edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise in support of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. In contrast to the previous speaker Ginny Andersen I want to focus on the importance of this bill. I don't think there's anybody in this House that would look at what social workers do and think Wow why do they do what they do?" It's such an important role that they play and there's not a lot of people that would actually be willing to do what they do. So I'd like to just start by acknowledging the significant contribution that social workers play in addressing some of our most intractable challenges that we have as a country. This is an important bill because this bill allows those that don't have the necessary qualifications but have the experience—it gives them the opportunity to continue to serve their communities. When I think of social workers I don't have to look too far than my own sister who's a social worker and the work that she does helping young Māori young rangatahi and young Kiwis throughout the country—and all those social workers out there that do a fantastic job in serving their communities. So this is a bill that we are happy to support on this side of the House. It does give a little bit more breathing room for the sector to deal with the workforce shortages that we face in social workers; around about 700 vacancies for social workers across this country. We've got to do a better job of encouraging people into the sector and part of that solution is of course training more into social work. Another part is encouraging those that have the experience but don't have the qualifications to go and serve their communities. I think the benefits of this bill have been well traversed in this House and I commend this bill to the House today."
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I was looking through this bill and thinking that it's a pretty good bill and then I was thinking Who's voting for it?" and I thought "Everyone is voting for this. We've got National ACT and New Zealand First voting to register social workers." And I thought "Has National finally run out of things to disestablish?" Maybe they have. Is it now that they're actually passing Labour legislation because they've run out of their own bills to put? And is the point of registering social workers so that they can keep tabs on how many they're going to fire when they bring in social investment and get rid of the Public Service.I am pleased that we're passing a bill that does good things for social workers and brings more rigour into the sector but I am highly sceptical of why we're here doing this in unison. It's good that we're doing more to encourage people to register and to be able to encourage that forward but I am highly sceptical of how social investment is going to work particularly for our social sectors and how those communities that are the most vulnerable in New Zealand are served by social workers when a programme of 6.5 percent cuts to all social services will directly impact people like social workers in New Zealand."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's great to rise on the second reading of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. Just to touch briefly on the background of this bill the Social Workers Registration Act initially brought in the rules around this back in 2003. It established occupation regulations to ensure that social workers are fit to practise and accountable. The regulations are intended to protect the safety of the public to ensure that the people who provide these services provide the highest-quality service.I would support what we just heard from the previous speaker the Hon Willie Jackson that these social workers do a very important job in our communities. They help lives—and can help save lives in fact—and it's a huge contribution that they make but we need to make sure the people who are doing that also have the relevant skills necessary to deliver those services often to people in quite a fragile life state.So the intention back in 2017 was to repeal what's called the experience pathway" into social registration with a delayed commencement date. The decision to repeal that was made in support of the professionalisation of social work to emphasise the standardisation of the workforce: requiring social workers to obtain an academic qualification. However the reality is that we have come through to 2024 and we are some 700 vacancies short and we just simply don't have the people that we need. Of course we've had some significant life events and national and global events that have affected people in New Zealand and are continuing to affect the people. I refer to obviously the COVID pandemic and the long tail that is coming from that. Only recently I was in Te Ānau for example hearing about the significant ongoing effect on people from the pandemic. It's still having quite a big impact on people's lives and people are still trying to come to terms with the emotional and financial challenges etc. that stemmed from that period. We need these social workers; we don't have enough. So the intention of this amendment bill is to add another two years for that experience pathway so that people who don't have those academic qualifications but have the experience that is necessary—to ensure that we feel comfortable that they're competent fit and proper—can offer these services to people in the community.We want to extend this by another two years with the amendment that will be made to ensure that people in New Zealand have better access. But we also do want to send a signal that we do think it is important for people who work in this area to have those academic qualifications to make sure we have the standardisation and that they have the skills so they can feel comfortable offering these services to people and the community.So with that I'll just say a deep thankyou from all of us I think here in the House to the people who offer these services across the country to our communities. They provide an incredibly valuable service and I thank them for their contribution. With that I commend this bill to the House."
