edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Youth): I plan to take just a brief call to answer some of the questions raised by the member Chris Hipkins. The first question that was raised was around new section 147A in clause 100 and I just want to confirm with the member that it is not a drafting error. Society" refers to a friendly society "branch" refers to a branch of a friendly society and "credit union" applies to a credit union.The second general statement that I would make—I am not going to go into the detail of the other two questions—around the Commission for Financial Capability and the role of the Retirement Commissioner is that my understanding is that they do currently have a role in terms of helping with programmes around financial literacy in schools. We as a Government have also put $2.5 million into youth enterprise specifically helping in communities where there is not parent support or teachers available and where they have not had Young Enterprise Trust programmes focusing around financial literacy and young enterprise. It is a very very successful programme and it is a very very successful investment. So I think that is just my contribution."
Curran ClareREGULATORY SYSTEMS (COMMERCIAL MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Commerce and consumer affairsCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): This bill the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill was considered at the Commerce Committee. There were I think a total of 13 written submissions and submissions that supported the bill with particular interest in amendments to the Companies Act the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and the Construction Contracts Act 2002.Just a couple of opening remarks with regard to this bill: this is the bill that puts I suppose the time limit on the need for this bill to pass this week because it contains a clause that brings into play the retention framework for companies in the construction industry that go bust. Therefore it is pretty important that it passes but it is quite a considerable piece of legislation. It has got a number of parts and the part that we are dealing with the Commerce and consumer affairs" part contains a number of provisions.In the original submissions on the bill there were a number of submissions by the New Zealand Financial Markets Association which I think to their credit officials went away and had another think about. They came back to the select committee with a further five additional changes to the netting provisions in the Companies Act which were essentially clarifying the—well the Financial Markets Association recommended five additional changes and officials did not recommend making those changes at this stage but they thought it was important enough to come back with another departmental report. They went away and undertook further consultation with some key stakeholders and there were as they said mixed views on whether those changes were needed and their potential impact. So they could not advise the committee that those proposals were appropriate for inclusion in the bill but they thought that there was merit in further work to better assess whether there was a problem to actually further address.So ultimately I think that the select committee did a lot of important work on this bill and when we get to Part 4 of the bill we will be able to go through the amendments to the Construction Contracts Act which is I think where a lot of the interest will lie. But ultimately it is about maintaining the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory systems and about clarifying and updating the statutory provisions in each Act. There are a number of Acts—in fact there is quite a long list of Acts that are being amended here—and I think there will be a lot to discuss as we go further on in this bill."
Twyford PhilClauses 1 and 2PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It has been an interesting debate on this Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill. I think some good questions have arisen in the course of the debate. We have spent some time talking about the changes to the Building Act which are largely technical clarification issues—fixing some cross-referencing errors—but really the meat and potatoes in this bill are all to do with the Unit Titles Act. It is a little strange to be debating some relatively minor and technical issues when there is such a big review going on of the Unit Titles Act and some glaring problems that need to be dealt with by that review. Nevertheless there are some important issues in this.I heard my colleague Clare Curran talking about clauses 25 26 and 27 which contain matters that the Law Society had quite a lot to say about at the Local Government and Environment Committee particularly in relation to the addition of sections about dealing with the reference to easements and covenants. We heard from Ms Curran the views of the Law Society on that and in particular about the idea that common property should not be affected by the redrawing of boundaries and so on.Those are the kinds of issues that we dealt with in the course of the discussion. There were a number of others that were dealt with. We also talked quite a lot in the course of the debate about dispute resolution for bodies corporate and whether or not the Tenancy Tribunal is fit for purpose. The committee spent some time discussing whether or not the Tenancy Tribunal and the various restrictions on the tribunal's ability to award damages in relation to the Unit Titles Act—disputes that have come to the tribunal under the Unit Titles Act. As we know most of those issues are going to be dealt with by the wider review.I think probably that is all I will say in wrapping up other than to say that Labour is supporting this. We are willing to go along with the various technical adjustments and clarifications that make up this Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I move That the question be now put.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I just want to take a very brief call to address the questions raised by Ms Curran and others about effectively that which is not in the scope of the bill and the questions that have been raised both to officials and to the Committee of the whole House about why that might be the case. I intend if it is helpful and efficient just to make some general comments about the regulatory systems bills—plural—the omnibus bills that we will be considering over the next period of time.It is simply this: the short answer is that the point of this legislation is to make technical amendments and to clarify provisions as we will get to in terms of for example the Employment Relations Act; not to make substantive policy changes or to amend the balance of the rights and obligations that parties have under this legislation. It is bit more than a statutes amendment bill but to go any further than that would require a much broader submissions process by the stakeholders who would be affected by that.So they are fair questions. It is a scope question that I believe the committee—that particular committee the Local Government and Environment Committee and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the areas that are within my responsibility—has considered but these are relatively minor and technical amendments.
Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I just want to refer to the amendment to section 15 of the Unit Titles Act in clause 14 Section 15 amended (Relationship with Public Works Act 1981)" specifically the replacement of section 15(3) of the Act in clause 14(2) that states in new section 15(3)(a) "an estate or interest in land in a unit title development is acquired under the Public Works Act" because there is a question that I want answered I guess in relation to the requirement in the original section 15(3) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 for "a new unit plan or an amendment to a unit plan to be deposited." or in the original section 15(4) "If the body corporate requests in writing the authority undertaking the public work must at its own expense prepare the new unit plan or amendment …".I want to ask how this would impact in the case that occurred in Christchurch where property was compulsorily acquired in a sense because of rezoning due to the earthquake and how for example it would impact the ability for a body corporate to actually put in place a new unit plan—because the interest in that property is now at some debate. As happened in Christchurch you may have rezoning or property damage to a particular extent or another assessed by engineers and you could have a multi-unit property with many different owners and with each property having a different designation in terms of whether it was going to be repaired and to what standard or rebuilt to a particular code or standard. The application of the building code depended on whether the property was able to have its repairs consented or not whether the building consent process applied.I would like to know from the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Mitchell when you are in a situation where you have these extraordinary situations apply—you have unit dwellings for which different codes may then apply—how you would then under the Public Works Act make a differentiation between how one particular unit is treated versus another particular unit and where does the responsibility for the development of that unit plan then sit. Is it with the owners is it with the body corporate or is it with the authority that made the determination on that particular dwelling or those dwellings? It is something that would be very pertinent to those people in Christchurch particularly the many property owners who are in multi-unit dwellings for whom we are still waiting for some resolution. There are many arguments yet to be had because of the different ownership models and the different insurance requirements on each of those individual units. I would welcome the opportunity to hear the Minister clarify that particular point. Thank you."
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I just want to take a short call and ask questions of the Minister with particular reference to clause 20 in Part 2 dealing with reassessing of ownership and utility interests in unit plans. One submission from the New Zealand Law Society for example submitted that this clause is inconsistent with other similar provisions. To the credit of the select committee that submission was noted and those changes subsequently amended.But there is a question I would just put to the Minister for consideration. The Government currently has the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) working on a wider review of the Unit Titles Act. We are making amendments here and some of them are quite detailed. I will not necessarily go into the breadth and depth of those changes but they are there as everyone will rise to address them in later submissions I presume. I want to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that MBIE intends to propose new regulations to address time frames and notices for extended extraordinary general meetings for example. I just put it to him that there might be some inconsistencies with what is being laid out in clauses 20 32 33 and 48.Again like I say this is just a short call asking for some reassurance and guidance on the potential clashes there. That is all I had to ask with regard to this part of the legislation.
Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I heard your cautionary point because this Part 1 is a very short part of seven clauses of the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill. My question is the same as that of my colleague Clare Curran but I would just like to bring to the Committee's attention the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's own purpose for the regulatory systems bills. Basically it says that the purpose of these regulatory systems bills is to (a) maintain and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory systems" and "(b) can include policy changes that involve continuous improvement to repairs and maintenance of regulatory systems but not significant policy changes".I too wanted to raise the issue of Transpower and I hear your cautionary note that things that are out of scope are not to be discussed. But when I read these purposes which have been designed by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment then I too would argue that Transpower's submission around high wires actually meets this test in terms of what my colleague Clare Curran has indicated through her diligent work on New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice 34. I do not want to repeat what has been said but when I read the ministry's purposes for these regulatory systems it clearly for me says that the submission from Transpower—which is one of our largest if not the largest utility companies—to the Local Government and Environment Committee meets the standard. But again perhaps the Minister can enlighten the Committee as to why the officials felt that it did not meet that test. Thank you. Part 1 agreed to."
