to be in the House last night for its second reading and I understand it was quite a boisterous and riveting debate and not being one to miss out on that I thought I'd start by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for its deliberations. I understand there were seven submitters some from the sector that is going to be affected itself so I thank the members of that select committee for their adjudication over that.There were three changes to the bill as it was introduced and for the benefit of the committee which may pre-empt some questions that may come I thought I'd just use this time to run through some of those and again thank officials and the select committee for making those. At the bill's introduction the select committee did take the opportunity to clarify that the bill doesn't apply to parking places that are controlled by enforcement authorities. As it stood in the bill as introduced it did not include roads controlled by road-controlling authorities such as a local council or the police. However the select committee saw fit to make a change to clarify that the requirements would not apply to parking places that are controlled by enforcement authorities who can issue infringement notices for parking offences.There's also a change within the bill that the select committee made around provisions relating to the disputes tribunal. This bill caps the limit at which an operator can enforce an infringement for the potential parking offence and the removal of the wheel clamp at $100. It does give the ability for the owner of the vehicle to remove that and if any damage was done to the clamp in that the damages may exceed $100. So there is a clarifying amendment made in the bill that if the wheel-clamping operator had damage done to the clamp beyond $100 if they went to the disputes tribunal the limit wouldn't be at $100 for any damages done.Also there's a new regulation-making power which the committee has recommended which would require regulations if any are made when considering whether an operator had acted reasonably in terms of being available to remove the clamp. It's not envisioned that the regulations would be made immediately after the passing of this bill but only if there's evidence of a problem.So they are the three issues that the select committee thought it fair to make amendments to this bill. I believe it's a good bill. After many years of sitting on that side of the House and reading the front page of the New Zealand Herald about a number of either people who could least afford it or felt that they were hard done by by reckless wheel-clamping operators predominantly in Auckland charging excessive amounts exorbitant amounts of money to remove wheel clamps from vehicles I think they will now have a great deal of protection that those exorbitant fees will no longer be able to be charged.So with that I look forward to any questions that may come from the committee.
Faafoi Kris; Dyson RuthLAND TRANSPORT (WHEEL CLAMPING) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? The question is that clauses 1 to 6 stand part.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Look I will just close off on some of the good points that were raised by the members. To the member Jenny Marcroft: as I already mentioned earlier—with fear of prescribing a pathway forward and not allowing the new entity to innovate and think and strategise about how they might do that—I do share your concern about how we do increase Māori and Pacific people's donations. One of the arguments that was brought to me as this bill was being developed was around the tikanga aspects and the tapu aspect and I recall the response being quite simple: would you do it for your grandchild? And the answer was: yes. Look I'm not saying that's the answer but you do raise a good point. Now's the time for a solid debate and I think that that debate can inform the strategising that the new entity can do. You also talked about the ability to maintain the clinical expertise with regard to the transition and I want to acknowledge the staff from both entities as they come together. Transition and change are not easy for most organisations or most individuals and I'm confident that the Ministry of Health and the other players that are supporting them through the transition are making sure that those aspects are covered off. In fact I'm reassured that they are but we will continue to keep a close eye to make sure that while the transition is happening (1) the lights still stay on and that people can have confidence in the service that's still available to them and (2) that that transition happens as seamlessly as possible. Perhaps in the near future we can come back and as a collective given the strong work done by the Health Committee share exactly where we're going to head with it. But other than that I think that's really—we've fleshed this out well enough and I look forward to this bill continuing.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill — In Committee
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on this in the committee stage. I really just want to take a short call; firstly acknowledging the way in which the Health Committee worked together on this type of legislation in such a positive manner and the amount of positive input along with the expertise that many of the committee members bring—and their interest and heart—into these discussions. It is greatly appreciated. Although the Minister in the chair the Hon Peeni Henare has touched on it I am actually interested in teasing out a little bit more because one of the questions that I have regarding this is in terms of donations of organs for Māori and Pacific. As we know our whānau are very hesitant to actually make a donation of an organ and with the tapu surrounding that we know that that's something that we're going to have to work through to get those organ donation rates up—whether being a recipient is an issue or is it being a donor that's the issue? I'm very interested in the concept of when a donor has gifted an organ.What has been talked about in the past or could be a future way of moving forward through getting over the barrier of not wanting to be a donor or not wanting to receive an organ—a concept that has been discussed is that when the person who's received the organ when they live a longer life and eventually pass away then that organ is then removed from the body and returned back to the whenua with the person—if it was a deceased donor back into the whenua with them in their urupā. So is that something that needs more fleshing out in terms of how we get more people in the Māori community to get over the barrier of what is tapu in terms of what we do with our organs. That is of great concern particularly with our rates of diabetes and those sorts of things. How can we move our community forward so that it is considered a taonga that we're gifting? So I just would be interested to hear a little bit more of the thinking of where the Minister would see this going. And the other question I have relates to the retaining of the current clinical expertise: what is the plan in terms of how existing Organ Donation New Zealand services will transition into the new function within the New Zealand Blood Service? And will the current clinical expertise be retained? And how also will it be boosted as well to ensure that we have a service which is fit for purpose? As we want to increase our donation rates we also will need to increase the service that will be providing that. So those are just a couple of questions. I'd appreciate some comment from the Minister. Thank you Madam Chair.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. So just in my next brief contribution I'd like to just talk about Part 2 and expanding the function of the New Zealand Blood Service because as I was talking about previously in New Zealand there's many many more people waiting for a transplant than there are organs available. Matt Doocey: In the old days the Ministers used to come down to filibuster; even they can't be bothered now. They've given up—it's back to the backbenchers to fill it up. Brett Hudson: Mr Faafoi's keen for his bill. Dr LIZ CRAIG: And so what the national strategy for increasing organ donation and transplant aims to do is to make—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Doocey and Mr Hudson can you be a little more respectful of the speaker? Dr LIZ CRAIG: —it much easier for New Zealanders to make their organ donation wishes known to their family. And basically what it's also about is making sure that those decisions can happen appropriately in the health context because some of the people that submitted to the Health Committee were talking about the fact that in the context where decisions were being made about whether somebody was going to make a donation and talking to the family about it it was the training of those health professionals in ICU at that point that was incredibly important in terms of helping families to have an informed decision about what their loved one's wishes were. So there was a sense that having this overarching strategy and basically talking about how we actually improve the donation rates and also the sense that there was a need for a national agency to oversee the strategy—because what the point of the strategy was was to raise the profile of organ donation and to support that effective clinical governance and then just to work with the health sector to coordinate the whole process and provide that clinical support. So the New Zealand Blood Service was seen as the agency that was most appropriate in terms of Crown entities for overseeing this function because of the work they already did in terms of looking after blood donations within the sector.So very simple—Part 2 what it does is expand the functions of New Zealand Blood Service to include oversight in clinical governance of the organ donation system and to support the transplant system. So making sure that we've got an entity that can coordinate that in terms of making sure that those donations are happening and that we've got a broader strategic view in terms of training staff and thinking about how we can ensure that people make their wishes known. Once enacted this part of the bill though won't come into force for two years after Royal assent unless you get an earlier date fixed by Order in Council because there is a certain amount of work that needs to be done to set up the new New Zealand Blood and Organ Service which is going to be the new name of the new entity to perform those functions. So I won't talk too much further but just to say that this is a really good bill a very simple bill but I think it will make a big difference to many people's lives. Thank you Madam Chair.