edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
1. Question No. 1—FinanceDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I've seen a number of reports that emphasise the current strength of the New Zealand economy following the release of yesterday's labour market statistics. Yesterday BNZ economists said For the economy today's figures were all good news. More people are being employed the unemployment rate is low and on average consumer spending power is on the increase". ASB economists said that the labour market radiates some warmth and Stuff said "The [best] pay rises in 10 years". I am pleased to see we still have many New Zealanders who see the glass as half-full. Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on the impact of international factors on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to the ASB's latest Rural Economic Note dairy prices dipped 2.6 percent overnight against the backdrop of the escalating trade war between the US and China. ASB economists have said we are in uncharted territory with regards to the US-China trade war. Similarly ANZ economists warned yesterday that global risks have escalated dramatically in recent times after developments in the US-China trade war. They said "The escalation in trade tensions will hit both the US and Chinese economies hard and cause collateral damage across Asia in particular". We are cognisant of these risks but fortunately the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy remain strong. The books are in good shape unemployment is low and we are well placed to respond to these challenges. Dr Deborah Russell: How is the Government ensuring New Zealand's economy is resilient to international risks?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have taken action to stimulate the economy by increasing investment including through Budget 2019 where we significantly lifted both operating and capital allowances. This includes investing $10 billion more capital than the previous Government had done. We've also over the last two years brought in an R & D tax incentive that is going to benefit 2000 businesses. We're investing in regional economies through the Provincial Growth Fund. We are reforming skills and trade training to address long-term labour shortages and productivity gaps. We've established and we are working closely with the Business Advisory Council to harness the expertise of the private sector. We're deepening our trade base and we're ensuring that capital is flowing through both the Green Investment Fund and the soon-to-be-established Venture Investment Fund."
SpeechSITTINGS OF THE HOUSECLAYTON MITCHELL (Whip—NZ First): With it being five minutes to 10 p.m. could I put a motion forward that we actually close the House early rather than start the fresh bill in the third reading? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think you seek leave rather than put a motion—CLAYTON MITCHELL: I apologise. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): —and I'm not sure that you've got the agreement of all the other parties but you could push your luck. CLAYTON MITCHELL: Well I was going to put that leave to see if we do have their leave available. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member is seeking leave. Leave is sought for the House to rise five minutes early. Is there any objection? There is.
Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill — First Reading
SpeechGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. To keep the analogy going if the Clerks are the Oracle I guess that makes the Rt Hon Winston Peters Morpheus—to continue that member's analogy.I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill. I really appreciated the history lesson from the Leader of the House the Hon Chris Hipkins. I actually recall an anecdote—I think it was from Sir Geoffrey Palmer or Mike Moore at the time when the Prime Minister was literally in charge of the Parliamentary Service equivalent and he literally picked out pieces of furniture for the then Opposition. I shudder to think of a Parliament where the Prime Minister picks the furniture for the MPs. This legislation is simply about avoiding duplication encouraging the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service to work together. It makes sense to have a single consolidated human resources department. It's a really pragmatic technical positive step forward that will improve democratic engagement and ultimately save the taxpayer money. That's why the Green Party will support it.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party which supports this bill and supports the comments of the Leader of the House. It is small but significant bill and we commend it to the House.
