edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill seeks to insert new section 34A into Part 2 of the Medicines Act. It operates primarily on section 20 or section 23 where provisional consent requires an application to Medsafe. What this bill effectively does is removes the prerequisite to have that consent from Medsafe.We've talked about a number of things in the committee of the whole House. It's interesting to consider the prospect of the therapeutic products bill maybe being the reason why this bill doesn't require a sunset clause. It may well be introduced at the end of this year but that could be a three- to six-month process to actually make its way through. So we'll have to see if it's actually going to provide any remedy here and if the Government wanted to be cautious they could have put a time frame on themselves in this bill—a sunset clause—to make sure that the therapeutic products bill was going to meet the ambitions that have been described in this House.There were a couple of options. A section 25 option where on a prescription from a GP one can purchase the vaccine get it off-label—that's actually what's been happening to vulnerable communities at the moment. Not really tenable. One is the cost of access two is GPs are already overwhelmed and three is the burden of going through that off-label sort of process. It wouldn't have really been able to roll it out in the way that we like a national vaccine programme to roll out. As you heard my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse comment immediate modification orders are another option. The Government has put to us that the temporal nature of them doesn't suit what we're wanting to achieve here and we tried to remediate that with some thinking in select committee.It's very clear that there is some urgency. All the experts have expressed concerns to us around maybe wave two expressed concerns around the co-determinants of being in winter and the increased risk of spread and certainly those who are knowledgeable in this space weighed up the benefits and the disadvantages. The disadvantage of not having the Pfizer data through Medsafe and through to the officials to follow normal processes versus the urgency of all these other things around COVID that would increase the risk particularly to the vulnerable those immunocompromised and older people—weighing all of that up. What we've heard from the experts is that there are merits in progressing without approval from Medsafe and that there are more benefits relying substantively on the international evidence. We've listened. We've heard. We've expressed our concerns and some suggestions as to how this bill could be made better. But at the end of the day we've taken the advice of experts and the science and we will be supporting this bill in its final reading here today. Thank you.
Little AndrewThird ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I move That the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. I thank the House for their attention to this bill that will make a difference to more vulnerable parts of our population who seek the further assurance of an additional dose of an appropriate COVID vaccine. Our vaccination programme is dominated by the Pfizer vaccine—the brand name Comirnaty—but we have had two or three other vaccines as well as part of our programme. AstraZeneca is probably the next most used and there's Novavax as well. So this bill simply allows the director-general through an appropriate notice and on appropriate assurances to approve a further dose being given and the basis of that dose as well. This simply reflects the fact that there is international evidence that for some parts of the population the vaccine wans in efficacy. For those who are concerned about that and where it's medically appropriate they can get an additional dose of that.The alternative is to rely on the pharmaceutical company themselves to make an appropriate application to Pharmac. They haven't done that. The alternative then would be for each individual person who wanted a further dose to go through their doctor to go through the named patient regime for off-label use. This process obviates the need for that and makes it available on a broad basis for those defined in the notice and for whom the director-general is satisfied there is a therapeutic benefit and for whom it is safe to further administer that dose. It is a very simple process in that respect. But as members have raised in the debate in the House this House can look forward to—and I know they will in eager anticipation—a recasting of our legislation that governs pharmaceuticals and medicines and other products claimed to have a therapeutic benefit with the forthcoming therapeutic products bill. I can assure the House that there has been considerable work done—with I might say a sense of alacrity—and they won't have to wait too much longer. That bill is churning its way through.Todd Muller: What about sunscreen?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: And I'm obliged to the member for Bay of Plenty for the work he has done on a therapeutic product namely sunscreen. I think that member will find that his hard work his labours will be fully absorbed no pun intended into the therapeutic products bill and his work will itself provide a therapeutic benefit to the therapeutic products bill. But this bill provides a very effective remedy to a problem but most importantly allows people to get that additional dose by way of further reassurance to a virus that we all want to see the back of just as quickly as we can. On that note I commend the bill to the House.
Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 5
McKelvie IanBill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I'll attempt to respond to the member's questions. On the extent of the director-general's approval—and the member I think wrapped it up in what discussions or what advice did Ministers have about the background to this. What we were invited to consider was first of all the growing international evidence that there is waning immunity—particularly for vulnerable populations—when it comes to COVID vaccines and therefore for those vulnerable populations should we be considering further assurance if you like through more doses of the vaccine to afford greater protection. We considered the advice we received and we took the view that it was appropriate to make a fourth dose available to those populations. We weren't prepared to mandate it but we thought it should be an option that is available for those who wish to do it. So that is the background to it and what we have approved.On the reading of the bill it is possible that the director-general in giving a notification under these provisions could provide for vaccination to be available to those currently not covered by approvals of Pharmac or Medsafe but in order to do so the director-general has to have access to relevant data and has to be sure about the safety and therapeutic benefit of doing so. That's what clause 4 largely takes us to. So I don't think people should be particularly worried that there is now some sort of recipe to expand the use of vaccines to parts of the population who do not currently have access to it. The focus right now is on those vulnerable parts of the population who are looking for further assurance through an additional dose. The member raised a question about the epidemic notice and it goes right outside the scope of the bill. So apart from saying that in all things that the Government does we act lawfully and we will continue to do so. The final question the member raised was about cost. What I can say is that this Government has procured enough of the vaccines including the Pfizer vaccine Comirnaty to administer additional doses. There will be no additional cost to the Government in doing so. We have enough doses installed.Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I thank the member again. In relation to my earlier comments I said that I'd expect the director-general to be reliant on information provided directly by a pharmaceutical company as opposed to third-party sources. The information that the Food and Drug Administration considers typically comes directly from pharmaceutical companies and I therefore think that it is likely if not probable that were the director-general to be of a mind to the director-general could consider data that had been considered and accepted by the Food and Drug Administration in the US providing that the director-general was satisfied that the information had come from a reliable and credible source. If it comes from a pharmaceutical company it is the same source that our Pharmac and Medsafe use so I think it would most likely meet that standard. So I hope that answers that question for the member. Secondly I accept the member's point about the erosion of social capital that we have suffered as a consequence of the dynamics that have built up around the COVID response. I can say to the member that the very reason we're taking this approach is that it is not this Government's intention at all and the Government will not be mandating a fourth dose. This is on a voluntary basis because of the available evidence that there is waning immunity for some parts of the population—the more vulnerable parts of the population. Therefore if those parts of the population wish to avail themselves of a fourth dose without having to go through the named-patient process which is very cumbersome then they will be able to do so but we will not be making a fourth dose mandatory for anybody.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Just very quickly in response to the last comment: I recognise that the Minister of Health is a trained lawyer and not a medical expert. I certainly wouldn't ask him to approve a vaccine. But he's also an elected representative of New Zealand. And if you believe that New Zealanders wanted the Director-General of Health to consider it then he might think about passing on that message in the spirit of being an elected representative; not to force the decision but to actually draw it to the director-general's attention I think would be a helpful thing to do in a representative democracy.But can I just—you know one more follow-up to that previous question which really was that the Minister's drawn our attention to clause 4 that says that Before issuing a notice … the Director-General must—(a) have regard to the likely therapeutic value of the proposed administration of [a vaccine and the risk]; and (b) be satisfied that the proposed administration … is an appropriate measure to manage the risks associated with the outbreak or spread of COVID-19." I thought it strange that the Minister despite having said "Look I don't have the expertise here." was quite adamant that if the director-general was going to make a decision then he could certainly use datasheets from Pfizer but he couldn't consider the fairly fulsome proceedings of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has been published in the US in the last week. Surely he's not saying this statute as we're currently proposing it would prevent the director-general from having a look at the proceedings of the FDA and the decisions of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the last few days and referring to those and if so do we need to consider whether this legislation is overly prescriptive? I don't think the legislation supports the comments the Minister's made but if he could clarify I think that would be very helpful.Finally we know that vaccination and some of the Government's policies in response to COVID-19 have led to enormous resentment and distrust and erosion of social capital—and we saw the irrational extremes of that on the front lawn of our Parliament. I know that in response to this legislation which ACT supports and which is fairly straightforward there will be people who will ask "Is the possibility of a fourth dose a precursor to the requirement under certain circumstances for people to have a fourth dose?" And I think it would just be helpful for the Minister to state whether he's had any advice about that or any communications or consideration of a fourth dose being required in any context particularly in relation to the health system where he has ministerial responsibility once it's allowed? I think it would be helpful for New Zealand for the Minister to get up and make a very candid statement about where he lands on that particular issue. So there are two questions there. I'd really like to hear the Minister's answers."