Kuriger Barbara; Mallard TrevorBARBARA KURIGER (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think unfortunately there have probably been a couple of relevant speeches since. Would anyone else like a call?
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to call the Hon David Parker but before I do so I do want to reiterate the warning that I made earlier on the question of relevance and to make it very clear that things that are not in the bill in the Committee stage cannot be relevant. The last member gave us 4½ minutes on something that was not in the bill and if a closure had been moved I would have been tempted to accept it.
Mallard TrevorREGULATORY SYSTEMS (BUILDING AND HOUSING) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members the House is in Committee on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill. I will remind people that despite the titles on the various parts here these are some relatively tight debates.
Urgent Debates Declined — Water Exports and Ownership—Prime Minister's Decision
Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to be the final speaker in this third reading debate in what has been quite a historic and a momentous debate I think in terms of this Parliament's legislative agenda. I have sat and listened very carefully to the intelligent courteous and thoughtful contributions from across the House on this important legislation. It is a good bill. It is a bill that I think exemplifies the way our Parliament should work and it is an example of our Parliament working at its best. It is my very great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to rise briefly on the third reading of the Intelligence and Security Bill and to commend the collaborative approach across the House that brings the bill here today. This was reminiscent of the foreign fighters legislation which was similarly guided by best intent in balancing our security interests with privacy and human rights concerns. Strong oversight frameworks have been developed and described and what is not so described but is inherent is the trust we have in the personal integrity of each of our intelligence and security personnel. This integrity and a strong framework will I believe protect our interests and I commend this bill to the House.
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Thank you for the opportunity Mr Deputy Speaker. My colleague—the senior whip—has asked me to speak very briefly so I will heed his wishes as a good MP should. I just want to say that there is very little that I could find in Mr O'Rourke's speech that I could actually disagree with because I think this bill is a testament to the way in which Parliament should work more often and also a testament to the way in which select committees can examine legislation and can work together as a committee to find ways in which we can work with officials and other members across the Chamber to fine-tune—what Mr O'Rourke described as an excellent legal framework—a piece of legislation so it is fit for purpose and works well.I also respect that Dr Graham does have a viewpoint around these matters that differs significantly from a number of us in the Chamber but I think we must also acknowledge the way in which the Green Party also worked well on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee consideration of this bill—we just landed in very different places.But in terms of confidence and in terms of ensuring that New Zealanders can better understand the world in which we live I think this bill brings together pieces of legislation and brings together a framework under which some important Government agencies can work in a way that New Zealanders can better understand and better have confidence in. The security and intelligence agencies in New Zealand play an important role but there must be good oversight. We heard many of the aspects under our legislation around oversight which I have to say gives me a lot of confidence. I have to say that I am looking forward to seeing those agencies and the Minister and the many other oversight institutions in place such as the Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants and the select committee working very well to ensure New Zealanders can also enjoy that same confidence. I commend this bill to the House.