Jackson WillieSOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 31 January.Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora Madam Speaker. It's really good to have the support from the other side with regards to some of our initiatives and whakaaro and glad that that member over there—Ryan Hamilton—is learning something. This particular bill is a bipartisan bill. It's good that we can on these types of kaupapa come together because it is a really important bill. This bill of course will delay the repeal of the experience pathways to social work registration from February 2024 to February 2028.I think one of the points that was made during the kōrero on this bill was that people with practical experience can actually do the business out in the workplace. I think that members probably know that. In this particular area I've seen firsthand—I was telling Minister Mark Mitchell last night—interestingly enough in my former roles as a CEO for our community groups that we engage a number of our Māori social workers who never had the qualifications that you probably should have and eventually you must have. But some of our best Māori social workers had community and life experience. I was telling Minister Mitchell last night that we had actually engaged former gang members. I thought he'd find that quite interesting in terms of cutting to the chase in terms of some of the gang problems we were experiencing in South Auckland. Who better to address some of the domestic violence that was going on in some of the homes that we were working with than ex-gang members who'd turned their lives around?I think some of the mahi that we did at ground level particularly in the Whānau Ora space where I would hope that this Government would continue to invest in that kaupapa was rolled out by people who did not have the necessary academic qualifications in terms of social work. They can be some of our best people. So that is why this type of bill is really important and that is why we as political parties—whatever our parties are—must come together to support a lot of these social workers who have great skills who have life skills who can change lives.As I said through my organisation Manukau Urban Māori Authority Waipareira Trust—we had Manurewa Marae too over there with Takutai Tarsh Kemp mihi to her for her wonderful mahi out there out south in Manurewa. We know that at ground level you can engage our people—that has been the Māori experience—and then we get the qualifications as we must do. But first and foremost it's about changing people's lives. That's why this kaupapa is important in terms of giving people space and time to get the necessary tohus in the end or qualifications. That's why we absolutely tautoko this bill and I'm glad to see that all the parties and members in the House can come together on this type of issue. Madam Speaker kia ora tātou.
Hamilton RyanRYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I just want to acknowledge the Hon Willie Jackson there. I'm quite new to the House and I learnt some good material there. Razor gang vanity project" "social-good vandalism" and "overseas far-right thinktanks". There's some awesome material there that I can use. Thank you for that productivity—the art and science of doing more with less. Not spending more and doing less like we've seen over the last three years but doing more with less more efficiently.As has been well canvased over these readings the Productivity Commission has done some really fantastic work particularly across the housing affordability social issues and identifying regulation constraints that if removed would enable us to be a much more productive people and therefore nation. In terms of construction costs we are in the bottom 10 percent of the OECD—the Infrastructure Commission's told us that. Lots of agencies NGOs and laypeople can tell us the problems. We don't need the Productivity Commission anymore; it's the end of a season. So let's take those learnings and the learnings of the Productivity Commission over the last 13 years and now implement them in a more integrated and efficient way. I commend this bill to the House."
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): This bill is about evolution. It's evolution of how we as a country can improve the productivity that we so dearly need. It is a bill that is the result of our coalition agreement with the ACT Party and obviously effectively repeals the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act 2010. This will affect the disestablishment of the Productivity Commission because it is seen by this coalition Government as no longer serving its intended purpose. This Government sees a better way to cut red tape and improve the productivity that this country so dearly needs. It's an outcome that will improve people's lives it will improve people's lifestyles and it will improve people's livelihoods. And for that very good reason I commend this bill to the House.