Privacy Bill — Second Reading
SpeechKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. First of all I would like to congratulate you for your new role. This is the first opportunity I am speaking in your presence.As everyone has mentioned this is a bill which is being promoted in this House on the recommendation of the Law Commission. It is a very important bill because it protects the privacy of individuals. As we know the time has changed the technology has changed and we have seen that the quality and the quantity of personal data available with businesses and Government are huge. To protect that it is very important we should have a modern law available so that people have confidence in the privacy of their personal data.So there were many issues which were dealt with by the Justice Committee. I would like to congratulate all the members of the select committee and officials who worked hard to make sure this bill is up to standard. I hope that the people will be having more confidence in this.As it has been mentioned the news media were exempted on two fronts; they have got some leverage on that. Also the Privacy Commissioner is required to inform if there is any breach of the privacy of any person. There are exemptions like if the data is held for a personal condition of a person and it is breached then the Privacy Commissioner doesn't have to notify the person. But otherwise if there is any data breach then it has to be notified. With these words I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Privacy Bill. I don't intend to relitigate a lot of the obviously positive aspects of this bill. It's got wide support from all parties and it's really as the previous members have said been a long time in the making—and of course just looking at the fact that the Privacy Act is dated 1993.I don't think you have to think too hard to realise that technology has changed dramatically. The environment of all data and privacy issues has changed dramatically since that time and this bill is all about modernising the Privacy Act and tightening up those laws and of course that's common sense and it has some common-sense changes. Essentially it's repealing and replacing the Privacy Act 1993. I think that it highlights a couple of the priorities within the bill which are addressing digital privacy—which is obviously important in today's day and age—records retention and security issues that revolve around all of those things.Some major examples in this country of late of data breach incidents that seem to happen—well it did happen because of the issues the holes within the Privacy Act 1993—include Z Energy and Ticketmaster in 2019. So we don't have to look too far to get some good examples and reasons why we need to get this done sooner rather than later.A few of the main things that this bill will do is require the public and private sector agencies to notify affected individuals if they experience a data breach. I think one of the things one of the issues that it's trying to remedy is the fact that often privacy breaches or notifications of privacy breaches are quite belated. So it's an important area that it will be fixing up.But importantly also the burden on businesses is likely actually to be modest with the changes that are going through this legislation. That's because most businesses are actually doing quite good jobs already and they have good practices already embedded in operations. So we expect that the burdens on businesses in general will be quite small.Also importantly this bill ensures that global businesses doing business in New Zealand irrespective of whether that's individual or larger agencies and where it's located comply with the new Privacy Act. Obviously most importantly there's more powers that are granted to the Privacy Commissioner to ensure New Zealanders' private information is safe. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
SpeechHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak about the Privacy Bill. It is a Government bill but for the benefit of the Greens' member who's recently taken her seat Eugenie Sage a lot of the work on this was done when we were in Government. That's one of the reasons why we're supporting it. These things have a long gestation. The issues of the—[Interruption] There seems to be a live mike over there with Mr Lees-Galloway or he's got a particularly carrying voice.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): If the front row team wouldn't mind being a little bit quieter. It's a very interesting contribution.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: They were taping you for posterity! We heard every word.So I'll just begin again having acknowledged the Greens but I would say that this bill has been a long time coming. As sometimes happens in this House I was on the Justice Committee and along with the member who has just resumed her seat we heard some submissions about this in Auckland. One of the things that I think worked very well about this was the news media exemptions and we saw a group of people from my old life—from television and newsprint and radio—talking about why they needed an exemption and why it was important that this bill did not curtail their ability to gather the news fearlessly and in a forthright manner.Bloggers took a little bit more time to consider. Were they real news or fake news? Did they really matter or not? Books and publications were also put under scrutiny because when you are updating a bill that's been around since 1993 with the Privacy Act there is a lot that has changed and particularly in the electronic media space. Books and blogs—that was a fairly easy one to get through but the definition of agency" in clause 6 was one of the things that the select committee recommended and I see the previous chair there chairman Huo and I'm sure he will take a call on this as well.It is important to know that the Justice Committee—a very hard-working committee that neither of us is on any more so we can speak of it fondly and with some affection—applied a degree of rigour to going through the various elements in this bill made a couple of recommendations for change but fundamentally it's one of those omnibus bills that covers a multitude does a lot of things that needed to be done and tidied up which is why I commend it to the House."
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. As a member of the Justice Committee it's a great privilege to be able to speak on the second reading of the Privacy Bill a piece of work that has been a number of years in the making. In particular the bill implements the very good work done by the Law Commission's 2011 report which called for the existing Privacy Act legislation to be repealed and to be modernised.A key reason that was raised in submissions which was fascinating as I learnt more was how much and how quickly the landscape changes and how difficult it is for this House in the process of producing legislation to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape in which modern technology is moving at a lightning pace.Some of the issues raised in terms of where those lines lie for protecting privacy gave us a huge insight into the benefits of seeing this bill and the protections in the Privacy Bill are very important. The key purpose always to remember is to promote and to protect people's privacy and to give them confidence that their personal information is properly protected. We always need to be vigilant and active in the face of greater sharing of information—that those personal details need to be protected at the same time.The protections put forth by the Privacy Bill are crucially important and it's also just as important that at a time when we're seeing the world more joined up for want of a better term we're also in line with other jurisdictions and a key factor of this bill is it will better align New Zealand's privacy law with those in the EU and the OECD guidelines. That's something that for a long time New Zealand has not been keeping up with and some of the interesting submissions were about whether we have reached that gold standard that's been set by overseas and how we manage to do that within New Zealand.So I will not take a long time to discuss this bill because it's good to see that we have strong support from parties within the House in an area where New Zealand's legislation needs to be modernised in order to protect those very important rights of individual New Zealanders to have their privacy protected. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Kia orana Madam Speaker. Thank you. I was not on the Justice Committee and have a limited knowledge of this bill but the Green Party is pleased to commend it because as previous speakers have noted it did come out of the work of the Law Commission in quite a substantial review in 2011. It recognises—and I commend the Minister for its introduction—that after 25 years the Privacy Act is in need of review. One of the major benefits of this bill is that it does modernise the regime. It recognises the changes in handling information the large amounts of data that are collected these days and it takes and implements the recommendation of the Law Commission that the focus should be much more on identifying and preventing risks to privacy rather than on acting after those have occurred.One of the key changes that it makes is ensuring that there is mandatory reporting of privacy breaches because that in itself by alerting people to that then puts pressure on to make sure that systems are improved to ensure that those breaches don't reoccur. It also has some new provisions around compliance notices as well—again to strengthen the actual application of the legislation. The Law Commission in its 2011 review did recognise that there were major deficiencies. It's a pity that there wasn't more progress made on it under the former Government but I am pleased obviously that the Opposition does appear to be supporting it and so it should go through with widespread support across the House.It's a bill that the Green Party commends and are grateful to for the changes that the party sought from the Minister to implement some more of the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission to build in some more protection there. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call is a split call. I call Ginny Andersen.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. An interesting speech from that last member Greg O'Connor who didn't really give us the fire and brimstone that we're used to getting from him in this House. In his last effort on the previous bill he gave an exhibition of his great speech-making and we were looking forward to a similar thing here tonight but we missed out and instead we got a lesson on Brexit from the Labour Party which I'm sure will be something we'll be able to take home and value entirely.Greg O'Connor: The Tories have mucked that one up over there too haven't they?Hon DAVID BENNETT: See that's the savageness of the socialists on that side.This bill is actually a bill that started under the National Government. It's all the work of the National Party and the Minister at that time Amy Adams and it's coming to fruition in this House tonight. It has a number of major clauses in it to deal with privacy—and privacy breaches in particular—and as we look through Government departments and Government organisations privacy is becoming vital to individual information and data and also individuals' trust in our Government network to make sure that there is that privacy of their data and also of their information. So that is something there will be ongoing reform of I should imagine in the future as everybody looks forward to protecting people's privacy and making sure there is the compliance out there and also the sanctions if people breach that privacy. That's what this bill here does tonight. So we commend this bill to the House and look forward to seeing it pass.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Madam Speaker. I have just reorganised myself and I thank the previous speaker Mr Bidois for saving my bacon on that one. I was just a little bit short of papers at the time. But in the interim I have actually brought myself up to speed with a bill that I did have the privilege of sitting through the whole select committee on and it enhanced greatly my understanding of the very vexed issue of privacy in the modern world.Obviously the bill was actually originally looked at in 2011 but sat like much of the not only legislation but spending infrastructure build and everything else done on the other side of the House waiting for a party to come along which actually wanted to do something about this country. The Privacy Bill was very much part of that and it was put forward originally as a member's bill.One of the important aspects of this—and this will be a short call—is one of the vexed questions at the moment in the world is Brexit and Brexit is actually going to be important around this because Britain is part of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR basically are privacy standards recognised around Europe. Fortunately for us New Zealand is actually recognised within that system; Australia are not. That gives us important access because in much of the trade we'll be doing there's obviously going to be a huge privacy particularly electronic element to that. So being privy to that is incredibly important and being part and being compliant with that is important. We're sort of obviously not quite sure what is going to happen now of course—whether Britain will remain part of that with Brexit.So it is an incredibly important piece of legislation—an important piece of legislation to ensure like everything else we are doing on this side the House that we are war ready we are actually ready to take on the challenges of the future. We've got good infrastructure in this Privacy Bill which I'm very pleased to recommend to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianPRIVACY BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 30 July.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members when we last debated the Privacy Bill the Hon Tim Macindoe had the call. He has 3 minutes 50 seconds remaining should he wish.Hon Tim Macindoe: No thank you.Greg O'Connor: Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): So that would be New Zealand First?Mark Patterson: No—he's called.Dan Bidois: Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Dan Bidois.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. We support this part. Part 3 agreed to. Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Schedule 2 be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported with amendment. Report adopted.
Little AndrewPart 3 General provisions and consequential amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We turn now to the debate on Part 3—that's clauses 28 to 31 and Schedule 2. Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I don't want to take too long but just to for the sake of the record point out that this very brief part of the bill deals with the fact that whereas up to now contempt of court has been part of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to the extent that there are express provisions in this bill that effectively asks the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court but things that are not provided for in this bill but where there are matters that are part of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court the inherent jurisdiction remains for those parts that are not part of the bill. It also provides in relation to penalties when the High Court is exercising its inherent jurisdiction that they are set at a maximum in relation to contempt of court to a period of imprisonment of six months. Then there's simply a tidy-up provision that relates to references in other pieces of legislation to contempt of court and it is to be dealt with under this legislation. That therefore really tidies up the bill and brings the substantive parts to a conclusion.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Can I just please just speak to proposed new clause 24A(1)(b): the person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the statement could undermine public confidence in the independence integrity impartiality or authority of the judiciary or a court;". I just wonder how that aligns with a finding by the court that this member asked her if she felt guilty for stealing the mother's child—listen to this members opposite; those who are going to defend this. He asked her if she felt guilty for stealing the mother's child and as I say he said words to the effect that he was a member of Parliament and that Parliament is the highest court in the land and that everyone is answerable to Parliament. So those of you who will sit here and defend this member just remember—and I'll go back to subclause 24(1)(b): "the person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the statement could undermine public confidence in the independence integrity impartiality and authority of the judiciary [of the] court;". Every day in our electorate offices we have people who come in who are so darned right who are never going to let it go and as we sit there and outline it as we sit there—Matt King: Like this member. GREG O'CONNOR: And there's Mr King. As a police officer he knows there's two sides to every story. We get them they come into the office they've got this absolute drive and they're standing on every soapbox going. But when we make some phone calls and when we actually find the other side of the story we find actually perhaps what they are is just obsessives. So what our job is to do and what the court's job is to do is to sort the obsessives out from those who come in with a rational argument. I would challenge any member of the Opposition to read this judgment and then look and listen to what you've heard tonight and what you will hear is a man who is an obsessive—not a rational man; an obsessive. That is what the finding was and that is why—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member but I'd really appreciate hearing your contribution on the specific part we're taking a debate on. GREG O'CONNOR: If I could perhaps go back to the proposed new clause 24A(1)(c): "there is a real risk"—and again I'm directly talking to that statement here in Part 2 in proposed new clause 24A(1)(c) Part 2—"that the statement could undermine public confidence in the independence integrity impartiality or authority of the judiciary [of] a court."We all have obsessives in our electorates—people who are so right that they will ignore any discussion to the opposite. I will make this decision available electronically to anyone who wants to watch it and tell me that you are not dealing with an absolutely obsessive member who is determined to use every means to undermine the court because that is what this is about. This is why it's absolutely necessary to have a piece of legislation which ensures that when we get an absolute obsessive who will not see reason who will not see anyone else's argument who is so right that we need the protection of the court because they will never say no—I absolutely commend this."
Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It's a great pleasure to speak on the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. This bill had its genesis actually in New Zealand back in October 2015 when the National Government released a discussion document on whether to join the Marrakesh Treaty or not. It has taken quite some time to work its way through to this point today where we're on the third reading. It does make a difference and actually its 168000 people and growing who will benefit from the passing of this legislation. I see no need to delay it anymore so I commend it to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight and speak on the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. It will be a very brief contribution tonight because as I've heard this evening and earlier this afternoon this is not a particularly politically controversial bill but that shouldn't detract from just how important this bill is for a lot of New Zealanders. As we've heard there's something like 168000 New Zealanders who are in some way print disabled. So this is a very important bill for them to be able to better access copyrighted material. I sit on the select committee that considered this bill the very very collegial Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. We had the Green member Gareth Hughes on that committee and I again want to acknowledge his contribution because he's very well aware of the issues that were raised in the bill and he put forward a recommendation to change the commercial availability test which I thought was a very good contribution. Earlier in the debate Brett Hudson I think described it as a neo-liberal position to hold which I thought was perhaps a little bit unfair on Mr Hughes and probably won't do him much favours when it comes to Green Party selection next year. But I do want to acknowledge his contribution and also all the members on that committee. It's a very good change to make and I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Jo Luxton—five minutes.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I really just stand—I believe the issues have been well covered in the House. The Green Party is really pleased to see this come into law. In this third reading I just want to again reinforce our support for this piece of legislation and for every single effort that helps remove the barriers for people with disabilities to participate fully in our society. This is another step towards that. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on the third reading of the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. I was listening very carefully to earlier speakers and I suppose for all of us around this House we are in agreement. I will not be taking a long time. But as previous speakers have actually said there are roughly 168000 New Zealanders with print disabilities. As New Zealanders age and for some of us with glasses as we age small print gets a little bit more difficult and sometimes we rely on modern technology whether it's actually audio books or having print larger so we can read the print.As the Hon Tracey Martin actually said 10 percent of written material worldwide is available in accessible formats. That means 90 percent of all works that are actually published are not available to people who have a print disability or any kind of visual impairment for example. That is a real shame.Also making available print-accessible material—for example Braille—costs so much money. One text for example a book costs up to $5000 to actually produce in Braille and that is a lot of money. That means that sometimes people are not able to access this material.It's not just for enjoyment. The most poignant submission that I heard during the submission process was someone who was studying at university. They were talking about how if they were trying to study science for example and they are visually impaired and they have print disability—imagine trying to describe what an epidermis or a dermis or a cell or chlorophyll actually looks like. It is very very difficult. It takes a long time for them to access this material. Often when they start university the printed material is actually not available to them. Often they have these texts well after their cohorts are able to study already. I think it is rather unfair.Previous speakers have traversed other aspects of it particularly in terms of the commercial availability test; I won't go through that. But I guess the law change is a positive step towards improving access to copyrighted works for visually impaired New Zealanders. It also means that New Zealand becomes a global citizen and will be able to access other material that is already available to other Marrakesh Treaty members. So I commend this bill.
SpeechHon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Kia ora. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia orana.So I just rise to take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First. One of the roles that I have at the moment is the Associate Minister of Education and part of that is around—one of the delegations there is around a special focus on those who have learning support needs. Some of the learning support needs that are under that delegation are for the blind visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. So it is with great joy in that role that I stand in support of the Marrakesh Treaty implementation amendment bill. As we've heard before in contributions here only 10 percent of all written materials published worldwide are published in formats accessible to people with a print disability. The speaker who just resumed his seat quite rightly acknowledged those who are at university and the capacity of them to be able to get textbooks in a print-accessible manner so that they can really participate in their studies.But can I ask people to think for a moment of five-year-olds six-year-olds and seven-year-olds also wanting to have this wide diversity of materials that they can read on their own in a format that they'll be able to use for the rest of their lives—so as they are learning to read as they're learning to expand their vocabulary they have access to print-accessible materials. The capacity that we have through the final passing of this piece of legislation for those young people is to broaden their horizons to give them the opportunity to delve into other worlds through reading through books and through material that then become accessible for them. I don't think we can underestimate what that will do for young people for these children and these young people who just like their peers want to be able to enjoy language enjoy fantasy enjoy science fiction and literally transport themselves to another place through that ability that you get when you actually read and when you participate.So I really don't want to take much more of the time because I honestly believe that this bill has been well traversed. There is universal support across the House. It's practical it's sensible it's reasonable and it's been a long time coming. It amends the Copyright Act from 1994. I know that once we get it into place and we start moving to make sure that print-accessible materials are available—and there is just so much more diversity than they have had up to this stage—it's going to be transformational for some of our children and young people. Kia ora.
SpeechJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.Look it's a great occasion this evening to be speaking from both sides of the House on the Marrakesh Treaty amendment bill here in the third reading. So we're in that final straight regarding a treaty that was concluded by the World Intellectual Property Organization in 2013; here we are in 2019. It does take a period of time to work these things through.Regarding this treaty the ratification of 20 State countries was required for this treaty to enter into effect. The 20th ratification was received on 30 June 2016. The treaty entered into force on 30 September 2016.So can I say thank you very much to members of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee who first of all reviewed the national interest statement. Then when the bill came to the House it was referred to our committee and we worked through it and received numbers of submissions.I think as the Minister made the comment there was this: perhaps the most significant point of discussion and tension was around the commercial availability test. This is where essentially in the bill that was delivered to the committee there was the requirement for people who were looking for alternative format works to be able to help them in their study or enjoyment by being able to instead of read use these alternative accessible format copies of textbooks that they had to search do a commercial availability test search within a reasonable time and look for it at an ordinary commercial price. We found that those terms were quite difficult to define. We listened to numbers of submitters who said particularly those who were studying at university going through a programme when it became very very difficult for them to get the text that they required for those programmes going through this process would greatly disadvantage them. We felt—on the balance we considered that a formal requirement for a commercial availability test would disadvantage print-disabled people; so we made that decision. I think the Minister has very well canvassed that issue.Can I say thank you once again to the committee. Thank you to all who have participated and it's great to see this come to the third reading position and speeches tonight. Thank you.
SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill a bill that has broad support across the House. It would be far too flippant simply to make my third reading contribution What he said." but I would like to acknowledge that the Minister in his third reading speech has encapsulated the very essence of the bill the reasons behind it and has set out why all parties are in support. So I will limit my contribution today principally to the matter of the commercial availability test which is the only point that had any real contention through the process. [Cell phone rings] I do join with the governing parties in expressing our support for this legislation which will enable us to meet the demands under the Marrakesh Treaty which will make copyrighted works more accessible to the blind visually impaired and otherwise print disabled. Something is amusing the members and that's a very good thing.Chlöe Swarbrick: You deserve a theme tune Brett!BRETT HUDSON: A theme tune? OK; that sounds interesting. They digress Mr Speaker; I will turn to the bill instead.The commercial availability test: the one area where there was some level of contention and I do acknowledge that there were submissions that were very strongly in favour of retaining that test. As the committee worked its way through it we appreciated that taking the stance we did would introduce some tension but our view is that it's a very healthy and market-based tension. It means that those who wish to consume these copyrighted acts in an accessible format have other potential avenues to access them but we are told that those avenues particularly creating them themselves are quite expensive. So there is a natural motivation for them to wish to seek accessible copies that might be available particularly through copyright holders and it creates an incentive on those copyright holders or otherwise agents—entities that have the accessible formats—to make them readily available and at an affordable price. It creates a tension which is healthy which should benefit both those that hold either the copyright or a licence to produce accessible works and those that wish to consume them.I took great pleasure when sitting temporarily on that committee to propose and get Green Party support for what is in truth a genuine market-based solution—what some of our detractors would call a "neo-liberal" solution to this situation. Mr Hughes was very generous in his support of it as were other members of the governing parties. I believe that this has landed this bill in the right place. It is the right thing to do in this instance and I do acknowledge the Minister's comments that for those people that still have concerns as to where this bill lands there are still avenues under the copyright review for them to prosecute the particular elements of concern they might have. But I do hold that the committee and now the House has got this to the right stage for the support of this treaty and I commend this bill to the House."
Appointments — Representation Commission
Little AndrewRepresentation CommissionHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That under section 28(2)(e) of the Electoral Act 1993 this House nominate Hon Richard John Barker to represent the Government and Hon Roger Morrison Sowry ONZM to represent the Opposition to be appointed as members of the Representation Commission; and under section 28(3)(b) of the Electoral Act 1993 for the purposes of determining the boundaries of the Māori electoral districts this House nominate Moana Lynore Mackey to represent the Government and Daniel Takutaimoana Te Kanawa to represent the Opposition to be appointed as members of the Representation Commission.Motion agreed to.
Little AndrewAPPOINTMENTSElectoral CommissionHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That under section 4D of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 this House recommends Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Janet Marie Shroff CVO CNZM as chairperson of the Electoral Commission for a term of five years and appoint Jane Katharine Meares as the deputy chairperson of the Electoral Commission for a term of five years.Motion agreed to.
Motions — Abortion Legislation Committee—Establishment
Little AndrewMOTIONSAbortion Legislation Committee—EstablishmentHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move That this House establish a committee to consider and report to it the Abortion Legislation Bill and any associated business that may be referred to it; that the committee consist of seven members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand National two New Zealand Labour two New Zealand First one Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand one and ACT New Zealand one; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day 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 region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1) and (3).Motion agreed to.
Speaker's Statements — Abortion Legislation Bill—Speeches
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 7 AUGUST 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.SPEAKER'S RULINGSAbortion Legislation Bill—SpeechesSPEAKER: Members tomorrow the House will be debating the Abortion Legislation Bill. The Business Committee has determined that the debate will be 2½ hours long and has left me with some flexibility as to the length of speeches. I thought it worth indicating to the House that a few speeches at the beginning will be 10-minute speeches and after that we will revert to having five-minute speeches to allow more people to have an opportunity to speak. If there are individuals who think they have particular cases for having a 10-minute speech it would be good to have some notice of that. But generally the normal practice of recognising seniority making sure that we have a range of parties and views represented in the debate and preference being given to people who have been seeking the call for some time and who have generally been present for the debate will all be factors that I take into account.
Tuesday 6 August 2019 - Volume 740
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to.Clause 1A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 288 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendment agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Referendums Framework Bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2019 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 in 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 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.
Referendums Framework Bill — Instruction to Select Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Referendums Framework Bill — First Reading
11. Question No. 11—ConservationMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 11—Conservation 11. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made regarding biodiversity?Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Kia orana Mr Speaker. Thank you. Yesterday I was pleased to launch Te Koiroa o Te Koiora – our shared vision for living with nature a discussion document to encourage a national conversation to help shape a new New Zealand biodiversity strategy for the next 20 years. We have a global biodiversity crisis as serious as the climate crisis with a million species threatened or at risk of extinction; 4000 of those species are found here in Aotearoa. We need to turn that crisis around so that nature can thrive for its own sake and for our wellbeing.Marama Davidson: What are the goals for the strategy?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The proposed goals that the public are asked to comment on include that by 2050 Aotearoa New Zealand is free from stoats possums and rats; populations are increasing for all threatened native species; and by-catch of seabirds coral and marine mammals is reduced to zero.Marama Davidson: What action is needed to achieve these goals?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: We need to put nature at the heart of our decisions at central and local government. This requires shifts in thinking and in the way we use nature. Restoring the dawn chorus will require action from all of us: landholders councils iwi hapū businesses the Department of Conservation and the wider community. It requires scaling up the landscape-scale predator control that Budget 2018 with its boost of funding has enabled the Department of Conservation to do. Marama Davidson: How does Te Koiroa o Te Koiora and the proposed biodiversity strategy implement a Treaty partnership approach?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The proposed set of values is strongly influenced by Te Ao Māori. The document says that there needs to be better recognition of Māori as partners in protecting our natural environment. It proposes that partnership between tangata whenua and the Crown should reflect aspirations for co-management with tangata whenua holding key roles at all levels of the biodiversity system including governance and it recognises a need for increased capability and support to enable iwi hapū and whānau to play a greater role in managing biodiversity.Marama Davidson: What involvement has there been with iwi and hapū in developing the document?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: A Te Ao Māori reference group has worked closely with officials to ensure that a Te Ao Māori perspective was embedded in the document and the process. More than 20 regional hui have been held with iwi hapū and whānau between November last year and April 2019. These conversations fed into the discussion document and a further round of hui will be held over the coming months.