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): In many ways I do not need to add a lot. When you begin a third reading of a bill as substantive as this and hear the experience and perspective that we have heard this afternoon shared by the Attorney-General; the Leader of the Opposition; my colleague the former chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Mark Mitchell; and now the very considered perspective by the Hon David Parker—as somebody relatively new here coming towards the end my first term all I can add to it is that I have found it a process that has been extraordinarily rewarding.From the calibre of the bill that we first received; from the extraordinary advice and intellectual heft brought by the officials; from the collaborative model that the former chairman ran and Minister Finlayson's ability to work with all parties to get an enduring piece of legislation that as you can hear by the voices of this Chamber we are all proud of; and from the way the Minister stood time and time again to answer the various technical precise questions of emphasis and judgment that all members brought to the Committee of the whole House stage we have now landed a final bill that we are all but unanimous in support of with the exception of the Greens—but even their exception is from a point of a reasoned view which the Attorney-General has already acknowledged.For me one of the highlights of the last few months as we have stepped through that is how we landed a clear effective warranting regime. I think the triple-lock mechanism is really innovative and I think where we landed in respect of national security and those closed lists of harm is impressive—in particular where we have pushed for the appropriate balance between protection of our civil liberties and protection of this country from harm in a highly volatile world. This bill is fit for purpose—if I can echo the Hon David Parker—and I have every confidence that this legislation both in process and content has set the bar for enduring legislation in this House. I thoroughly support it in its third reading. Thank you.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Land Information): It is a pleasure to take a third call on the Intelligence and Security Bill. I was not sure whether I would get a call on the third reading so I made my acknowledgments during the second reading but I would just like to very quickly acknowledge the Minister—our Attorney-General—who did set the tone very early on in terms of how the work would progress on this bill. Can I also just very quickly acknowledge our officials who supported the Committee.We did narrow the warranting regime on the bill and we did strengthen the provisions of the bill which I felt was very very important. There was of course a real balancing between achieving greater transparency and checks and balances in relation to the legislation whilst at the same time allowing the security agencies to do their very important work and that is to actually protect our country and to be guardians of our national security. So I am very proud to see this legislation pass in this House to have been involved in that process and I am very happy to support the bill. Thank you.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDWater Exports and Ownership—Prime Minister's DecisionMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Metiria Turei seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Prime Minister's decision to refer the issue of water exports and ownership of water to the technical advisory group within the Ministry for the Environment. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The issue of water usage and ownership is an important one for New Zealand but the test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is also a high one. It requires the matter to be of such urgency that it justifies the House spending a substantial part of the sitting debating it. In this case a technical advisory group has been asked to consider an important issue. No further action has been announced. I am not convinced that the matter has such an element of urgency that it must take precedence over other business of the House. The application is therefore declined.
Wednesday 15 March 2017 - Volume 720
Intelligence and Security Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to clause 47 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 94New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 26Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Amendment agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): As I explained earlier as a result of that vote I have ruled out the amendment to clause 47 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in Dr Kennedy Graham's name.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 92 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14.Noes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 14.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14.Noes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 108New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.Electoral Amendment Bill read a third time.
Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill; and Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings
11. Roading Coromandel Electorate—State Highway 2SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of TransportRoading Coromandel Electorate—State Highway 211. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to improve safety and travel times on State Highway 2 between Tauranga and Waihī?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Yesterday I welcomed news from the New Zealand Transport Agency that a bypass of the Katikati town centre will be included in the upgrade of State Highway 2 between Tauranga and Waihī. Recently there has been strong growth in traffic volumes through the town and growing concerns in the local community about the safety of the road. I am pleased that the views of the Katikati community have been taken on board. The new bypass will not only return the town to the local community but also improve road safety and increase economic growth in the region.Scott Simpson: What other work is the Government doing to improve safety and travel times on State Highway 2 in the Coromandel electorate between Tauranga and Waihī?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The stretch of highway between Tauranga and Waihī is overrepresented in fatalities and serious injuries. That is why the Government is delivering a $520 million roading package in an ongoing effort to improve safety and travel time and to support economic growth in the region. There will be $85 million spent on a wide range of safety improvements along the road which will reduce death and serious injury crashes. The package also includes the long-awaited over $300 million Tauranga Northern Link which will connect Tauranga with Ōmokoroa. All up these projects are but a part of the Government's multibillion-dollar investment in regional New Zealand.
10. Abortion—Law ReformJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Prime MinisterAbortion—Law Reform10. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.Jan Logie: How can he stand by his statement that our 40-year-old abortion law has stood the test of time" when it undermines women's right to choose often requires people to lie about the reasons they need an abortion and was written before the invention of medical abortions?Hon PAULA BENNETT: It has not been altered in 40 years and as such the Prime Minister stands by his statement.Jan Logie: Is he comfortable that 90 percent of women who choose to seek an abortion are ineligible for medical abortions because of all the hoops they have to jump through?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I stand by the law as it currently is and we have no plans to bring in legislation otherwise.Jan Logie: Has he asked the Minister for Women about whether she thinks it is time we trusted women and their doctors to make the right decisions for them?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have spoken with the Minister for Women on issues around this. One thing that she has spoken about is how pleased she is about both the reduction in teen births to teenagers and actually abortions as well. For example in 2007 there were 18382 abortions and in 2015 there were 13155. The other great news though more importantly I think is that we have got 57 percent fewer teen mums on welfare and I think that they and their children will be doing much better."