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. What has actually been really clear is that this Government does not care for public consultation or engagement in relation to important bills that come before the House. Once again this is another example of this Government putting through legislation without the ability to have a select committee because if we took it to select committee the select committee—basically public submitters would have the ability to be able to answer this question: do you want an independent advisory expert group that was set up for the purpose of allowing public debate or do you want a Government agency controlled by a Minister whereby you are not able to participate in the debate? That is what a select committee process would've allowed the public to have been able to submit on.As I've said in the second reading of this particular bill this is about control. It is about David Seymour being able to control the research and narrative that comes out from his own new agency as opposed to being able to again allow there to be a high-level debate which is why this commission was set up in 2010. It was Bill English who said it was about encouraging high-level debate. Productivity we all know is an issue for our country and it should be something that all parties within this House are able to debate freely with the public but how can they have that debate if it gets siphoned into a ministerial Government agency? I also look to Rodney Hide when he spoke about when this Productivity Commission was first established. He said Establishing the Commission is one concrete step towards arresting New Zealand's productivity slide."So then I ask the question: why is it really that David Seymour wants to remove the Productivity Commission? I think what it is is because it's a personality issue—a personality issue. David Seymour was reported in a press conference on 5 September 2023 saying it had been "frankly hijacked" and that he wouldn't have appointed the chair that it currently has. If that's the case—you just don't like the chair—change it. That's your discretion as the Minister. Don't basically remove the public debate the high-level debate which a National and ACT Government put into place.So I do not support this bill. I do not support the process and the logistics in which this bill came to the House which removes the ability to have a public debate in the same way that the Productivity Commission being removed does not allow for a public debate."
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): We are already very clear that the New Zealand Productivity Commission is no longer serving its intended purposes. We need to seriously get to work and improve the quality of regulation and reduce Government spending. So stop wasting time. I commend this bill to the House.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I support this bill the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill and I think we're kind of missing the point across the House a little bit because this is about disestablishing the Productivity Commission but it's about driving productivity in this country and focusing on taxpayer dollars and spending them wisely and resourcefully—that's what this is all about. If we're going to focus on productivity we've got to drive those sectors that produce and that's agriculture that's supporting our exporters that's supporting our businesses and that's supporting the places that are going to drive productivity in this country and that is reducing red tape reducing regulation and reducing compliance. That is why I commend this bill to the House.
Arbuckle JamieJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill third reading. So we've heard through the first and second readings and through the discussions that this has come to a point where we need to repeal. It's this coalition Government that can see on this side of the House saving some money to put this money into a better place.Hon Willie Jackson: Saving some money is it? Oh OK.JAMIE ARBUCKLE: It will. The Minister has outlined where that will go.So we know red tape is a problem and we will be able to put this money to a better place and to a better spend. New Zealand First will support this. We commend this bill to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill. I think while we can disagree the Hon James Shaw and myself it's amazing how our perspectives change when we only move a few metres across the House. All of a sudden the member is understanding the frustrations with the urgency process and the use of it which we spent a lot of time railing against only a few months ago. However as I said perspective matters. The regulations ministry which the Hon James Shaw referred to as did the Hon David Seymour will actually make a huge difference. Where the Productivity Commission wrote reports—and some of them were worthy; there's no doubt about that—it really contributed little to our economy. We need to prune out the regulations that are not only extraneous but further than that are making so much more—Hon James Shaw: Point of order Mr Speaker. I was just wondering if we could invite the member to refer to the bill that is up for debate rather than to debate something that isn't in the bill.SPEAKER: Well that's true but he's only just getting started. I will listen to that but I'll call the member to keep it relevant to the bill. We've got a big day on here today.STUART SMITH: Thank you Mr Speaker I won't take up too much more time because I covered some very good points on this bill. But all I can say is the time has come for the Productivity Commission to be disestablished and the regulations ministry will take over and do a much better job. Thank you.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been presented. There have been papers delivered. CLERK: 2022-23 annual reports of the:Herenga ā Nuku AotearoaEducation New Zealand.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill introduction.
Bishop Chris; Webb DuncanBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 13 February. In that week the Government will move urgency to progress multiple stages of the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill. Other legislation to be considered will include further stages of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is scheduled to be a members' day—the first of the new Parliament—and there will be six maiden statements during the week.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Could the Leader of the House let us know whether he'll be introducing or progressing any legislation of the new Government that does anything other than repeal or disestablish anything?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Yes.
Pugh MaureenTHURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSMAUREEN PUGH (Assistant Speaker): 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.
Tuesday 20 February 2024 - Volume 773
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members this bill is set down for second reading immediately.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be amended by omitting 14 March 2024" and adding "14 April 2024".Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Motion not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 March 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day which on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to."
Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Health Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 117New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 6Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
10. Question No. 10—Social Development and EmploymentJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 10—Social Development and Employment10. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What actions if any has she taken to date that aim to reduce welfare dependency in New Zealand?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Our coalition Government is not prepared to accept the welfare system we inherited where work-ready job seekers were forecast to spend on average 13 years on a benefit and teenagers could become trapped on welfare for 24 years of their working lives. We have higher aspirations for the prospects of New Zealanders. So last Friday I formalised with the Ministry of Social Development our Government's view that all existing obligations and sanctions are applied. If job seekers fail to attend job interviews complete their pre-employment tasks or don't take available work consequences should be applied. Yesterday I also announced that from June new work check-ins will begin for job seekers so that we can better support people to shift into work.Joseph Mooney: Why has the Government taken these first steps to reset the welfare system?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: New Zealanders are better off in work if they can work. Work improves financial independence as well as their social and health outcomes. Unfortunately the number of people on the jobseeker benefit has increased by 70000 during the past six years while sanctions applied for breaches of work obligations decreased by 35259. Sanctions are one part of the tool kit in the welfare system. Because people are better off in work we want to ensure that the welfare system motivates people to move into available jobs.Joseph Mooney: What is the purpose of the work check-ins the Minister has announced as the first steps of the Government's reset of the welfare system?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The number of people who have spent longer than one year on the jobseeker benefit has increased by 40000 by September 2017. Vicious cycles—Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?Hon Member: Say that again.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —40000—of welfare dependency trap adults and children in hardship and erode New Zealanders' potential. This Government wants a more proactive welfare system that ensures people are making good progress to become work-ready. The check-ins will provide a way to see if job seekers have been fulfilling their obligations such as making regular job applications as well as ensuring they are getting effective support to help them shift into work.Joseph Mooney: Who will be required to attend the work check-ins?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: People who have been on the jobseeker benefit for six months will be eligible for the proactive work check-ins. The longer people spend on benefits the harder it is to re-enter the workforce. We will not stand by and see New Zealanders' potential go to waste. By intervening earlier we can reduce the risk of people becoming dependent on welfare long term and help them experience the independence and opportunities that work provides.
9. Question No. 9—HealthHon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he committed to delivering positive Māori health outcomes; if so what are those outcomes?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): To the first arm of the question yes and to the second arm I am committed to lifting health outcomes for Māori and this will be informed by those outcomes identified in Pae 2 in the Whakamaua action plan including outcomes such as diabetes.Hon Peeni Henare: What percentage of uplifts in Māori immunisation rates has the Minister seen following his $50 million announcement on 21 December last year and what changes does he expect to see in the 12 months to follow?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The immunisation project that we announced before Christmas was simultaneously with an announcement around the new immunisation information technology programme which will give us much more granular and real-time levels of immunisation rates. As a consequence of that I've been asked for weekly monitoring of those new rates and we'll be setting what those objectives will be when we announce our priorities and Government policy statement.Hon Peeni Henare: Will the Minister meaningfully consider the recommendations following the Waitangi Tribunal's urgent inquiry into the dissolution of Te Aka Whai Ora and will he commit to meeting with the claimants?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Those discussions with the Waitangi Tribunal are sub judice but in a very general sense I would say that we'll take on board all discussions and all dialogue from all parties.Hon Peeni Henare: What consultation if any has the Minister undertaken with hauora providers iwi hapū community organisations and urban Māori organisations regarding the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have had discussions in a general sense with Māori with iwi leaders and with providers both on Zoom and in person and we have discussed what a different future might look like with the dissolution of the Māori Health Authority.
7. Question No. 7—HealthHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that there is a health workforce crisis" and does he accept the estimates of health workforce shortages Te Whatu Ora published in July 2023 as an accurate reflection of the shortages at the time they were published?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes I stand by my statement that there is a workforce crisis as I've said repeatedly for some time. To the second part of the question yes particularly where the document states "[There] has been pressure on our health workforce which needs to lift; we have heard this message clearly from our workforce." I have heard that message also.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What urgent actions will he take to address workforce shortages that will have an impact this year?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We're very encouraged by the increase in general practice registrars who actually start either this week or next week which I understand is the largest cohort of general practice registrars which will then feed through into the general practice network so I'm very pleased with that.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Would he like to congratulate the Government that implemented that?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yes. Thank you.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that after gaining office talking up a crisis he did not receive a briefing on the health workforce from Te Whatu Ora in his first two months in office?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I would need to see the exact dates that I've received briefings but I've made it very clear to Health New Zealand and to the Ministry of Health that the health workforce is our number one priority and they clearly have that in their headlights."
