edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tinetti Jan; Williams PotoJAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I remember speaking on this bill in its first reading and at the time thinking that while it seems a small piece of legislation it's actually a very important piece of legislation because we're actually including cultural beliefs including tikanga Māori into this important area.It was only last week when I was at an event and I had a whānau member come up to me and say how they'd actually been following the progress of this bill. I was quite surprised so I actually engaged in conversation around this. They'd had a rather unpleasant experience through an unfortunate death that they'd had in their family where they'd felt confused and isolated through the process. They felt that this legislation while it codifies good practice and practice that's currently happening also ensures that where it's not happening it's going to occur in future. It was really really important to that particular whānau member.I spoke in the first reading about my own experiences growing up around death and how that for a long time in my—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): As someone who is mildly superstitious this is the first time I've spoken on this bill and I've avoided every other obligation to speak on it but naturally we support it. As someone who has received complaints as an MP about the treatment of whānau concerns in the treatment of the person who has passed away and an inability of the coroner the pathologist and other elements in the system I'm reminded of one of my tupuna who in 1887 went and had a meal with the bishop in Parnell. He was accompanied by Kelvin Davis's tupuna who was the then member of Te Tai Tokerau Te Tai Hakuene. My tupuna's name was Rēnata Tangata from a little place called Pēria at the back of Taipā at the base of the Mangamuka Ranges. They were served tinned meat and that meal became te matenga o te tīni mīti amethe death of the tinned meat] because the meat had not been properly prepared or had gone foul in the actual tin.Three of our kaumātua left on the Clansman which was the main vessel to take them out of Auckland back up to the wild and woolly North and all three died as a consequence of this tinned meat poisoning. Two were leading Anglican clergy—Rev. Rūpene Paerata Rev. Tangata—and Te Tai Hakuene whose photo is near where the media currently occupy. When the superintendent came to get the body of Rev. Rēnata Tangata so that the medical authorities could undertake some sort of assessment to see what the reason was that he passed away the natives rebelled. For hour after hour they demanded that they not lose the tūpāpaku that the person be grieved over and stay on the marae but like all good Māori Anglicans they eventually acceded to the request. So there's actually a long tradition where I come from of mighty rows about where medical authority meets customary expectation.In 1992 when I came back from studying in the States I was summoned by the police to help recover the body of a tiny little baby that had already been taken to the marae in Hokianga and the hapū who had the baby under no circumstances were going to release it. The coroner and the police said We need to get hold of this tūpāpaku to find out how did this kid die." So the armed offenders squad arrived the riot squad arrived and we eventually did work with the whānau and the hapū and got the body of the baby released. I only tell that story because for a number of us these are very vivid cases and I only hope that the inclusion of tikanga Māori enables the medical professionals and the staff advising the coroner and the coronial decision maker to actually put into practice what at one level is common sense but at another level is a long history of missed opportunity for the system to pay a suitable quality of respect in terms of how Māori whānau grieve for those who have passed away and use that as a basis for passing on culture.So with those few words I'll say no more about a topic that I find rather culturally distasteful. Thank you very much."
Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It is with pleasure that I stand to take a brief call on the third reading of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. I do want to mention Metiria Turei who started this whole process back in the last sitting Parliament time. I want to thank her for bringing this to our attention. As I said in my contribution during the committee of the whole House I had no idea it was a big issue because I had not personally experienced it. But I understand that a number of whānau have experienced it.I'm sure that the sentiment of this bill resonates not only with Māori but across all cultures actually. When my husband's aunty died they had her lying in state and we could go in there and we could give her a kiss goodbye and touch her as well. So that was really good and they weren't Māori. So I think that this bill does resonate with a number of cultures in our country.I think it's all about and what it's brought to the fore is respect—respect for not just the work of the coroners and the role that they play but also respect for whānau with the coroners and the relationship that that has built. I think that is only a good thing.Actually we know that whānau pani—those are the families of the deceased—are used to being able to be there when the whānau member dies when the tūpāpaku passes to be able to dress them and to be there throughout the whole process and journey into the ground from whence they came. I think this is a great bill and I'm really pleased that it's got support across the House.As I mentioned it's going to be a short contribution from me. I think that it is quite a narrow bill. It does do many things that are great things. I want to thank all of those who put submissions forward and I'm very happy and proud to commend it to the House. Thank you.
Hipkins ChrisThird ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. Bill read a third time.