7. Regional Tourism Infrastructure—Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant FundNUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of TourismRegional Tourism Infrastructure—Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund7. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about the Government providing more support for regional tourism infrastructure?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): Today we have announced that applications are now open for $5.5 million in extra funding for infrastructure projects to help regional communities cope with tourism growth. Regions are reaping the benefits of our booming tourism industry with all 16 regions seeing growth in tourism spending in the last year. But that has brought pressure on infrastructure so that is why we set up the Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund last year. We received many worthy applications in round one and as such we have opened new funding and a new round with this $5.5 million. Nuk Korako: What kinds of projects will be funded? Hon PAULA BENNETT: In round one we received 40 applications of which 26 were eligible and we funded 14. They included things like new toilets at Lake Tekapō parking at Taranaki's Rotokare Scenic Reserve toilets and rubbish collection in the Coromandel and freedom camping facilities in Whakatāne. We will be looking at similar projects this time around. Nuk Korako: Why is the Government stepping in to fund infrastructure projects? Hon PAULA BENNETT: Tourism is now a $14.5 billion export industry that employs over 188000 people and is incredibly important for our cities and our regions. Local facilities like this are normally funded by local government but because of that boom the Government is prepared to step in and help fund some of these projects. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a Local Government New Zealand report from Lawrence Yule a National Party candidate saying that local government is down $1.4 billion in deficit spending. Mr SPEAKER: I just want to be clear. It is an official document prepared by whom? Rt Hon Winston Peters: Local Government New Zealand and Lawrence Yule a much-beloved National Party candidate. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it publicly available? I suspect it is. Yes it is—the member nods his head—so I will not be putting the leave.
5. Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill—PurposeSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of JusticeFamily and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill—Purpose5. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made to improve New Zealand's family violence legislation?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Today I introduced new legislation the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill to overhaul the Domestic Violence Act. One of the most worrying and most difficult social issues facing New Zealand is our high rate of family violence. Part of this is the ingrained and insidious nature of the problem but it is also in the fact that there is no easy or quick fix. The omnibus Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill is an important part of building a new way of dealing with family violence. It implements our Safer Sooner reforms announced in September last year which are aimed at breaking the pattern of family violence and reducing the harm and cost inflicted on those who suffer violence and on wider New Zealand society. I look forward to the support of this House to progress the bill and help to change our horrific record on family violence.Sarah Dowie: How will these changes support a more integrated family violence system?Hon AMY ADAMS: The bill underpins our move to an integrated system through specific changes to promote proactive and coordinated responses—including creating pathways to help families at risk of escalating violence before they end up at court; implementing new information-sharing provisions that allow people in the sector to see all relevant information when assessing risk; allowing codes of practice to be issued to help ensure services are coordinated and consistent; more effectively changing perpetrator behaviour by increasing access to risk- and needs-assessment and referrals to appropriate services; and enhancing decision making by more accurately recording family violence offending in the criminal justice system to enable decision makers to easily determine whether a perpetrator has a history of violence—and will provide better information about family violence volumes and trends.