6. Question No. 6—HealthDANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—Health6. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Minister made in relation to improving access to breast cancer screening for New Zealand women?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Last week the Government took its first steps towards delivering on our promise to extend free breast cancer screening to women aged 70 to 74. Breast cancer is the most common cancer amongst New Zealand women and that's why the Government prioritised this crucial initiative in our 100-day plan. I'd like to thank the Breast Cancer Foundation for their continued advocacy in this area.Dana Kirkpatrick: What are the next steps for the extension of breast cancer screening services?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: There is a lot of work to be done in terms of preparation. We need to grow our workforce and support them with the infrastructure required to expand our screening services. Health New Zealand is also working through a process to ready the whole health system for the additional women that will take up screening each year and for those who will sadly require treatment. We're ambitious to advance this as soon as possible.Dana Kirkpatrick: What benefits does he anticipate from extending the age for breast cancer screening?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I'm advised that once the programme is fully implemented the extension will mean that women will become eligible for two to three extra mammograms on average. This means around 120000 additional women will be eligible for screening every two years. Catching more cancers early means better treatment outcomes. The extension could potentially save 65 lives per year; however on our current settings that relates to 22 lives saved. That's not just 22 women but also their family friends and loved ones who won't have to endure the emotional impact of cancer.Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has the Minister received on this announcement?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have received lots of feedback regarding this announcement. The chair of the Breast Cancer Foundation Justine Smyth has said We've been asking for the breast cancer screening age to be raised to 74 for the past eight years so it's fantastic to see work is finally underway on this." This support has been echoed by many members of the public and health professionals."
2. Question No. 2—Prime MinisterDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 2—Prime Minister 2. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and policies?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes in the context they were given.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will he do to protect the takatāpui community from increased discrimination as a result of his Government's policies such as their policy to ban transgender athletes from competing in publicly funded sports?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is not our policy. What we want to make sure is that sports balance fairness and inclusion.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What solutions will be put in place to address Māori health inequities after his Government dismantles the Māori Health Authority?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well we want to work hard to improve Māori health outcomes. We're going to work with local iwi in the spirit of localism and devolution to design solutions to improve outcomes locally. We just don't believe that the way to go about that is building a massive health central bureaucracy here in Wellington.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What actions is his Government taking to push for a sustainable ceasefire in Palestine? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We've been calling for a cessation of hostilities since October last year. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How bad is the Prime Minister willing to allow things to get before his Government cuts diplomatic ties and sanctions Israel for war crimes against Palestinian civilians?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the assertion in that question. That is not something we're interested in.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statement of Christopher Luxon Do not be a climate denier. Do not be a climate minimalist. This is real. Give it up." and if so why did his state of the nation speech this weekend mention climate action precisely zero times?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes I do and I disagree with you. We talked a lot about actually how we speed up the fast-track consenting process so we can get more renewable energy in place whether that be geothermal solar. We want to make sure we've got renewable electricity in place so we can get double the amount of renewable electricity and get this country moving towards its climate goals."
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I'm glad that members opposite have finally woken up to the idea of the fact that things cost. They talk about cost and they've finally woken up to the impact of costs on our most vulnerable. If they were really really concerned about the costs of these reports why haven't they gone out and asked Harry Tam for his template and offered to do it for free? Because that's what they're actually saying here. They're saying that when you remove legal aid funding that no one will be able to access this unless they are super-rich and super-powerful. Well where is the members opposite's compassion and advocacy for those vulnerable if they're requiring them to pay for the reports and they have no system at all to pay for it?Now I noted with interest that in the previous contributions the former Minister Peeni Henare lifted up the regulatory impact statement (RIS). And I'm not sure whether he said it was unprecedented or whether it was unusual but he said that RISs don't come redacted and it's very very unusual to see those come to the House redacted. So I got on the Google machine and I took some advice from young Tom Rutherford and I did some googling. And the very first thing that came up was a document called interim regulatory impact statement establishing the Inspector-General of Defence. And towards the end of the page—I just want to hold up this sheet for everyone—was quite a large redacted document. The document is dated 2021 and of course the Minister of Defence at the time was the Hon Peeni Henare.So this is a good bill by a good Minister—I commend it to the House.
