edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I agree with the member wholeheartedly in that lived experience is part of the reason that we have an experience pathway so there's no disagreement there. We've just made a decision that it will be two years not four. So there are still two years for those who are interested in pursuing that path to do so.
Davidson MaramaHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I was hoping to bring in perhaps a ground-case scenario to really understand and test with the amendment of chopping down to two years. I mentioned in I think the first reading the value of lived experience and I acknowledge the Minister has referred to the 2017 sort of heads-up. I acknowledge that. I want to understand then though what is the benefit—what is the benefit? So we've talked about a mandate of chopping down two years. I won't scope that because we've already been there. But then I want to talk about benefit from the Minister's position because in the first reading I spoke to lived experience and the systemic structures and barriers that can deny whānau the experience that only lived experience can provide. And I used the specific example of men and people who have used violence and that when—and I preceded that by saying that the prevention of violence sector has been so clear to me over the last three or four years of how important safe practice is. So I do want to make that very clear. In fact they've made it clear to me that unsafe practice can cause deep irreparable harm. So I have that understanding.At the same time we have seen that the most enduring and transformational outcomes sometimes only come from those who have shared those very experiences but with the necessary supports around them to be able to safely practise and work with whānau and instead draw on their incredible knowledge and experience that only they possess towards healing.And I just wonder then for the Minister if you could articulate: what is the benefit as the Government? Because what my feedback has been from that very sector is that we haven't done the systemic work enough to remove those barriers. Yes 2017 has still not allowed for the systemic barriers to be removed yet and so what that from their perspective will result in is that some whānau will be denied the experience and skill that only the experience pathway would have allowed for. So I'm genuinely wondering if the Minister could be quite clear about what the extra positive outlook is from chopping from four to two years. Thank you.
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. The Minister said she was presented with three options after receiving that correspondence. We have made it clear in our submissions this afternoon and our contributions this afternoon that we support the bill. We understand what the need for it is. What we are expressing concern about is the tabled amendment.What options was she presented with after receiving that correspondence from the peak organisation to do with social workers registration in terms of the tabled amendment and the time frame difference between two years and four years? Any options?
Prime Willow-Jean; Upston LouiseHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. So given that answer from the Minister what I understand the Minister to have said is that her office did receive the correspondence but it sounds like the Minister has not received any advice on that piece of correspondence—oh here's the Minister. Should I wait?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It's OK. Just take a break while the Ministers swap over. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime would you like to start that call again just in case the Minister hasn't heard the start of the question.Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. We were just discussing that and suggesting that might be a good way forward. Tēnā koe e te Minita; welcome back. We have been discussing this afternoon the tabled amendment to reduce the time from four years to two years and in earlier contributions from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and the member from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori we have been referring to a letter that has come through we understand to your office and also CC'd in to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni's which says that they wanted to remove their submission. They tried to withdraw their submission which said they supported a reduction to two years. That was an error is what the correspondence says and that they tried to withdraw their submission but were not able to do that and subsequently wrote to clarify what their actual position is which is that they do not want it to be reduced to two years; they in fact want it to be four years.So we have been having questions and conversation about that this afternoon. That has been tabled. The last response I got from the Minister was that your office had received that correspondence; however it does not sound like you had received advice on that prior to this debate recommencing for us to make a decision on that. So we have been seeking clarification that you have received it considered it and that you having given it consideration still intend to reduce it to two years on the basis that doing that was because that was the submission that you had received from the organisation who is now saying Please withdraw it. It was a mistake. That is not our position and we do not want a reduction to two years." So we've been trying to get that clarification in this particular clause 4.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Happy to provide that clarification and yes a letter was received yesterday I think it was in relation to this piece of legislation and it has been considered—a bit challenging given the content of the letter suggesting that a submission that had been submitted on behalf of their organisation wasn't valid but the select committee process has finished basically and that submission was considered and included.So as part of my consideration I had three pathways available. One was to not proceed with the bill—and the member would understand that if the bill didn't proceed then the experience pathway would close this month—or I could proceed as planned or not submit the change. I've made the decision for a range of other reasons that the two-year time frame is what the Government will stand with."