Patterson Mark; Williams PotoMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I hope it won't be so inconsequential. I just rise actually for a very brief contribution just to affirm New Zealand First's support for this Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2). I do note—we have just been following the debate around the process—that the Minister has offered to look into it as part of the triennial review and it does sound like there is some cause for that. I would note just for some context for example when we're looking at the Commodity Levies Act and the levies that this has been delegated to bring into force or the rate of—these industries all come to the Minister after having wide consultation within the sector involved and often there'll be a vote and most of the votes that I've seen on these commodity levies have got 95-or-so percent of the participants who are the actual payers of these levies who have shown support.So I think we need to have a little bit of context there around some of this too. We don't want to wrap it up in too much red tape. We're merely confirming what these industries have debated and wished for during their consultation process. So that will no doubt be taken into account within that wider discussion. But outside of that New Zealand First is very happy to support this legislation. Whilst it's not the highest-profile legislation as Nicola Willis mentioned before it is actually really important for those industries. The Commodity Levies Act the Customs and Excise Act the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act the Biosecurity Act—they're all really important issues that this country faces so having the mechanisms in place to enact the legislation and regulations is really important. So New Zealand First supports that. I will commend the Regulations Review Committee for wading through this and I note that Nicola Willis showed some enthusiasm for that committee. I'm glad I'm not on it. It does sound fairly dry old stuff but we do need people that are motivated to look and then trawl through the details of this stuff. It's important for our democracy that they do and I'm glad that it's not me. But without further ado New Zealand First supports this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you and I apologise to the member again. OK are we done? OK. Bill read a second time.
Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
Speaker's Rulings — Written Questions — Responses
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Can I just take a brief call to congratulate the officials and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on sorting this matter out. It was a concern to the Māori Affairs Committee. I know that the owners of the operation were—it was a very stressful time for them. The effect of the amendments moved by the Minister in the Supplementary Order Paper will be to regulate matters and provide a basis on which there can be a negotiation in the future. And I note that new clauses 91(A) to 91(C) only come into force on a date to be determined by Order in Council. So I think this is a very satisfactory arrangement and I can assure the Minister that it will impress those members of the Māori Affairs Committee who were dealing with this matter and had been very concerned with it.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to clauses 2 and 91 and schedule 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 5 schedules 1 to 6 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.
Little Andrew; Rurawhe AdrianNGĀTI TŪWHARETOA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary matters acknowledgements and apology and settlement of historical claimsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I'm taking this opportunity to speak briefly to Supplementary Order Paper 181. For the benefit of the members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who are in the gallery who are here we are doing a small technical procedure which just makes some minor amendments to the bill just before we do its third reading. The Māori Affairs Committee reported the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill back to this House on 19 June this year and recommended that it be passed with minor technical amendments. In my second reading speech on the bill I also noted that further amendments to the bill in relation to the Waipahihi stream conservation area would need to be considered by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. So the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we are presently considering for the purposes of this committee stage will make technical amendments and additions to two clauses and one schedule of the bill. These changes won't alter the make-up of the bill or indeed the redress package. The amendments and additions to two clauses are required to validate the lease arrangements over the Waipahihi stream conservation area and specify the requirements for future leases over the land. The land is included in the bill as a property to transfer to Ngāti Tūwharetoa on settlement date as a recreational reserve. The land is subject to a lease granted under the Land Act 1948 in 1966 held by Taupō Hot Springs Ltd who own the DeBretts Hot Springs business currently operating on the land. However the lease was incorrectly renewed in 1997 under the Land Act 1948 rather than the Conservation Act 1987. This means that the existing lease is currently unlawful and likely voidable. Officials from the Department of Conservation the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Law Office have been in consultation with both Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Taupo Hot Springs Ltd since the issue was identified to find a solution that meets the interests of everybody. Officials have consulted with Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Taupo Hot Springs Ltd about the amendments in the proposed SOP and that ought to conclude all matters and allow the whole issue to proceed accordingly. I want to just conclude by thanking members of the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their assistance and thoroughness in ensuring that that is done and the legislation is ready for the committee. On that basis I commend to the committee the three changes alone outlined in SOP 181.Before I proceed any further I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate for the purpose of this matter.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.