Costello CaseyHon CASEY COSTELLO (NZ First): I also rise again to speak in support of the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the passion and concern that was expressed with regard to victims. I can assure the House that I have held the victims after being raped I have nursed the children who have been beaten I have looked into the victim's eyes and I have retained a faith in the judiciary and the justice system to act appropriately. As was raised across the House we have all been involved in those circumstances where we have had to advocate for people we know for whānau for those we are connected with and for those who we don't know but feel a compassion to represent. That is still available and will continue to be available. I have enormous faith in iwi and hapū for being able to stand up for even those who they have no direct connection to without cost to advocate for those who are vulnerable those who need intervention and that will also continue to exist under this legislation amendment. It is the judiciary who will weigh up the value of the information presented to them and they will know the difference between a well-coiled-up report written by professionals using special-speak and those impassioned pleas that are given by those who have genuine concern and connection to the offenders and want to see the very best outcomes. It is for that reason that we do not need taxpayer funding to milk the system as has been occurring but we do need the recognition of true concerned community members to advocate for those who need it at the time of sentencing to represent their concerns. For that reason I fully support this bill.
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you. I rise once again to speak in favour of this bill. I want to acknowledge the passion from other members of the House but we do have a different response to how we want to deal with criminal justice in New Zealand and we see this as a part of an overall plan that our parties have put together to deal with it. I'm sorry that the Hon Ginny Andersen isn't still in the House because I was able to point out what the problem is as we see it—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just interrupt the member and remind him not to mention the absence of members in the House.TODD STEPHENSON: Yep sorry—I hope to be able to address some of the points she had raised. The problem as we see it is quite clear: in 2017 section 27 reports were costing $40000; last financial year $7.7 million. This has gone unchecked and it's time to rein it in and that is what we are doing. The ability to put information before the court as has been well discussed tonight will still be available. Offenders can have people come and speak to them. I know the power in my very short time at the criminal bar of actually having an employer turn up and speak on behalf of an offender and actually talk about how they can help that person actually stop their reoffending. That's what was envisaged by section 27 actually having people with a personal connection whether it's whānau an employer other people in the community actually coming along speaking on that person's behalf at no cost and actually demonstrating to the court how they could help that offender. This is a sensible change to stop this taxpayer funding and we commend it to the House.
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you Madam Speaker. I would like to issue an apology to all the victims of rape an apology to all the victims of violence an apology to all the victims of aggravated robbery for the $7.7 million of taxpayers' money that was spent on those reports trying to lessen the sentences of the perpetrators of those crimes against them. This is what we're forgetting: we're forgetting about the victims. What the other side doesn't understand is that the victims are actually very important and should be the most important in this discussion. I have no shame about standing up for the rights of victims and I'm sick and tired of people on the other side of the House making it out as if we don't care. No we care enough to care about the victims of rape the victims of aggravated robbery the victims of crime. I commend this bill to the House.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise in support of the Legal Services Amendment Bill first reading. We just heard from the previous speaker the Hon Willow-Jean Prime that this Government has just decided to introduce this bill tonight: This Government has just decided to introduce this bill tonight" was the direct quote if my shorthand is right. Well no can I get on the record that this was something that was heavily consulted with and heavily debated during a long long election campaign. Guess what! One and a half million New Zealanders said "Go to work on our law and order policies." As a result we have 68 MPs on this side of the House and they have 55. So this is not something that some are trying to give the TV audience that this was landed on the Order Paper tonight. This was well consulted on and well supported.Just as scrapping Labour's prison reduction policies—that's also been ticked off I think in the 100-day plan. Is that gone? That's already been. Capping sentencing discounts to 40 percent—I think that's coming as well. Getting tough on gangs—that's also coming as part of this 100-day plan. This was a well-coordinated well-campaigned on well-signalled part of the law and order policies and part of our coalition agreement with the ACT Party. Again as other members have said we are not getting rid of section 27—we're not despite their repeated claims. All we are doing is defunding it. When that was mentioned and that was suggested in town halls up and down New Zealand—small towns big districts big cities wherever all around New Zealand—it was met with applause.So this is something that despite what the previous member said that it's just landed here tonight this has come as a suite of law and order policies. You'll see a lot more coming at you the Opposition. So I commend this and I look forward to further debate as to what New Zealanders actually want and that is that they want to see these cultural reports defunded by the taxpayer. As the Minister of Justice the Hon Paul Goldsmith has said this is an industry that went in 2017—that magical year; that was the last great year wasn't it 2017—$40000 spent. The previous Government then spent $25 million. So it's out of control. And the New Zealand public will be sending in the cards of gratitude as we speak. Thank you."