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to the member. He is right: this is simply about the administration of vaccines. The bill makes it clear that it does not allow for the approval of new vaccines. So it'll be existing vaccines approved by Medsafe and Pharmac—so Comirnaty but also the other ones that we have the AstraZeneca—Dr Shane Reti: Novavax.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Novavax. Thank you Dr Reti. So it won't allow the director-general to issue a notice in relation to any vaccine for COVID-19 other than those that have already been approved.In relation to whether it could be administered to age groups not so far the subject of an application by Pfizer I'd just draw the member's attention to clause 4 of the bill. It does require the director-general in issuing the notice to have access to data to justify the notice that the director-general might give and having regard to the likely therapeutic value of the administration of the vaccine and any risk and that it's an appropriate measure. So the director-general has to be satisfied of that. In reality that data is going to be most likely obtained from the pharmaceutical companies so the director-general would be reliant on that. So unless there is some other source of data—David Seymour: Such as the FDA committee?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well decisions about the use of particular pharmaceuticals is typically reliant on data provided by the pharmaceutical company applying for the application to distribute and sell in the country. So I expect the director-general would be reliant on that as opposed to third-party sources of it. In your third question—would I prevail upon the director-general to make representations about how it should be administered—no I do not have a clinical background. I do not regard myself as having clinical expertise. I'm reliant on advice from the director-general. I might ask the director-general from time to time what is an appropriate regime for New Zealand but I am reliant on the director-general and the other experts that the director-general calls upon before any such decision would be made.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister about how he interprets the legislation before us. It says that if the Minister has given consent or provisional consent to a COVID-19 vaccine and a data sheet is approved for the vaccine under the regulations the director-general (DG) can authorise a different way of administering it. In other words that would mean that a vaccine that's already being used for COVID—and I assume that would include several and I wonder if he could tell us which ones—the way it's administered the doses the frequency perhaps even how it's injected could be changed. Could he just confirm that is really what this is about. It's not about new vaccines; it's about the administration of those that have been consented and if so which ones will it apply to that are currently consented COVID-19 vaccines?The reason I ask that as a secondary part is I know there are people—and I have constituents in the Epsom electorate—who are interested in whether this will allow the director-general if they were to choose to allow the administration of Comirnaty to younger New Zealanders. Because the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States have just said that you can now give a Comirnaty—three doses over I think 11 weeks—to a six-month- to five-year-old child. Currently that's not allowed in New Zealand but there's certainly a lot of parents who would like that to be an option. So I think it would be really helpful for the Minister to tell us if that will be possible theoretically. If not then I think we should discuss perhaps how the legislation could even be amended to allow it in this committee.The third question I guess is: what is his position as the Minister of Health? Will he use his influence? Will he consider perhaps writing to the director-general and asking that the director-general should make it available for six-month- to five-year-olds and—assuming that I've interpreted the law correctly it would allow for six-month- to five-year-olds to have a Pfizer vaccine—will he then encourage that to happen rapidly? Because as I said in my second reading speech—and I'll just give the Minister a bit more time as he's consulting his officials—I think this whole episode while we support the legislation and think it's a good idea and it should go through as quickly as possible has exposed some weaknesses I guess in our legislation our regulatory regime for medical products and medications; perhaps actually a weakness in our regulatory regime for all sorts of products which I believe and ACT believes are very duplicative whether it's plasterboard or whatever.So I hope the Minister can answer those three questions. Does this mean any currently consented COVID vaccine and if so which ones would this law apply to right now? Second of all could that mean that we could allow it to be applied to six-month- to five-year-olds as has just been allowed in the US and if so will he encourage the DG to do that?