Jones Shane; Mallard TrevorHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. Your reference to the word convenience" though is not helpful. When you're deluged with 5400 questions a large percentage of which are dross it's not a matter of convenience or otherwise.SPEAKER: No the member will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise. Speaking to the point of order.SPEAKER: No. There is not a point of order. I just want to make it clear to Mr Jones that the comment that he made was one which in one way stated the obvious. We all know and probably no one more than myself that it is relatively easy to generate questions some of which result in important information and most of which resulted not much. But it is the right of members of Parliament to ask those questions. The Government is doing a good thing as far as the proactive release of briefings and diaries. I know that the member himself has indicated that he wasn't that comfortable with that approach but we are heading towards that. It will be more efficient but until that time the current rules apply."
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What you'll see from the Cabinet paper and Cabinet minute that was released as I'm sure you've read it very thoroughly is that those diaries will be progressively made available by—the date you mentioned is the latest date for them to be made available. For example in my own case many of those are already posted online and my office are working backwards through my diary and posting them as they are completed. Diverting people's attention away from that task to the task of answering written questions which often deals with the same information will actually delay the overall release of that diary information.SPEAKER: Right I just want to make it very clear that this House does not run according to the convenience of the Minister's staff—[Interruption]—who interjected then?Chris Bishop: Me.SPEAKER: Stand withdraw and apologise.Chris Bishop: I stand withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: I would have thought that that member of all people should have been the last to interject on that matter.The point that I am trying to make is that there could well be a compromise whereby Ministers ask the staff to turn their attention first over the next few days to the areas covered by those written questions get those up on the website and then it would be appropriate to point towards those as part of the written answers. If that can't be done then the answers should just be done properly in the way that's been ruled by Speakers in the past.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Further to the point of order Mr Speaker. In the case of many Ministers those questions cover the entire period of time in question because they've lodged a series of questions for one week and then the next week and then the next week and then the next week and then the next week. So in order to be able to answer those we do have to do the exercise of releasing all of the information. So it makes a lot more sense to do that in a systematic way rather than trying to answer those questions some of which it will be impossible to answer by the deadline you have fixed because the process of compiling them will take longer than the deadline that you've fixed because it covers the entirety of the period in question.SPEAKER: Well I've had a good look at a large sample of the questions and I'm satisfied that the vast majority of them could be answered if Ministers' officers were properly organised and turned their minds to it. I am satisfied—I mean there were only I think about 30 of them referred to me; there could well be a lot more. But Ministers have been in office for a year now. They've had fair warning of the requirements to have systems in place to answer questions from members of Parliament according to the Speakers' rulings and Standing Orders and I expect them to do it.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSWritten Questions—Unsatisfactory AnswersSPEAKER: Members have raised with me the unsatisfactory responses to written questions provided by a range of Ministers. Questions about meetings reports or events within a specified month have received a reply saying that ministerial diaries will soon be publicly available. According to the Cabinet minute ministerial diaries from the beginning of the Parliament until 31 December this year will be released on 30 April 2019. A four-month wait for an answer to a written question is not satisfactory when the time frame in the Standing Orders is six working days. When the proactive diary release system is operating it may be that a short wait for replies to general—often known as fishing—questions about monthly engagements and briefings is acceptable; however that is not the case at present. I expect all of the replies that have declined to provide information on the basis that it will be available under the Government's proactive release of diaries policy to be corrected before noon next Thursday.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 13 DECEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): On Tuesday next week third readings will be given to the Child Poverty Reduction Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill and the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. On Wednesday the House will debate the first reading of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Craft Institute Vesting Bill. Instead of a general debate there'll be a debate on an adjournment motion at the conclusion of which the House will adjourn until 12 February 2019. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that outline of next week's programme but would ask if he could give us some indication of when there might be some legislation to give effect to the Government's announcement today with regard to the synthetic drug problem in New Zealand. The next question I would have is: how soon can we expect the Labour - New Zealand First Government supported by the Greens to introduce item No. 29 on the Order Paper the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill which we've been waiting for more than 12 months to see passed through this House? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I believe that we're getting close to the amount of time that that bill stayed on the Order Paper under the tenure of the last Government. But in terms of the first part of the question I believe that the legislation around synthetic cannabis will be early in the new year. So within the first couple of months of the new year I expect that we will have something to table in the House. That's under development at the moment. I have just been reminded that I omitted something very important from the Business Statement—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Very important. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —very very important from the Business Statement—which is that the Hon Christopher Finlayson will be delivering his valedictory statement to the House on Tuesday.
Wednesday 12 December 2018 - Volume 735
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 112New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT Party of New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 8Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Bill read a third time.WaiataHakaSitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill — Third Reading
Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill now read a third time.Ayes 112New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 8Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Bill read a third time.