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Can I apologise to the member for Te Tai Tokerau for inadvertently interrupting before. I didn't intend to do that; I just can't read clearly it seems tonight—much like many of the members who also can't read the text of this bill because it's quite clear what the bill does. It does not cancel section 27 reports; it removes the legal aid disbursement requirement. That's it. That's all it does.Members also appear not to be able to read the bill correctly because nothing in the section 27 of the Sentencing Act actually requires paid reports. Now we've got this intense cottage industry filled up with consultants and people feathering their nests when actually all the intention of this section was was to allow accused the opportunity to bring their family their background their community their whānau before the courts to give context and insight into their upbringing. I think that one thing members opposite should be most insulted about is that these are called cultural reports and not for the reasons they say but because it implies that an offenders offending is due to their culture and that to me is one of the most insulting things that anyone in this House could ever imply. Just one more thing on this. Members opposite speak a lot about Maōri overrepresentation in incarceration rates; not a single one has talked about Maōri overrepresentation as victims of crime. So let's think about that a bit more clearly a bit more carefully when we move forward on this bill. Thank you.
Costello CaseyHon CASEY COSTELLO (NZ First): I rise to speak in support of the Legal Services Amendment Bill and I commend my colleague for his clarification that this is not a bill proposing to remove the section 27 reports.I rise somewhat astounded at the lack of faith in our judiciary and the way in which they have been discredited in their ability to understand the differential between an impassioned personal plea under a section 27 report from someone who actually has an association to the offender—whether it is whānau iwi hapū friend employer—and a pre-commissioned rote report by someone who has absolutely no connection to the offender. I think I stand in support of the judiciary and their ability to differentiate what is a useful and valuable report. I also stand in support of the victims who I'm somewhat confused as to how they are adversely affected by this in a process that is part of the judiciary system—it's part of the justice system. It will ensure that the offender has the opportunity to be heard and their circumstances voiced by someone who actually cares about them.The victims will be afforded the respect of not being funded out of their voice by a system that has become a commercial enterprise and very little about the rights of victims and improving the justice system. So on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill which obviously is amending the Legal Services Act. I'm very proud to be a part of a Government made up of National ACT and New Zealand First that actually has a cohesive plan to tackle crime in our community. We heard time and time again during the campaign that Kiwis feel that crime has got out of control in our communities and also that the system has become unbalanced—where victims' rights are taking second seat to offenders' rights.Now we're not seeking to remove section 27 from the Act and the Minister made that very clear. That option will still be available to all offenders and they can call people to speak on their behalf in court and actually have personal testimonies of things that may affect their sentencing and actually explain potentially their offending. What we are stopping is the taxpayer funding an industry which has sprung up as an unintended consequence of paying for these reports by the taxpayer.Again as was outlined by the Minister under the last Labour Government $25 million has been spent on these reports. If you google search cultural reports"—and these are actually section 27 reports; let's get the terminology right. But if you go and google cultural reports or section 27 reports half a dozen websites will appear where you can just log on and ask for a report to be written. You don't have to have any attachment to the offender. You don't actually even need to know the person. You can just commission someone who has actually no connection to the offender or the case.So we are not removing section 27—that will still be available to people—but we are removing the taxpayer funding. It's just a small way of actually rebalancing our justice system. So I look forward to the continued debate but ACT will be supporting this."