Prime Willow-Jean; Lee MelissaHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Given that we are continuing with this debate and obviously the Government is confident in progressing this proposed amendment I ask again my questions to the Minister. Did the Minister receive the correspondence on 13 February? Did her office and herself read that correspondence give it consideration and decide to ignore the request to set aside their submission upon which this amendment is actually basing the proposal to reduce it to two years—has that happened before we came into the House today?Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you Madam Chair. It might help the House if I actually sort of answer some of those questions. It is my understanding that the correspondence was actually received by the Minister this week and as members know and our former Ministers actually know there is a process that happens once correspondence is received and the officials I believe literally received it not very long ago.I'd like to address some of the questions that were asked in terms of the extension. The extension to the pathway is a temporary measure while work is actually under way to address long-term issues. The purpose of the two-year extension is to maintain the emphasis on the sector to take steps towards addressing the pipeline of social workers into the industry. The two-year change maintains the balance between short-term support while moving towards maintaining qualifications over time. That is the reason why we're actually wanting to amend to make sure that we have a pipeline of social workers coming in giving the opportunity for those currently who are in the industry going through the experience pathway. As I said right at the beginning if they in fact are going through the process of qualifying as long as they registered before the deadline their registration will continue until they are able to finish their qualification and actually register officially.
Webb Duncan; Kuriger BarbaraHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move That the committee report progress on this bill.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a moment. Right OK we can't report progress without the questions. So my advice is that we need to put the questions.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): We can stop the debate and report progress.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well is there any objection to that course of events to stopping and reporting? Yes there is an objection.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): It's a motion Madam Chair. I didn't seek leave. It's just like a motion to close the debate. A motion can be put to the committee on the committee's next step.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes I've just been advised that we can vote on that. So there is a motion on the Table to report progress on this piece of legislation remembering that we still have another committee stage following this one. OK? So I am putting that to the committee—that the committee agree to report progress on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I'm looking forward to the Minister in the chair answering the question that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has put forward. But I have another question: given the advice from the sector that two years is not long enough and that it should remain at four years and the retraction of the submission that they made to the select committee that suggested otherwise does the Minister anticipate that we're likely to be back here in a year and a half going through this legislation again putting another extension in place because the professional bodies have said that we will not have the workforce that we need by that stage and not all of the people that we'll need to take up that extended pathway opportunity would have? Therefore is the Minister expecting that that will be the case? Would that be an acceptable way for the public sector to spend their time or their resourcing that we come back here—having to extend again—in a year and a half because the Minister chooses to ignore the advice of the main professional social work bodies?
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. So having listened to the Minister's earlier response I just want absolute clarification: did the Minister's office receive the correspondence that we have been discussing this afternoon and that has been tabled in the committee? Did she receive it on the date that it was sent? Did she read it? Did she consider it and therefore did she ignore it and decide to proceed with this tabled amendment which is reducing it from four years to two years? Did all of that happen before we came into the House today?