VoteClauses 1 to 7 and scheduleA party vote was called for on the question That clauses 1 to 7 and the schedule be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 8Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Clauses 1 to 7 and schedule agreed to.
Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill — In Committee
12. Question No. 12—Whānau OraJO HAYES (National) to the Minister for Whānau OraQuestion No. 12—Whānau Ora12. JO HAYES (National) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement on Whānau Ora incentive payments that the Minister has said he is looking at the way that some of those arrangements work with Whānau Ora"?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Yes I agree with the statement by our Prime Minister including this statement in the same interview: "It was an incentive payment that the last Government set up with Whānau Ora."Jo Hayes: Why then did RNZ report that he wasn't looking to make any changes to the contracts—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. It's really important that questions start off with an area that a Minister is responsible for and no Minister is responsible for why Radio New Zealand does anything.Jo Hayes: OK. Why was he not aware of the incentive payments in Whānau Ora contracts when first asked about it last week?Hon PEENI HENARE: I was aware of the incentive mechanism in the contracts that are entered into with the commissioning agencies as the member will be seeing as they were released to her in the Official Information Act request I gave.Jo Hayes: Has he made further inquiries with his colleague the Hon Willie Jackson about his involvement with the National Urban Māori Authority and the Manukau Urban Māori Authority and any dividends he may or may not have received from incentive payments following yesterday's question in the House?Hon PEENI HENARE: No.Jo Hayes: When was he first made aware of his colleague's administrative error as it relates to his Whānau Ora portfolio?Hon PEENI HENARE: I can't give the exact date of when I was made aware. However I do understand that the resignation was received before my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson became a Minister and that it took some time for the administration to catch up online. Jo Hayes: Has he now received all of those facts in regards to incentive payments after his colleague Mr Jackson had said the Minister hadn't received any facts?SPEAKER: Sorry can the member repeat the question.Jo Hayes: Has he now received all of those facts in regards to incentive payments after his colleague Mr Jackson said on One News that the Minister hadn't received all the facts?Hon PEENI HENARE: I have always known about the incentive mechanisms in the contract."
11. Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer AffairsTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs11. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made to protect consumers and businesses from unfair commercial practices?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): On Monday the Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash and I were pleased to release a discussion paper outlining options to protect consumers and businesses from unfair commercial practices and contract terms. The existing provisions of the Fair Trading Act and the Commerce Act protect consumers and businesses against a range of unfair commercial practices but the Government wants to plug gaps in the current protections because small and medium sized business and consumers have highlighted issues. Tamati Coffey: What types of unfair commercial practices are of most concern?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: For consumers examples of unfair practices include traders using aggressive sales tactics to sell products to vulnerable consumers or selling products to consumers without clearly specifying the total price. For businesses examples of unfair practices include contract terms that unreasonably shift risk on to one party of a contract the use of extended payment terms and businesses not complying with contract terms. I'd like to thank some of the entities who have given us feedback. For example the Food and Grocery Council have said that this is a pro-business move and that there is a need to strengthen New Zealand's business law dealing with unfair practices and these proposals would go a long way towards achieving that.Tamati Coffey: What else is the Government doing to address poor commercial conduct and support honest business in New Zealand?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government has a broad programme of work in this space. For instance we're strengthening the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act to protect against high-cost loans and irresponsible lending and the Government is also assessing changes made to the Fair Trading Act in 2013 to make sure they're working effectively as well. We've also given the Commerce Commission recently the power to undertake competition studies.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Best Minister in the Government.Hon Phil Twyford: He is pretty good.Hon Member: High praise Gerry.SPEAKER: Now shall we go to Jo Hayes?