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you and I thank the member for his questions. In case it hadn't already become apparent to the member he will know that I'm a Minister that gets things done. So having picked up the therapeutic products bill that was started under the previous Labour Government and made absolutely no progress under the previous Government I have picked it up and I can assure the member that that bill will be introduced before the end of this year. In fact there's a fair amount of work going into it and we thought very carefully about the amendment to the Medicines Act for this purpose and its relationship to the therapeutic products bill. So I can assure the member that we will have a therapeutic products bill in this House and that will be an opportunity to look at the full regime and to draw on any lesson we've learnt from this particular provision. That's the reason we didn't consider that there needed to be a sunset clause because the days of the Medicines Act 1981 are going to draw to a close. We will have a modern therapeutic products piece of legislation before too long.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I just have a few questions which we actually note in our report. Just to record and double check with the Minister can I just reply to my colleague David Seymour his very good question—I interpret it the same as what David does. Pretty sure I talked about that the assay can't change so it can't be a different strain added into what we currently have that it has to stay this dose and frequency or it comes back. That's my interpretation as well because we did ask questions about the flu vaccine and different strains and how that got a different set of legislative requirements.The questions we want to ask the Minister and it has been touched on in second reading is he certain that there need be no requirements—and my colleague Simon Watts raised points of this type as well—no provisions or it is not necessary to have provisions to review this Act at some point in the future? Let's remember it hasn't had a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) vet it hasn't had a regulatory impact statement (RIS) it hasn't had an impact analysis and even though the therapeutic products bill is promised it is some point in the future and doesn't really address these questions that we'd have with any other normal legislative process. So I'm just looking for some reassurance from him or reasons as to why not or that maybe it could be considered.The second question I'd ask—and it's been raised by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse—is around the sunset clause. It was raised by submitters; again it's being held for—as we understand it—the therapeutic products bill which has been on the order sheet I believe over several Governments. So it might be a bit wishful to say this is a temporary measure and if that temporary becomes a lot longer—and we know that with COVID vaccines there's been issues with temporality in front of the courts anyway.So I think we want to have this sort of tidied up so two questions to the Minister. One a consideration of review RIS BORA and efficacy. Then second the provision of a sunset clause.
Salesa Jenny; Edmonds BarbaraIn CommitteeClauses 1 to 5CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Dr Shane Reti.BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. My apologies; I was waiting for instructions but I've just missed it. So I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objections? There are no objections. The question is that clauses 1 to 5 stand part.
Sharma Gaurav; Salesa JennyDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Before I speak on this bill I just want to wish everyone in the House Mānawatia a Matariki—happy Māori New Year—as well as acknowledge that today is international yoga day which is being celebrated across the world in over 150 countries. Today I had the pleasure of hosting it here in New Zealand with the honourable Ginny Andersen being the first country in the world to host it. I just want to thank all the members who actually came early in the morning to join us for yoga.Just coming to the bill now the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) the House has been in recess in the last week. I was out in the community meeting people and talking to them and I got asked about six times when the fourth dose of vaccine is on its way. So it was really good to see out in the community that people are interested in having another booster shot which will eventually help our communities keep away from hospitals keep away from sickness. As my colleague and former midwife Sarah Pallett said it is also a good reminder now to make sure that you get your flu shots at the same time to make sure that we are doing a good service and keeping the waiting lists of the hospitals low. I also want to acknowledge as a member of the Health Committee the submissions we did receive in the tight time lines we had especially from organisations and people who are involved in looking after our communities because it does make a huge difference when these people are involved and support the work we are doing through this bill. I also want to quickly acknowledge parties across the House who all agree on this bill and I would like to recommend the bill to the House. Thank you.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2).
Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. This is as Mr Little said a very simple bill which allows the 834000 people who would benefit from a fourth dose to receive it if they wish—if they wish—in a much swifter and more equitable way. The people that we are referring to here are people who are over 65 Māori and Pacific people over 50 and those who are severely immunocompromised. I just want to follow up very briefly on the conversation that we heard a little earlier about flu. Influenza is indeed an extremely serious illness but COVID and flu are not directly comparable. To the unvaccinated person becoming infected COVID has a substantially higher up to 10 times higher rate of mortality—that is it will kill 10 times as many people as the flu does. The moral of the story is please get vaccinated and vaccinated against flu too. Thank you.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. Very much like the member for the Green Party Mr Tuiono I also am not an expert in health and am just a humble lawyer. So I wasn't there to scrutinise this particular bill as part of the select committee. But what I did quickly have a look at were the experts who did submit on the bill—the five that did agree with it. I just want to basically confirm and affirm my support for the Immunisation Advisory Centre's submission which is very briefly that they approve the use of the vaccine that already had consent or provisional consent for use as a new medicine. They believe that this bill will help to manage the risks of COVID-19's spread and provide therapeutic value to those being vaccinated. They also supported this bill because it allowed for our vaccination workforce to administer further doses of the COVID-19 vaccine in the same way they have for the primary courses and the first booster doses. And they paid particular question to the House to just pay heed to targeting Māori and Pasifika. So on that note I commend this bill to the House
Leavasa Dr Anae Neru; Salesa JennyDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Mālō e leilei Madam Speaker. It's great to back in the House after taking time out with my now eight-week-old baby girl. So it's good to be back. It's just I guess a good reminder that our families do sacrifice for us to be here doing the work here as well. It's good to rise to support the second reading of this bill. It's good to ease back into work as well sitting on the select committee last week and hearing our submitters come in. I acknowledge my colleagues from the Royal New Zealand College of GPs and hearing what they had to say but it's good all round to get reassurance that all our submitters supported the bill bar Pfizer because of their interests in it. I do want to mention in terms of this bill making it easier that it is all about equity it's about access and it's about protection of our whānau. I think about my nanna with mobility issues. If she had to go get a prescription the timeliness of getting that and then also getting the vaccination done—this bill will help improve that process and make it better not only for the patient but for the provider as well. So I'll be brief: I support this bill. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. Yes the bill actually just provides a permanent and futureproof solution to what is going to be ongoing vaccination requirements. As said by the previous speaker Chris Bishop whilst we acknowledge the select committee and thank the submitters all of them were in favour so there's nothing controversial here.It essentially just allows the Director-General of Health specifically to authorise the ongoing use and to do so in an equitable way which I think is a point that we should potentially add in so far as the Ministry of Health data very specifically showed that most people didn't go to their GP to get their vaccinations. Nearly half visited a local pharmacy or they went to community sites or community group sites. So it's really important that this bill allows all of the COVID-19 vaccinators to continue to do so which should improve the equitable community access to the fourth dose should those vulnerable groups who the director-general deems may need that second booster to be able to do so in a reasonable manner. So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Speaker and I'm happy to rise in support of the second reading of this bill. As chair of the Health Committee that dealt with the consideration of this bill can I just acknowledge colleagues from all around the House for their collegiality as part of that process but also the select committee staff the Ministry of Health advisers and also the Parliamentary Counsel Office because this was a bill that went through a shorter time frame that was determined by the House. I acknowledge Dr Reti's contributions as part of that process around the submissions that were received by the select committee. Five of the six submissions that were received were in support. The outstanding one was that of Pfizer who didn't explicitly comment in favour or against the bill. The committee in its report notes that that's appropriate given the commercial relationship that Pfizer has with the Government. We also heard from the Minister for COVID-19 Response and was reassured with the responses that he was able to provide to the select committee. This bill delivers a rather discrete change to the Medicines Act. It inserts new section 34A and that will allow the director-general to issue a notice that would allow for the fourth dose of the COVID vaccine and only the COVID vaccine which was a point that was traversed by the Health Committee at the time to be administered by ways in which we are all familiar with out in community clinics community providers and the like. There were a couple of issues that were raised during the select committee process. The first is the suitability of this opportunity or whether the IMO the immediate modification order that exists under the Epidemic Preparedness Act was more appropriate. What we heard was that that is an emergency power component and therefore it was not appropriate to be utilised for the purpose of what this particular bill or amendment was seeking. The second was around transparency. Some of the submitters asked questions around whether the information that would be made available to the director-general in the process of them making a determination to issue the notice or not would be publicly available. And we heard that that would be no different than what was currently the approach by the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group which is published on the Ministry of Health's website. So I'm delighted that the select committee has returned a report to the House which seeks no amendments to the bill that it suggests or recommends that the bill be passed and that it is the unanimous position of the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.