Kapa-Kingi MariamenoMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you Madam Chair. I do have some expertise—and I'm glad to share it with you this afternoon—and some demonstrated experience in this particular instance. Just as an example—I won't say the exact number of years but it was certainly more than four years that it took me to do my social work degree finally because I had to work. And there are many many like me who have gone through and credentialled themselves while working. Four years would be an absolute minimum. I'm happy to share that and I ask that it be taken on and understood in a careful way because shortening it—and interestingly the word short" comes up a few times: the "shortage of workforce". To shorten time just to fill a shortage of workforce this idea is an unsafe way to go—it's unsafe. I'm talking as a clinician and I'm talking as an experienced clinician. I'm not talking theoretically; I'm not talking as a politician I guess; I'm telling you this is the reality of it and I know because I was in that space so I'm sharing this.To withdraw means that you do have to change your mind and I think my colleagues on this side of the House are of a similar thinking. When you're tabled with something that is clearly not a softening—it is assisting the House it is assisting this discussion and it cannot be ignored. When you get that kind of professional Māori body helping the House to make a good decision today and in the future I would certainly encourage that it is taken note of and is considered seriously and that that matters in your final decision. So I want to make those points. I guess I just want to acknowledge all the wāhine Māori and tāne Māori that are working their way to a credential and working inside a system which is mostly alienating but still struggle to get there. And the pathway cannot be shortened just to fill a shortage of Māori social workers or any kind of social worker. So these are my thoughts. Kia ora tātou."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Madam Chair I actually find that completely unacceptable—the Minister has stood up after having had the evidence tabled after the association having written to her. It is not a softening of position between the four years and two years. They have made it very clear and they have apologised—there was a mistake made in the submission. All of the evidence that the Government is using to actually justify the reduction in time for the extended pathway is now null and void because the most important professional body has come forward and written to the Minister and said to her that there was a mistake in that submission. They tried to withdraw it. They do not want it reduced to two years—they want it at four years. They've given every reason why it needs to stay at four years and the Minister has ignored that.Now I feel for the Minister in the chair the Hon Melissa Lee because she is not the Minister who is leading the actual bill but the Minister who is leading the actual bill should be reading her correspondence and should be nimble enough to change her position. This is a very important letter that went to the Minister this week. So I am concerned that the Minister in the chair is going to move ahead regardless and that the Minister in the chair continues to stand up and spell out the dissent for why they're doing it which is now null and void because the association has said that they do not want that to happen. So what I don't want to hear from the Minister in the chair is actually that the association the professional body supports this because they are clear that they do not support this.One thing I do want to add is that any Government any Minister has to be nimble and has to be ready to change position when they are presented with quality evidence that suggests that their way forward is not the right way forward. So it's disappointing to see that this Minister and this Government when presented with solid evidence and information just this week are not willing to change their position on this. I want to hear from the Minister as to why that is the case.
Kuriger BarbaraCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just to come back to the point of order that was moved by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni we're in a situation now where the issue has been brought to the House and the Government has said that they want to continue with the motion so when we're ready to put the motion and when the speakers have finished speaking to the motion the options are that if it's not acceptable to the members then the members will vote against it. But that's the situation we're in. The Government is putting it forward.
Lee MelissaHon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): If I could actually provide some context and be helpful Ministry of Social Development officials have discussed a potential two-year time frame with sector representatives including Social Service Providers Aotearoa Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association. The sector continues to be broadly supportive of a short-term delay. ANZASW highlighted that they supported a delay in the repeal of the experience pathway but that this should be as short as possible. The ANZASW provided a submission to the Social Services and Community Committee recommending shortening the time frame to two years. However we understand that as the member says the ANZASW have softened their view on the need for a shorter time frame. It is important that the sector continues to take the lead in developing their work towards increasing the pipeline of social workers entering the profession. There is a select committee process it has actually happened and we are now trying to deal with the decision-making process that has happened since then. The Government is actually focusing on developing a pathway to deliver more social workers to the industry as we have a shortage in that sector.
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): I'm just concerned that if the Minister isn't in a position to respond to the questions and the comments that have been made by both of the speakers previously and you take a closure motion on this particular section then it will go through and we haven't actually had the question addressed. So if the Minister is ready to respond to that otherwise I can take more time and ask more questions—no?Hon Member: She's still standing.Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Well I'm still standing because I don't want to sit down and the debate collapse when I'm not—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK well we won't collapse the debate because I haven't given you an answer yet so I undertake that we won't collapse the debate. I've just been taking some advice here so—Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Great. Well if you're in a position to respond to that my contribution will depend on what the answer to that one is because I think the concerns that I want to raise have been raised by the two previous speakers in asking the question. So I'm interested in how the Minister is going to respond to that for my contribution.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. So further to that I do want to plead to the Minister to take that information that was just given into account because so far the arguments that have been made in terms of the shortening and part of that amendment do not take into account best available information and part of the coalition agreement is to do policy based on good data and evidence. She's just been presented with some new evidence which I would then encourage her to actually follow what she has committed to in the coalition agreement and actually then utilise the evidence that's been presented to her by the member who spoke previous to me to ensure that she doesn't continue an amendment that would actually go contrary to that. I guess if that was to not be the case if the Minister was to go ahead with the amendment I'm curious to know how she then expects to actually meet the demands of the workforce and to adequately diversify the workforce based on just extending the experience pathways by two years. So I'm curious in between her—again I know the Minister in the chair isn't the Hon Louise Upston but I'm curious to know if she has any knowledge of any engagement the Minister has had with the sector to address the potential more pressing issues with closing the experience pathways in two years as opposed to four years as desired by professional bodies in the up to date evidence that we've got in the correspondence that has been tabled. So I'm' curious to see what engagement the Minister's had in between coming into her role and now to seek assurances that her amendment actually meets the aspirations of professional bodies. And if she hasn't had any engagement I'm curious to then understand whether she'd just going from old evidence rather than the most up to date information that's available to us.
Kuriger Barbara; Menéndez March RicardoClause 4 Section 2 amended (Commencement) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to clause 4. This is the debate on clause 4 Section 2 amended (Commencement)". The question is that clause 4 stand part.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. So as it stands we've got a four-year extension of the ability for people to enter through the experience pathway. As it has been noted through submissions and the explanatory note this experience pathway has been critical in bolstering the workforce particularly for Māori and Pasifika social workers. And for example as I've mentioned in previous contributions it also enables people who have experience in navigating systems that they may not be able to get experience from throughout a degree.So I guess I'll try to get her to address one of the questions I made earlier which is whether she sought any advice around what else you may need to do to bolster the workforce as that four-year period comes to an end.And then I'm really keen to get an understanding around the rationale of potential change—well changes—that she's wanting to make to reduce that to two years (a) because that as the Hon Carmel Sepuloni noted is not something that professional bodies want and additionally because as has been canvassed before without any further action to bolster the ability to take more social workers to those other pathways we could end up with a situation where the needs of many of our community members are simply not being met. And that is a reality that many people experience. So I'm just really concerned about what seems to me a premature move to close those experience pathways from four to two years and beyond that just the rationale in there responding to the professional bodies and what she thinks the impact may be in terms of the ability to enable social workers to be recruited at a rate that serves the needs of our communities and in a way that helps diversify the workforce."
Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
Kuriger BarbaraClause 3 Principal Act CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to clause 3 and this is the debate on the principal Act. So the question is that clause 3 stand part.Clause 3 agreed to.
Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
Kuriger Barbara; Sepuloni CarmelClause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to clause 2. Clause 2 is the debate on commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Point of order Madam Chair. Sorry just checking through my Amendment Paper is this what the amendment by the Minister is addressing or is this the next section?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It's clause 4.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: OK thank you. Just clarifying so I don't miss something important.Clause 2 agreed to.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Just speaking to the title I'm just really wondering—I've always been a bit perplexed as to how titles are landed. As I understand it it's usually the Parliamentary Counsel Office that comes up with it. Most amendment bills will give you—because there can be many amendment bills in respect of one piece of legislation. This bill has a very clear and short purpose: that extension of time for the experience pathway. I guess in terms of the title it might be better actually to have some descriptor in there to distinguish it from other amendment bills.Of course having heard Carmel Sepuloni speak it may well be that if the Amendment Paper isn't withdrawn we'll need another amendment bill a bit later on to extend it further. So I'm really just asking whether that title shouldn't be a little more descriptive of the fact that it's a Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill in respect of the experience pathway. Would that perhaps be a better title for the bill?Clause 1 agreed to.
Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. In relationship to the title—the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill—and I guess to the theme of the title I wanted to ask whether the Minister in the passage of this bill and particularly—I know we're going to talk about the amendment later so I don't want to relitigate the amendment—on the broader issue of social worker registration whether she has sought any subsequent advice just more broadly on the impact that this bill will have and any subsequent actions that she may need to take to ensure that those traditional registration pathways outside of the experience pathway are being able to be scaled up as a result of what this bill is proposing. This felt like one of the best places to potentially ask this question. So it's in relation to whether she acknowledges along with whether it's a two-year or four-year date that the broader issue is about whether the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act is able to keep up with the demand that we have for social workers.
Kuriger Barbara; Lee MelissaSOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come first to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. Members we come first to clause 1. This is the debate on clause 1 Title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): It might actually help if I set a little bit of background on this particular bill. The Social Workers Registration Act 2003 sets out occupational regulations for social workers. These regulations ensure the safety of members of the public by ensuring that social workers are competent to practise and are held accountable while also enhancing the professionalism of social workers.Since 2021 the Social Workers Registration Act 2003—the Act—has required all social workers to register with the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB). To be eligible for registration applicants must have a prescribed qualification recognised by the SWRB. Section 13 of the Act provides an additional registration pathway for people with extensive practical experience but without the prescribed qualification—the experience pathway. For the experience pathway instead of demonstrating their competence by having a prescribed qualification applicants must satisfy the SWRB of their competence based on their significant practical experience. Both pathways require an initial competency assessment and a fit and proper person test once registered. Further assurance is provided by the accountability and oversight mechanisms that come with the registration. This particular bill basically is a very small amendment to actually extend—there was an extension made where the registration could take people four years to register but in hindsight with the social worker sector facing a significant workforce shortage with an estimated 700 unfilled vacancies and growing demand for social work services due to the impact of COVID-19 and Cyclone Gabrielle and also the number of students enrolled in social worker qualifications declining it has been reviewed and looked at to shorten the period.Having said that as long as the people who are registering do in fact register before the deadline their registration process will continue to happen. I look forward to the contributions of the members in the Chamber.
Kuriger BarbaraHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill.
Points of Order — Oral Questions—Prefacing of Questions
McAnulty Kieran; Brownlee GerryPOINTS OF ORDEROral Questions—Prefacing of QuestionsHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I thought it best that I wait until oral questions had concluded before I raised this point. Earlier the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti took the opportunity as local MP and spokesperson for cyclone recovery on this the day after the one-year anniversary of Cyclone Gabrielle to acknowledge those that have been impacted. Your ruling was that no member should say something before they ask the question. That's fine although I would ask that you reflect on other occasions most notably yesterday when you were wished a happy Valentine's Day and the same warning was not given. We just ask for some consistency and perhaps some reflection on it.SPEAKER: Well I did comment on the greeting that was sent my way and I think the comment I made somewhat sunk in that it was inappropriate. Consistency I agree but the statement today was somewhat lengthy and it was only on that basis that I spoke. It was also the member's first time asking a question I think so that's another aspect to it.