9. Question No. 9—ImmigrationHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 9—Immigration9. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Other than Karel Sroubek's lawyer and family members who made representations on his behalf in respect of the deportation liability that was the subject of the Minister's decision on 19 September 2018?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): I can confirm that amongst the information I considered on 19 September were letters of support from family friends business associates and fellow sportspeople. Alongside the letters of support were sworn statements by a private investigator and a lawyer in the Czech Republic regarding the Czech justice system in Mr Sroubek's circumstance. I do not consider it in the public interest to release the names of those who provided support or information regarding Mr Sroubek. Some have requested anonymity and I consider it likely that naming people would expose them to unwarranted attention. None of those who made representations were known to me; none were MPs or former MPs or MPs' partners. I am unaware if any of the people had or have links to any political party.Hon Michael Woodhouse: If it's his intention to never publicly release the supporting documentations and representation letters regarding his decision why did he indicate in answers to oral questions on 6 November that he would commit to a release at the appropriate time"?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will release the appropriate information at the appropriate time as required by the Official Information Act.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen comments by Judge Venning regarding applications for court documents concerning Karel Sroubek that said "I am satisfied that the public interest in the review of Mr Antolik's deportation status being fully informed outweighs any issues of privacy particularly given the publicity concerning this matter." and why does he think it's OK for the courts to see this public interest but not him?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will meet my obligations under the Official Information Act. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen any—SPEAKER: No no the member's going to stand withdraw and apologise.Brett Hudson: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Thank you—especially the extra one. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen any reports of the Prime Minister confirming that there were no "direct" representations to him and if so what indirect or informal representations were made including from MPs' staff or supporters?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: None.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did Richie Hardcore a former martial arts champion make representations in support of his application not to be deported?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I said I do not consider it in the public interest to name specific individuals and I'm not going to do it by a process of elimination either."
8. Question No. 8—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 8—Education8. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What proposals has he seen on the future of schooling in New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last week I welcomed a report from the Tomorrow's Schools independent task force that contains bold proposals on changes to our schooling system. We set up the task force to get an independent view of the state of compulsory education in New Zealand. We asked them to look at ways that they could free up principals to lead free up teachers to teach and give parents the time to focus on their children's well-being and learning—most importantly putting children at the centre of everything we do. I hope that the recommendations of the task force will provoke robust and wide-ranging discussion about our schooling system—what it should look like in the next 30 years. New Zealanders have until April next year to have their say on the recommendations.Jan Tinetti: Why did the Government establish an independent task force to take a look at the Tomorrow's Schools model?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's been nearly 30 years since the Tomorrow's Schools reform. During that time inequality in our education system has grown significantly and we've had an opportunity to work out its strengths and weaknesses. It was time to take a look at how we support equity and inclusion for all children throughout their schooling their educational success and how we equip all of our students in the modern world. The independent task force has provided some bold recommendations as to how we could do this and I look forward to the discussion ahead.
6. Question No. 6—TransportHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 6—Transport6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he think that the purpose of transport policy is to make it easier for New Zealanders to get around quickly efficiently and safely?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Under the Government policy statement released in June the purpose of transport policy is to give New Zealanders access to the things they need like work education and community a safer transport system free of death and serious injury reduced carbon emissions and value for money and I agree with that.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So if there is a range of purposes where does making it easier for New Zealanders to get around quickly and efficiently rank in his list of priorities?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well if the member wants to think about it this way it's really a subset of access. It's about giving New Zealanders access to the things that they need and that often involves allowing people to move around quickly and efficiently.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he have a view on Auckland Transport's proposal to reduce speeds across the entire CBD area inside the motorway network to 30 kilometres an hour?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well it's not my role as Minister of Transport to comment on how local councils set local speed limits but I can say that there are good reasons why one might want to set different speed limits in different places to save lives and support good urban design. While in the 1950s cities were built primarily for cars the world has changed and now pedestrianisation shared spaces and more walking and cycling are making our cities much more attractive and liveable places. Adjusting speed limits to make streets safer for pedestrians cyclists and scooter riders is an important part of this change.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he in favour of a 30-kilometre-an-hour speed limit on Nelson Street and Hobson Street?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It's not my place to take a position on that but I want to quote Shane Ellison the chief executive of Auckland Transport who said very recently that Setting safe speeds is one of the quickest and most effective tools we have in reducing road trauma. The public will now have their say on our safe speed proposals early next year and for Auckland Transport to continue its work to make our streets safer for everyone." If the member is concerned about this issue I urge him to make a submission to Auckland Council's process on this.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he had any discussions with any Ministers about the threatened strike action at Air New Zealand that will make it more difficult for New Zealanders to get around the country before Christmas?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Could the member repeat the question—any discussions with whom? With any—Hon Paul Goldsmith: With any Ministers.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No."
5. Question No. 5—ConservationMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 5—Conservation5. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Conservation: What alternatives to 1080 if any is the Department of Conservation involved in using or researching for pest control?Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): In 2017-18 the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the Department of Conservation provided approximately $4.8 million for research into alternatives to 1080 and I am advised that across Government this investment increased to over $7 million in 2018-19. The Government is supporting a range of research into different compounds including things like PAPP which is very effective for stoats; things like sodium nitrate; microencapsulated zinc phosphate paste; and also into traps like self-resetting traps. Four of the five projects which were announced this year by Predator Free 2050 Ltd involve large-scale predator control using traps.Mark Patterson: What are the most promising of the alternatives to 1080 and where are they being used?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The best alternative at the moment is trapping which is already used extensively across New Zealand. The Predator Free 2050 projects in areas like Taranaki Hawke's Bay and Wellington rely on traps. In Waiheke there is work there that's not going to be using any toxins. But I think some of the most effective projects that are being researched at the moment are innovative research involving things like pheromones—scents—to confuse predators; things like sodium nitrate; the PAPP which is a more effective lure for species like stoats; and the work that Predator Free is doing at Lincoln to look at exclusion devices. So there is a whole range of tools which are alternatives to 1080.Mark Patterson: Does the Minister support and see a future for 1080 alternatives?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Absolutely but at this point in time 1080 remains a critical tool. Next year is expected to be a mast year where forests produce a bumper crop of flowers and seeds. That will lead to a major increase in predators and a significant impact on our threatened birds. So aerial 1080 continues to be a critical tool if we are to prevent the regional extinction of kākā kiwi and species like that but alternative research is well under way.Sarah Dowie: Why did she instruct Predator Free New Zealand to stop looking at genetic engineering?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Because there is a lot of research under way into traditional tools like trapping better use of 1080 and alternative vertebrate toxins and because we have not had the public consultation and the development of a public mandate for genetic engineering.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What progress if any has been made on implementing the Government's economic policies?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Considerable progress. Yesterday I talked about the changes we have made to the legislative framework that supports our economic policies and plan. Today I want to focus on the work we have done to help businesses and workers prepare for the changing nature of work as we transition to a new economy that is more productive sustainable and inclusive. The transition to a new economy represents massive opportunities and challenges. The Government has set a clear goal of a net zero carbon economy by 2050 and importantly a just and deliberate transition to that goal that supports communities industries and workers through that transition. Kiritapu Allan: What specific policies has the Government progressed to support this transition? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Just a few examples. The Future of Work tripartite forum which brings businesses workers and Government together to advance polices in four key areas: just transitions learning for life technology and workplace productivity. We have the Mana in Mahi programme which is providing financial support to employers to fill the skill gaps by supporting the cost of apprenticeships for young New Zealanders who have been on the benefit for six months or more and our fees-free scheme which provides opportunity for post - secondary school education and training including two years' free for trade training and apprenticeship schemes. Kiritapu Allan: What specific outcomes have come from the Future of Work tripartite forum? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The forum has developed a skills shift initiative in the manufacturing sector alongside ManufacturingNZ. This brings together employers industry training organisations unions and training providers to plan the workforce training needs for this important sector for the next two decades. It's this kind of forward planning that is essential if New Zealanders are to have a fair and just transition to a world of work that is being rapidly changed by new technology.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members Chlöe Swarbrick's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 inserting new clauses 5 to 9 are out of order as out of scope of the bill. Members we will not be debating these amendments.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair for an opportunity take a call on this the committee stage on clause 4. I would like to note that this is the third evening we have been debating this in the committee stage and that I have already taken calls on this clause in previous evenings.I would like to remind the committee that this bill is about targeting suppliers manufacturers and dealers of synthetic drugs and that a number of the Supplementary Order Papers try to seek to make significant changes to what would be the Sentencing Act. I would ask members whether those changes that they seek to make represent their new Government policy in regards to the justice reforms. I'd also like to point the committee to the sentencing guidelines from Justice Brewer of the High Court who has already very clearly outlined clear guidelines around how those who are convicted of supplying synthetic drugs should be treated and that it depends on the amount of drugs the circumstances of the individual whether there is an intent to make a profit and whether the supply is of a size which is on a commercial scale. So there's a range of different factors which have already been provided by the High Court in their sentencing notes and their guidelines from Justice Brewer which I would encourage members to read in terms of ensuring that they know that the courts already take those factors into account.I guess the purpose of this bill is to ensure that we are targeting the suppliers and dealers and manufacturers of this drug. Currently if you are found guilty of supplying synthetic drugs the maximum penalty is two years in jail. If you're supplying cannabis it's eight years in jail. There is a complete mismatch here in our legislation. This bill seeks to address that to give powers to our law enforcement agencies to target those who are making money from people's misery and address the significant harm caused by these drugs. Thank you.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call—Chlöe Swarbrick: E Te Māngai.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Actually I just have to check how many calls the member has taken. Remember this is clause 4 with the debate continued so we just have to check that. However—would you just resume your seat—I just want to send a very clear message to the committee: repeating the same sentence several ways within the same call does not make that an effective call. [Interruption] This will be heard in silence. It might cause the members some amusement but this is very serious. We want to hear new debates new arguments. This particular clause has been debated for some time now and I have to sit and listen to all of the debates and all of the arguments. So I'm looking for fresh material or I will sit members down.
Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill — Procedure
Brown Simeon; Tolley AnnePSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES (INCREASING PENALTY FOR SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION) AMENDMENT BILLProcedureSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I seek leave for the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill to be set down for its third reading forthwith following the completion of its committee stage.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well you're perfectly entitled I suppose to seek leave. Is there any objection? Oh funny that—there is.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand if I take more than one minute then we're all coming back in an hour and a half to finish this off. So I'm going to make this really speedy whānau because I know that you've been up for a long time. I know that you had karakia at 6 a.m. I know that the bus picked you up at Ōwae Marae and I know that it made a stop off at Stratford to pick some people up as well. So I want to move this through. I want to acknowledge you and acknowledge the compromise that you have gotten to by even just being here today. I acknowledge you I acknowledge the pain and the heartache that it's taken to get to this point and I say that as one of Te Atiawa whānui as well. We are the Coffeys from Rāhotu—that's right. And once upon a time way back when we made the journey down to Wellington. I grew up here in Lower Hutt because my family had escaped the terrors of the land wars. So I say that as one of your whānau: I wish you all of the best going forward. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou kia ora anō tātou katoa. I commend the bill to the House.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It's a pleasure to welcome the people of Taranaki here and to take a very short call in the interests of your time frame. You've waited a very long time for this to happen. I want to congratulate Jonathan Young Chris Finlayson Nanaia Mahuta and others who have been actively involved in where we are at today. So I'm not going to take any more time out of your timetable because I remember as a child with this growing up knowing about Waitara. I'm 58 years old and it's a lot longer than my lifetime. So I want to commend this bill to the House and congratulate you all today. Thank you.
New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill — In Committee
Young Jonathan; Tolley AnneNEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCIL (WAITARA LANDS) BILLIn CommitteeJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I move That all provisions be taken as one question.Motion agreed to.Preamble clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 5 and schedules 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We have a couple of technical amendments that the Parliamentary Counsel Office would like to make to the bill. We're just finding out what the process is for that seeing as the wish of the committee is to proceed quickly.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 184 in the name of Jonathan Young be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Preamble Parts 1 to 5 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): Being someone that hasn't sat on the Governance and Administration Committee that looked into this bill I've done a lot of research and thinking about it today but in hearing the speeches here there isn't a lot more that I can actually add to those speeches. While we've had divided opinions from people on this and that's great because that's democracy in action this is a pragmatic piece of legislation. Looking into this today I was totally impressed at what a great water augmentation scheme this is. Doing my research into it I thought this is absolutely fantastic and this must happen and this needs to happen.I think that like my colleague Paul Eagle said our leaders on the Tasman District Council have made some bold calls and I think it's fantastic that they've coped with the issues that they've had. But the leaders have stood up and they have led and it's good to see this going through. As I've said this bill will add to both horticulture and residential use in the Waimea Valley area. There's not much more to say to that because it is a great bill and I look forward to seeing this come to fruition. So therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege for me to stand and make a contribution to this debate on the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. I simply want to make a short contribution to pay tribute to the people who have been involved in this from the outset. I pay tribute to Mayor Richard Kempthorne—Mayor Richard has gone grey over the course of this project. His councillors his staff—I pay tribute to all of those people who've worked on this scheme since the big dry of 2001. But I also acknowledge the industry and business interests that have also contributed to this project over time. And of course I do acknowledge my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his efforts in progressing this legislation through the House.As I've said in previous debates the big winner out of this water augmentation scheme is the Waimea River and the aquifers. No longer will we have the river running dry and poisonous algae developing. We will have minimum flows that can be controlled all year. This is a significant day for the Waimea Plains. It's a significant day for the security of businesses on that plain and it is also a massive day for security of the domestic water supplies in Tasman. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.