Little Andrew; Salesa JennyMEDICINES AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)Second ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2).SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Mr Speaker. This is a very simple bill. It does a very simple thing. It gives the Director-General of Health the power to—SPEAKER: Order! I think the member needs to move the bill.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Oh! I'm obliged Mr Speaker. I move That the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. This amendment bill does a very simple thing. It gives the Director-General of Health the power to make an appropriate order to make a vaccine otherwise not available available for widespread use. The background to this is of course COVID 19 and we have a recognised vaccine the Comirnaty vaccine produced by Pfizer. Pfizer applied for and obtained from Pharmac approval for the use of that vaccine in accordance with the terms applied for by Pfizer and that allowed the vaccine to be administered within New Zealand to a number of New Zealanders over a certain age and a certain number of doses certain periods apart. It is clear from information available that this vaccine like most vaccines has a waning efficacy and as many other countries have found we wanted to make sure that particularly vulnerable parts of our population continued to get access to the vaccine while COVID remains a real risk.Pfizer has indicated they don't intend to make any further application for use of the vaccine beyond the two doses and a booster dose although for some people they effectively receive four doses although a growing body of international evidence suggests that it would be a useful thing for a further dose to be available to some parts of the population. The vaccine is available to anybody whose GP is prepared to prescribe it on an off-label basis and so what is being sought here is not something that is out of the realms of possibility otherwise but it would be an enormous exercise of course if everybody who wanted to get it as a further reassurance because of waning efficacy had to go to the GP had to seek a prescription off-label and had to go through that process. This simply allows the director-general who would be required in terms of the amendment bill to obtain appropriate advice which the director-general would do to allow the vaccine to be available on a broader basis.That is effectively what the bill does. I'm very thankful to the Health Committee who met in short order including during the recess week to obtain information and to hear from some stakeholders who have indicated their support for the bill. On that basis I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 8 June
Little AndrewAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 7 to Minister 8 June 2022Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 366 to correct the record in relation to oral parliamentary question No. 7 on 8 June 2022.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I advised the House in answer to a question from Dr Shane Reti that as at 31 March 2022 there were 310 fulltime-equivalent vacancies from midwives and 2663 fulltime-equivalent vacancies for nurses in the public health system. I've received advice from the Ministry of Health that the vacancy numbers in relation to midwives should have been 374 and for nurses should have been 2593.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of James Hita requesting that the House ban seabed mining in the waters around Aotearoa New Zealand including in our exclusive economic zone. Petition of Riley Hay requesting that the House urge the Government to make more sustainable plastic recycling options that motivate the public to recycle plastic instead of it going into the general waste.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Revisions to the Radio Regulations adopted by the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference 2019 and the associated National Interest AnalysisGovernment Response to the Report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment BillTakeovers PanelStatement of Performance Expectations 2022-2023Children's CommissionerStatement of Intent 2021-2024Statement of Performance Expectations 2021-2022SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation; there are quite a few.CLERK: Reports of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on:the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Billthe Inquiry into the Review of the Radio New Zealand Charter andthe Report of the Ombudsman: OPCAT Report Thematic report on inspections of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Facilities under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989.Reports of the Health Committee on:the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2)the Petition of Jenn Hooper andthe further Petition of Jenn Hooper.Report of the Justice Committee on the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation BillReport of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Maniapoto Claims Settlement BillReports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Connor Sharp Emily Shute Jade Varney Joanna Harris Rachel Booth and Raymond HellyerReport of the Regulations Review Committee on the Examination of COVD-19 order presented 23 May 2022Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on:the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Billthe Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Billthe petition of Deaf Action Aotearoa New Zealand andthe petition of Sue Brown.Reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the petitions of Cory Alexander Aitken Lance Priestley and Nikkita Eilenberg.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading.The inquiry the report of the Regulations Review Committee and the report of the Ombudsman are set down for consideration.The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill introduction.Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill introduction.Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill introduction.Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Resignations — Hon Kris Faafoi
Mallard TrevorRESIGNATIONSHon Kris Faafoi New Zealand LabourSPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Kris Faafoi resigning his seat in the House with effect at Saturday 23 July 2022.
Obituaries — Richard Prosser
Mallard TrevorOBITUARIESRichard ProsserSPEAKER: Members I regret to inform the House of the death on 10 June 2022 in the United Kingdom of Richard Prosser who was a list member for the New Zealand First Party from 2011 to 2017. He served on the Law and Order Committee and the Primary Production Committee. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory. Honorable members stood as a mark of respect.