4. Environment Minister—Statements about New Zealand First and Water-user ChargesRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister for the EnvironmentEnvironment Minister—Statements about New Zealand First and Water-user Charges4. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes particularly my statement that a 10c a litre charge on water would bankrupt our farmers. They use 6 trillion litres a year in irrigation and stock water so would be billed $600 billion a year under the 10c a litre policy that both he and Mr Nash from the Labour Party have promoted.Richard Prosser: What documentary evidence does he have to support his statement: Yes I did see a proposal from the New Zealand First Party to charge all water users 10c per litre."?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to quote the parliamentary Hansard of the debate on the Prime Minister's statement on 17 February where the member said: "If for example a 10c a litre charge were made that would be a good policy." [Interruption]Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am about to hear a point of order. I expect to hear it in silence.Richard Prosser: My point of order is that the question related to the charge applying to all water-users. The Minister did not address that.Mr SPEAKER: No I heard that the Minister did. He then quoted from the Hansard. As to whether it fits the answer that the member was expecting and was a satisfactory answer that is for members to determine. The Minister certainly addressed the question that was asked.Richard Prosser: What documentary evidence does he have to support his statement in relation to "companies are extracting millions of litres of water for bottling and export" that New Zealand First demanded "a prohibition on export."?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would refer to the member's own speeches where he has sought both charges on water on some occasions and to other Opposition MPs like Stuart Nash who has promoted a 10c a litre charge. My comments are that they are impractical and would bankrupt our most important primary industries.Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Since the Minister has made reference to speeches that I have made it is presumably a document on official record that the Minister is quoting from and I would ask that he table it.Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not interested if it is a Hansard document in that being tabled because Hansard is available to all members at any time. Does the Minister want to address what particular official document he may be quoting from?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am quoting the parliamentary Hansard of 17 February 2017 which I—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then that is not what I would confirm—[Interruption] Order! That is not what I have said is an official document that the member can then ask to be tabled. It is already available if the member wants to go and look it up."
Curran Clare; Mallard TrevorCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am taking my first call on this bill in the Committee stage. Can I first of all acknowledge the willingness of the Minister in the chair Christopher Finlayson to engage in real debate in the Committee stage of this bill. It is a rare thing.Hon Ruth Dyson: A demonstration of competence.CLARE CURRAN: Well a demonstration of competence but it actually feels as though Parliament is doing its proper job by actually having a real discussion about the rationale given that not all of us can sit on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and hear the submissions and the debate that goes on. We actually do get the opportunity in the Committee of the whole House in these rare moments to have a real discussion so I really welcome that. Can I refer my comments to clauses 101 102 105 108 and if I have time touch on 118 Subpart 4 which the Minister just referred to as he sat down. First of all I say that the protections for privacy in this—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair and report progress.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Intelligence and Security Bill no progress on the Māori Purposes Bill and no progress on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Finlayson ChristopherPart 5 Accessing information held by other agenciesHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I will make a couple of comments about Part 5 because the select committee has helpfully done a lot of work on what now appears as Subpart 4 which deals with obtaining the business records of telecommunication network operators and financial service providers.What is the point of Part 5? Part 5 deals with the access that security and intelligence agencies need for the purpose of carrying out their functions. Much of their work depends on the access to information held by other Government agencies and the private sector. What we now have in Part 5 is four subparts. The first reflects the existing ability of the intelligence and security agencies to request information from other public and private sector agencies and individuals and the ability of those people and agencies to disclose information to the intelligence and security agencies. I simply note in passing while we are dealing with Subpart 1 clause 101A which sets out the register of certificates. Following on from the commentary I had on another part an hour or so ago when dealing with a different type of register the register may be accessed at any time by the Minister responsible for the agency or by the inspector-general.The second subpart provides for direct access by the intelligence and security agencies to databases holding certain specified Government information. The third subpart provides—and this is very important—for the case by case access to restricted information pursuant to a warrant-like application process. So that is a case by case disclosure. The main change here is set out in clause 111(ba)—information relating to adoptions. The addition of adoption information to the restricted information scheme is very important. It was previously included in the direct access scheme but it has been moved to the restricted information list because of obviously the sensitivity of information being held about adoptions being more akin to the other categories of information.The final subpart which we will want to spend a little bit of time on—because I think the committee with respect has got it entirely right—is the scheme for providing for compulsory disclosure of certain business record information held by telecommunications network operators and financial service providers to the intelligence agencies. The term business record" is defined in clause 118B.I think I will leave it there because members may want to tease out the rationale for Subpart 4 and ask me some questions later on."
Ross Jami-Lee; Mallard TrevorJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes. I think we have had over an hour's debate on this and the Chairs have been deliberately encouraging of Ministers to answer questions reasonably when the questions are asked reasonably. We have had that and I think it would be discouraging for the Government of that sort of procedure if in fact we took it for longer than it would have otherwise been taken for. So I will accept the closure motion.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I just want to briefly deal with a couple of matters. The first is that the issue of whether it should be the Attorney-General or the Minister was raised I believe in Mr Little's first reading speech when the bill had its first reading in the House and then it went off to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security raised a number of concerns about whether it should be the Attorney-General or whether it should be the Minister. I reflected on what Mr Little had said and on the submission of the inspector-general and reached the conclusion that I thought they were right: that it should be the Minister who is involved in the day-to-day activities. As the member David Cunliffe correctly observes the Attorney-General almost stands back and is concerned to see that the business of Government is conducted in accordance with the rule of law which is an oversight function as a law officer and the ability of an Attorney-General to do that is better preserved if he or she is not involved in the particular application. That is the rationale.I hear what the member David Cunliffe said about that fine balance and the need for reporting and frankly agree with him so I do not think I have got too much more to add there. Simply to put the matter beyond doubt because I think I have answered it but maybe not very well I go to clause 65 which sets out the powers of the SIS acting under an intelligence warrant be it type 1 or type 2 and clause 66 Powers of Government Security Communications Bureau under intelligence warrant". Mr Robertson has referred honourable members to clause 65(1)(b) which is the installation of a visual surveillance device by the SIS. The parallel provision for the GCSB is 66(1)(b). Then one goes back to the definition of what a "visual surveillance device" is. As Mr Robertson said that is picked up in the definition in clause 47 and "visual surveillance" is defined as meaning "observation of private activity in private premises".Then one goes to the definition of "private premises". I can assure honourable members that although I have no direct knowledge of why the word "marae" was included in the Search and Surveillance Act it would have been I surmise to protect marae so that if there were to be intrusive activity on a marae it would not be regarded as a public place and a warrant under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 would be required. The same principle applies here whether it be for a type 1 or a type 2 warrant. Yes a marae is a place where people can go in a public way for a number of the activities that Mr Davis correctly outlined but it is not a place necessarily where people frequently go. The protections of the private premises or the private residence should be accorded to a marae so that if someone wanted to take steps in relation to a marae there would be a higher standard. That is the rationale behind it. Yes it may seem on the face of it rather strange to include it but that is the rationale behind it and I would say a very good reason why it should be like that."
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): That was a very fair question by Mr O'Rourke. I suppose at the end of the day I interrogated the various categories of offence. There is a degree of arbitrariness about it—2 years 3 years. Five years seemed to me to be too high but I was willing to move from 2 years to 3 years on the basis of the other considerations in the clause the honourable member has been referring to and was satisfied that not too much change would occur as a result. But that is the reason I have given whether it is an adequate reason whether it is an arbitrary reason or whether I am just too keen to compromise the member can make his own judgments.Can I come to the very interesting point raised by Mr Faafoi about private premises means a private residence a marae or any other premises to which members of the public do not frequently have access". Mr Davis also raised a couple of points on it and I found out where the term "private premises" is actually referred to in this part and that is in the definition of "visual surveillance" in clause 47 which states: "visual surveillance means the observation of private activity in private premises". The definition is largely drawn on the definition of "private premises" in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 which is very very similar. "Private premises" in that Act is defined as meaning "a private dwellinghouse a marae and any other premises that are not within the definition of non-private premises".The rationale behind putting "a marae" in there is to make sure if a surveillance warrant was sought under the Search and Surveillance Act in relation to a marae you just could not go and plant a bug. If you were say the police or some other enforcement authority you would need to get a warrant and that is carried over here. So actually it is designed to protect a marae rather than diminish the protections for it. I heard what the honourable member said about a marae. I guess one is saying yes at times it is open to the public as are most churches for example whether or not people want to avail themselves of that opportunity. But marae are also used for sleepovers for private activities and matters such as that and it was felt that the protections that are ordinarily provided to dwellinghouses should also be made available to marae. I think that is the rationale underpinning the definition in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and a similar sort of rationale is considered appropriate here given the intrusive nature of what the SIS can do and if any activity is to involve a marae a warrant would be required."