Brownlee Gerry; Peters WinstonORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSSPEAKER: We come now to oral questions the first in the name of—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order Mr Speaker. I'm not too certain whether we've got an organisational or structural problem or some teething problems in your office but having checked the questions of the House today I thought there's something drastically wrong because there are no questions to the Prime Minister.SPEAKER: Well that's a very interesting point of order. I'm not sure how we remedy it here. We'll have the first question of the day in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of the Public Health Association of New Zealand requesting that our House urge Te Whatu Ora to develop and implement a strategy and implementation plan to improve the health and wellbeing of ethnic minority population groups.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. I've received the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Meeting the mental health needs of young New Zealanders. That paper is published under the authority of the House. There are no select committee papers. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK:Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill introduction.Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill introduction.Income Tax (ACC Payments) Amendment Bill introduction.Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill introduction.Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Bishop Chris; McAnulty Kieran; Shaw JamesBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week the House will consider legislation under urgency to progress the Government's 100-day plan. Hon Member: What a change!Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Busy Government. [Interruption] Ah well. Legislation to be considered will include the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill 2024 the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill and the Legal Services Amendment Bill. Other legislation to be included will include the final stages of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill and there will be two maiden statements during the week.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Why does the Government deem those bills to warrant missing out on the public's participation through a select committee process?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): In part because the Government sought a mandate at the election to do those things quickly and in case it has escaped the notice of the member that mandate was delivered. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I just wanted to ask the Leader of the House about a bill that in Opposition the National Party did ask about quite frequently to see how it was progressing through the House; just to see how the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is progressing because I notice it has been languishing at about 18 or 19 since this Government was elected and of course it was a matter of some concern to that Party when they were in Opposition.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is at No. 19 on the Order Paper and when the Government is ready to make moves around it that member will be one of the first to know.
Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Before I open my introductory remarks to Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill speech I just want to acknowledge my wonderful researcher Tangi Gardiner who worked very very diligently and hard on this to help me understand this settlement process. I also want to mihi to those here today and all the ancestors that you bring with you in spirit. We acknowledge the time it has taken to get here the people who are and all of those that are not able to be here with us today but are physically somewhere else in the country. We hope this settlement will allow you the resources time and space needed to heal and move forward together.Our aim today is to acknowledge the wrongs of the past and to make the necessary legislative changes required to allow iwi hapū and all the people hurt by the actions of the Crown the long-awaited apology that you all deserve. This bill acknowledges that by the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Whanganui in May 1840 the ancestors of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua sought to build a partnership based on fairness justice and honour. The bill acknowledges that the Crown breached that agreement and failed to protect iwi hapū and whānau in Te Korowai o Wainuiārua.I mentioned the tragedy between the Moutoa Island where whānau were fooled to pick between the Kīngitanga and the Pai Mārie and the protection of European settlers. We want to acknowledge that this tore apart the region separated families and caused loss of life and trauma to both sides.The battle of Ōhoutahi caused the death of multiple ancestors of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. Both situations breached the agreement that the iwi made with the Crown and eventually led to the rushed purchasing of some 411196 acres in which the Crown has acknowledged they moved with—and I quote—unreasonable haste". The iwi was never offered any opportunity to object to confiscations and ended up losing ownership of multiple blocks of land including their ancestral mountain.We also stand here to acknowledge today that in the second half of the 20th century Te Korowai o Wainuiārua children who attended Crown-established schools were punished for speaking their own language and this has contributed towards the decline in te reo Māori among iwi and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua people. Contrary to popular belief ACT has always supported the Treaty settlement process. The Treaty is a good fantastic founding document that brings us all as Europeans and Māori together so we all support this historical Treaty settlement process. We believe in this process. It is a good process and we are glad that we are able to make it right make good the wrongs of our past and move forward as one nation. We support full and fair and final Treaty settlements and are glad to stand absolutely in support of this bill."
Urgent Debate Application Accepted — Kainga Ora—Government Response to Review
Brownlee GerryURGENT DEBATESKāinga Ora—Government Response to ReviewSPEAKER: Members I've received a letter from the Hon Kieran McAnulty seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government's response to the review of Kāinga Ora. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The matter does warrant the attention of the House and the Government today. Therefore after oral questions I will call on the Hon Kieran McAnulty to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Obituaries — Hon Colin James Moyle
Brownlee GerryOBITUARIESHon Colin James MoyleSPEAKER: Members I regret to inform the House of the death on 11 May 2024 of the Hon Colin James Moyle CBE who represented the electorates of Manukau and Māngere from 1963 to 1977 and Hunua and Ōtara from 1981 to 1990. During his time in the House he held several ministerial portfolios including agriculture fisheries forests and science. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of loss and sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me to observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.Members stood as a mark of respect.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 21 MAY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Special Debates — Debate on the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the Inquiry into illegal unregulated and unreported fishing
Kuriger BarbaraSPECIAL DEBATESForeign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Report—Inquiry into Illegal Unregulated and Unreported FishingDEPUTY SPEAKER: Members we now come to the debate on the inquiry into illegal unregulated and unreported fishing. I call on the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to move that the House take note of this report.
McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill — Second Reading
Rurawhe AdrianRt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I'd like to join together with members across the House in supporting this bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for bringing it to the House and also the Social Services and Community Committee for the work that they have done on this bill.I'm not going to repeat what everyone has said—I listened really carefully and there's been some really good contributions. I just want to highlight the futureproofing aspect of the deed of trust because it seems to me after going to the High Court and going through that process and the High Court not having the tools to be able to give effect to the changes that were absolutely needed—that's very clear—that this bill will now futureproof that and give the ability to the High Court in the future because we don't know what might be required in 100 years or 200 years. We know what's required right now is significantly different than what was required in the early 1900s. So it's really good that the select committee and indeed the institute has seen to make that significant change which I totally support.The second point that I wanted to make is around the legacy of Allan McLean and the ongoing future legacy that he created—and I want to acknowledge the many other trusts that perform similar functions throughout New Zealand along with the whole community and voluntary sector. I think as a totality every Parliament and every Government is fortunate that that work is done because it actually makes the work of Government a lot easier and I think we should acknowledge that. That's my contribution and I commend this bill to the House.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This is an interesting bill and there have been some interesting matters discussed today. I want to refer back to a speech given by the honourable member Paulo Garcia. He referenced Pride and Prejudice and talked about the values expressed in Pride and Prejudice. I just want to update him on a couple of things. He said that this trust deed was originally set up in a time which had the same sorts of values as Pride and Prejudice. He's out by about 100 years. Pride and Prejudice was published in 1813 and the trust dates from 1907. However there is a particular relevance to this and I wish to advise Mr Garcia to watch the 2005 movie of Pride and Prejudice with Matthew Macfadyen and Keira Knightley—Tom Rutherford: She's great. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —getting there—Brenda Blethyn who plays Mrs Bennet and one of the things that drives Mrs Bennet in terms of marrying her daughters off is the sheer economic necessity of doing so. There is no other support for a gentlewoman other than being married and I think this is partly what Mr McLean was referencing. It is that particular concern for women in particular of how they could support themselves and that there often were no options for women. That was a particular value he was expressing in 1907. So I do advise Mr Garcia to watch that particular version of Pride and Prejudice; it is really worth the time. Of course our sensibilities have changed in the 100 years or so since Mr McLean set up this trust and we have now taken a fair amount of pride in changing this trust deed to fit with our new senses in these days. It has seemingly taken little persuasion for the House to actually all agree on this bill.In updating it we have updated this bill to ensure that the trust still supports women and children but we've updated it to modern times. Instead of being children aged 10 and younger as in the original trust deed now they're children aged 18 and younger. That's to do with whether or not children work in paid employment and of course we've changed the laws around paid employment as to what age people may work at. So we have suitably updated this trust deed in order to make sure it reflects the sensibilities the sense of our times and yet it still achieves the charitable purpose of supporting women and children in need. I commend the Social Services and Community that has worked on this bill I commend the member for bringing it to the House and indeed I commend this bill to the House.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): So clearly there's something on the Order Paper on this members' day that that side of the House don't want to get through given that they are reduced to talking about the hair colouring of a man who donated millions of dollars 100 years ago.I do want to re-traverse this bill very quickly because it's important for anyone that may have just tuned in and is wondering what this bill is about. The bill is a private bill which seeks to vary the charitable purpose of the McLean Institute trust established through the will of Allan McLean who passed away in 1907 and who we have had explained to us in great detail by the former speaker Cameron Brewer. Originally it was set up to provide benevolent asylum for the benefit of destitute women. The trust board wants to vary the charitable purpose to better address the current needs of women and children and establish a new deed of trust reflecting this new purpose.It's nice when we have bills in front of a select committee where everyone agrees. This was non-controversial. In fact we really only needed to look at the level of detail in the change and agree to some different wording; otherwise there was no dissent within the Social Services and Community Committee. It certainly was non-controversial. I do acknowledge that this philanthropist has donated a significant amount of money and that is has been used to serve a wonderful purpose with respect to women and their children. I also do want to acknowledge the person who has barely anything in their pocket that gives their last $5 to charitable purposes as well.We will be supporting this bill and there really is not much to add to this. I acknowledge the McLean Institute trust and all the work that they have done over the course of the years that they have been established and I wish them well moving forward into the future.
Pham LanLAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I'm so pleased to take this call today in supporting this bill firstly because what a great opportunity to highlight great people doing great deeds in Ōtautahi Christchurch—of which there are many—but secondly it's about supporting this bill that embodies the spirit of positive evolution and change. It really underscores the importance of taking action to help others and we know we so desperately need more of that in this world today.We've heard outlined from the Hon Duncan Webb about the purpose of this bill being about updating the charitable purpose of the McLean Institute trust and I wanted to touch on specifically—which has been mentioned by previous contributions—the vision and where that stemmed from from Allan McLean. I've read that it stemmed from his personal experience with seeing his mother struggle after his father's death and being unable to make a life for herself providing for him and her family falling into poverty. I wanted to touch on that—particularly with Mother's Day coming up this weekend: really a shout-out to our inspirational mums everywhere—and it's so cool that Allan took that inspirational story from his own life and his mother's life and turned it into actual action.The Green Party supports the newly proposed purpose: to provide women in distress with aid—and that's across so many areas where they might be in need—and we really support that in that it will be a broader range of needs that can be addressed through this bill.The Hon Duncan Webb already touched on as well that the bill streamlines the process of actually future updates of the trust purpose and avoiding the need for it to come back here to Parliament and clarifying that the High Court has jurisdiction to approve changes to the trust. This is a great evolution ensuring that it evolves with the needs of community into the future.The importance of this bill to real women in real need in Ōtautahi Christchurch—and indeed across Canterbury Waitaha—cannot be overstated. Without these changes the number of people benefiting from the trust would decrease over time. So we really support this bill in the way that it enables positive change in Ōtautahi Christchurch. We really want to honour the legacy that Allan McLean will leave in embracing the future.We support this bill and how it is one important piece of the puzzle in paving the way for a more equitable more inclusive future for all. Thank you.
Kemp Takutai TarshTAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Tēnā tatou e te Whare. Matua Tama me Te Wairua Tapu ngā Anahera Pono me te Māngai. Āe.[Thank you Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the House. Father Son and the Holy Ghost the Angels and the Prophet. Amen.]Firstly on behalf of Te Pāti Maōri it's been—can I say this bill was my very first select committee bill to ever be a part of. So it is good to see my fellow colleagues talk about the bill and see it get to this stage. So congratulations to our Social Services and Community Committee.Secondly I just want to acknowledge the McLean Institute and their mahi because you know we all want to see our communities our wāhine and our tamariki being supported being looked after being taken care of. In the McLean Institute the variation and amendments proposed in this bill will allow the institute to broaden their horizon and broaden their scope to be able to support more wāhine and tamariki in this current day for what they propose to do.One of the things I remember in select committee when we were talking with the trust was that they wanted to be able to provide more support for instance for more Māori wāhine who were vulnerable. So that was always something that I acknowledge with the McLean Institute trust. You know with the day and age with the cost of living we're currently in with the price of petrol with the increase in rental prices we need an organisation like the McLean Institute trust who are taking on some of the responsibility of this Government where whānau are being sanctioned with benefit sanctions and they can no longer afford to live day to day. So we Te Pāti Māori support this bill to the House to ensure that organisations and charitable trusts like the McLean Institute can continue to do their work. Kia ora.