Salesa JennyTUESDAY 21 JUNE 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): Mānawatia a Matariki. E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi ki te Kuīni me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.[We welcome and celebrate Matariki. Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Thursday 9 June 2022 - Volume 760
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Water Services Entities Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is That the Water Services Entities Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move That the Water Services Entities Bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2022.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is That the amendment to the motion in the name of Simon Watts be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 21 June 2022.The House adjourned at 4.56 p.m.
Water Services Entities Bill — First Reading
11. Question No. 11—Disarmament and Arms ControlINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms ControlQuestion No. 11—Disarmament and Arms Control11. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What recent reports has he seen on opportunities to progress New Zealand's nuclear disarmament priorities?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): I've seen reports on the first meeting of States parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) to be held in Vienna on 21 to 23 June which I'll be travelling to next week as the head of New Zealand's delegation. The TPNW which entered force last year is a milestone in international disarmament efforts. It expressly forbids States to develop test produce acquire possess stockpile use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. Eighty-nine States have now signed or ratified the treaty but we still live in a world where 13000 nuclear warheads exist and States like Russia and North Korea continue to threaten to wage nuclear war. That's why it's so important that New Zealand continues to push strongly to ban the bomb. We are well known as a principled voice in international disarmament something which has been at the heart of our foreign policy and also who we are as a country.Ingrid Leary: What is New Zealand hoping to achieve at the first meeting of States parties?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The ban treaty sends a clear message to the nine nuclear weapons States—the United States Russia the United Kingdom France China Israel India Pakistan and North Korea—that those weapons pose an unacceptable risk to humanity and the planet. Amplifying that message will be a priority for New Zealand in Vienna. It's also a chance to emphasise the role that international rules and norms play in promoting peace and stability. Russia's recent threats to use nuclear weapons have demonstrated the absurdity of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council holding the world to ransom and has shown that now more than ever we need nuclear disarmament and stronger multilateral institutions.Ingrid Leary: Why is the TPNW important for our Pacific region?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Nine of the 69 States parties to the TPNW are Pacific States and few parts of the world are more familiar with the devastating consequences of nuclear weapons than the Pacific. Decades after more than 300 nuclear detonations by the US the UK and France the legacy of these continues to be felt with environmental damage and multigenerational health effects from radiation exposure. The Pacific recognises that it is not enough just to ban the bomb; we need justice for those who have felt the brunt of it. The TPNW recognises this too and it will make an important contribution to addressing that legacy.
9. Question No. 9—ConservationANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 9—Conservation9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: How will Budget 2022 support emissions reduction and visitor experiences on conservation land?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): It's a great question. Budget 2022 recognises the twin crisis for biodiversity and the climate are intrinsically linked. In support of actions in the emissions reduction plan the Department of Conservation has been allocated $3 million as part of a multi-agency project to maximise carbon sequestration the native forests and has received $10 million to transition more of its passenger vehicles to electric. In addition Budget 2022 also makes targeted investments into the Department of Conversation to ensure that visitor facilities are providing unforgettable experiences for domestic and international visitors as we reconnect with the world.Angie Warren-Clark: How will Budget 2022 funding support the renewal of recreational assets?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Department of Conservation has the country's largest recreation asset network covering a third of the country's total land area including 14600 kilometres of tracks 326 campsites and 967 back country huts. Budget 2022 provides an uplift of $60 million for the maintenance and renewal of recreation assets so that visitor experiences are enjoyable and safe and that the asset network is more resilient to natural hazards and extreme weather events. This boost will allow the department to address deferred maintenance on up to 20000 additional recreational assets per year—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister has addressed the question.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: But there's so much more good stuff—DEPUTY SPEAKER: No don't argue with me. Angie Warren-Clark.Angie Warren-Clark: How will Budget 2022 funding support visitor experiences on heritage sites?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Great question particularly as we go to reconnect with the rest of the world. The Department of Conservation is the manager of the largest number of cultural heritage sites in the country with approximately 16000 sites including 50 heritage icon sites 11 Tohu Whenua sites and these are highly valued by local communities. Budget 2022 allocates $13 million for cultural heritage sites including $4 million for ensuring the quality is uplifted of Tohu Whenua sites and $9 million for maintenance at significant heritage sites including reducing the number of vulnerable sites from 300 currently—which is a subject of the neglect of the last lot—to 30 just now.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nō reira. We come to question number 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell.