edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd just like to follow my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith's contribution because it does raise an issue that has been raised with me several times in recent times regarding this bill as it transitions through Parliament and that's how the collective bargaining relates to Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers and the types of conditions that can be imposed on employers of that workforce. The reason it's become a bit of a concern to that sector is if that collective bargaining imposes conditions on employers that make it difficult for them to comply. One of the things that's raised concern is the scenario where that collective bargaining says that RSE workers' housing—the accommodation that's provided onsite—must be made available for other uses for example emergency housing. So what if those collective bargaining agreements in a negotiation between those sector groups impose conditions such as that on employers and then that starts to raise concerns and conflicts between other legislation like the Residential Tenancies Act? I just wonder if the Minister could clarify that these types of negotiations that could be imposed on employers of RSE workers are not the intended target of collective bargaining agreements as this bill enables and whether those types of negotiations can be ruled out to give the sector the confidence it needs to enter those collective bargaining agreements with some reassurance that their assets are not going to be considered as part of the bargaining between the representative body and the employers or for the likes of the horticultural sector Horticulture New Zealand or some of the viticulture sectors that we may have. I can tell the Minister that that is an issue that is alive and is causing some concern within those sectors. So I'm just looking for some reassurance that that is not what is being prescribed or maybe anticipated as part of collective bargaining.
Salesa Jenny; Wood MichaelPart 2 General principles and obligationsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 9 to 25 the General principles and obligations". The question is that Part 2 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Part 2 does indeed cover the general principles and obligations of the bill. It includes relatively foundational principles in terms of concepts that underlie how parties will engage in the bill. As I said in previous comments most of these concepts are not new or unique within the employment relations system. Very often—in fact in nearly all cases—they come across from the existing regime under the Employment Relations Act. So the principle of "freedom of association" is reconfirmed. The principle of "good faith" is reconfirmed. Issues around prohibition of preference which is ensuring that people are not treated differently or worse because they are a member of the union or engage in bargaining and that kind of thing are here. These are all principles and very often direct wording that relates across to the existing Employment Relations Act regime which is well understood.Probably two useful changes to highlight that have been recommended by the select committee to the committee of the whole House—the first is ensuring that those principles around good faith transfer over to the backstop arrangements so that in respect of parties engaging in backstop processes we're ensuring that good faith continues to operate there. I wouldn't have thought that was particularly controversial. And secondly in terms of ensuring consistency with the broader employment relations system framework there has been a slight change to the way in which good faith has been described from being the general obligation of good faith which was in the original version of the bill to the duty of good faith which is the consistent language that we have in the Employment Relations Act at the moment. So a relatively small but I think practical changes here to ensure that those well understood and generally supported principles apply across the system in a way that's understood by all."
Baillie Chris; Wood MichaelCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. My Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 266 refers to the vulnerable low-paid part of this of this bill. The Minister often refers to the bill being for the lower paid and I can quote: People like our cleaners our supermarket workers have got us through COVID. It's about them." The SOP just wants to ensure that it is those workers that the Minister is trying to help and makes it clear that there must be a public interest test in each consideration. A lot of people think they are lower paid—and in this environment I don't blame them; teachers nurses police—but a lot of other New Zealanders would think that they are not low paid. So the SOP refers to the public interest test being part of every agreement. Thank you.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Madam Chair I think I feel that the Supplementary Order Paper is a little misplaced. The main provisions around the public interest test are in Part 3 of the bill and I would note that one of the changes already proposed by the Education and Workforce Committee is to ensure that low pay is one of the factors that is a bar for the public interest test being met."
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I take that closure motion can I just check with Chris Baillie that he knows his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 266 is actually for this part and once I take that closure motion he won't be able to talk to his SOP.
Simmonds Penny; Wood MichaelPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to bring up a few things that have come to my notice recently from Hospitality New Zealand. They have some quite major concerns that they felt have not been addressed in the bill and I wonder if the Minister can give us some answers on this to try to appease the concerns they have got. They believe that for their sector particularly this is a very complex expensive and unaffordable system for New Zealanders and for their businesses in the hospitality sector. They talk about the inability to stack roles and how workers in small businesses often do need to be able to have multiple roles particularly these small hospitality businesses in smaller centres. I'm thinking particularly of Fiordland and Te Ānau businesses at the moment. They are hospitality and tourism businesses that are really struggling and so they are using people across a number of roles. On that notion of stackable roles they think that this will prevent that and that it will be a very unwieldy system for those smaller hospitality businesses which essentially have to do everything they can to maintain their ability to keep trading at this time and to keep people employed. They felt that the Government has really not entertained any degree of compromise around this bill.So can the Minister perhaps please explain and allay some of these concerns about how the bill will enable that level of flexibility for those very much smaller businesses in the smaller centres particularly those that are worried about this lack of flexibility and this lack of ability to stack roles.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In terms of the member's contribution to Part 1 nothing here prevents employers from organising work in a way that is appropriate in their workplaces including stacking roles which is where a worker takes on a number of different functions. In this debate I have already on a number of occasions addressed extensively the way in which the coverage of fair pay agreements (FPAs) applies to the type of work that is done and the 25 percent test that the select committee has inserted and the fact that only one FPA will apply per employee based on if there are multiple FPAs the majority of work that that employee does.
Goldsmith Paul; Wood MichaelHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I just do want to take issue with the response from the Minister in the chair Michael Wood to my previous question where I was asking about clause 5(3) in relation to the Minister being satisfied before recommending regulations that specify that the employee default bargaining party and the employer default bargaining party—he has to be sure that they are both the most representative organisation". He confirmed that yes they do need to be and he confirmed that yes under the understanding of the International Labour Organization the most representative union organisation is the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) and the most representative employers' organisation is Business New Zealand and he confirmed that if they voluntarily don't take up that role then it automatically goes to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) for a determination rather than bargaining.So I'm left puzzled. Is he saying that for every fair pay agreement that comes up that is proposed—and later on we'll get to the point that you only need you know a handful of employees across a large occupation to initiate this procedure. Is he saying that whenever it comes up if either the CTU as the most representative employee representative or Business New Zealand as the most representative organisation of employers do not voluntarily decide to be the bargaining party then in each case it'll go off to the ERA in which case much of this bill is redundant unless in every instance Business New Zealand picks up the cudgel? I didn't think that that was what it was supposed to be. I would've thought that in other circumstances other business associations might decide to be the bargaining party. So I'd like him to just clarify that. Just what does that mean in practice and is it the case—and I hope I've got this wrong but is it the case if Business New Zealand doesn't decide to be the bargaining party in every case that the whole process will be shuffled straight off to the ERA using the backstop process that he introduced in the House at the same time in this legislation?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I have addressed this matter in previous comments and I note that effectively the provisions that relate to the formation of bargaining sides which is what this goes to are dealt with under Part 3."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The member's comments were for the very most part highly general rather than about the part. But I'll just make this point: the argument that a floor becomes a target is demonstrably untrue in the labour market. We have a minimum wage; that is the floor. That member is paid four times the minimum wage and most people in New Zealand are paid significantly above the minimum wage.In terms of regional variation I would encourage members involved in the debate to become familiar with the legislation. The legislation is very clear that regional variations will be determined along the lines of territorial local authorities. In terms of employer associations there will be sectors where there are existing obvious associations and there will be some where there are not. Ultimately it is up to businesses and sectors to organise themselves as they best see appropriate for the purposes of fair pay agreements or any other form of industry organisation.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to take the Minister in the chair to Part 1 clause 5: the interpretation subclause (3) where the Education and Workforce Committee in its wisdom recommended changes in relation to Before recommending regulations that specify the employee default bargaining party or [the] employer default bargaining party the Minister must be satisfied that—(a) in the case of the employee … that [it] is the most representative organisation of unions" and similarly "in the case of the employer default bargaining party … [that it] is the most representative organisation of employers in New Zealand." Some people would read that and conclude that pretty much in all cases the most representative organisation of unions in New Zealand will be the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU) which is the biggest union and covers that phrase "most representative" which is a phrase picked up from the International Labour Organization to determine who can represent constituencies. And similarly the most representative organisation of employers would always be Business New Zealand—and I can't think of too many other circumstances and maybe I'm misunderstanding that. And if that was the case if the Minister had to be satisfied that on the employee side it was the most representative organisation of unions in New Zealand which I'd have thought would always be the CTU which is the biggest union the most representative and in the case of employers it would always be Business New Zealand which is the biggest and most representative organisation of employees—then that would sort of appear to lock both of those in. And of course elsewhere in the bill it specifies that the role is voluntary so they don't have to do it. So then you'd be sort of left in the situation that in every case if Business New Zealand for example decided not to engage then automatically the whole thing would go to the Employment Relations Authority for determination without bargaining. I'm sure that's not the purpose or intention of the Minister or the way that it's being defined; but I'd like to hear from the Minister as to how he can assure us that that wouldn't be the logical flow when reading those words—because the words say that the Minister must be satisfied in the case of the employer default bargaining party that it is the most representative organisation of employers in New Zealand. So how does that work?"
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I just rise to ask a few questions of the Minister in the chair Michael Wood while we're in the committee stage of Part 1. I just would like to note that the part we're looking at at the moment is the purpose clause and that I have a question around the purpose clause which is notably that as has already been traversed in the committee the Education and Workforce Committee has changed the definition of purpose to look at the benefits provided by the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. So I wondered if the Minister could elaborate on the benefit of that. I note it's improving the terms of employees by providing a framework for industry- or occupation-wide minimum employment terms so I wondered if the Minister could expand on that. Obviously Part 1 is quite limited to the purpose and the definitional clauses and the main definitional clauses that I noted that were of immense importance I think and significance in terms of this bill were the duty of good faith and the principles of freedom of association.So I just wondered on this quite short part of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill which is quite extensive if the Minister had any thoughts on really the purpose in terms of the changes that it is noted the select committee did make by majority and also those two notable parts in clause 4(3) which notes the duty of good faith which was inserted by the select committee and also the existing note on the principles of freedom of association.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm interested to hear from the Minister. Part 1 includes a very long list of interpretation words in terms of what means what. A lot of these details flow through to later parts of the legislation but a very important definition relates to a covered employee" and how that's defined. In the process of the select committee the select committee majority—which you know fundamentally we did not support—changed that definition from "A covered employee means an employee who is within the coverage of a proposed FPA a proposed variation a proposed renewal or a proposed replacement … of a fair pay agreement"—which is a pretty short definition meaning an employee who is within the coverage to now the proposal being in three parts: "(a) in relation to the proposed agreement performs work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement; or (b) in relation to a proposed variation … [a person who is covered who is] in relation to the fair pay agreement that is proposed…; or (c) in relation to a fair pay agreement meets the threshold". And that points to another change which is how to deal with people who may be covered by multiple fair pay agreements.I just thought: if we were to take the example of a salesperson how would that work if we had the definition that "covered employee" is somebody who performs work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement? You know I think to myself "Just about every person engaged in just about any business enterprise has an element of salesmanship in their work." Well not just about everybody; I suppose a lot who don't. But a lot do.I think even of what I used to do before Parliament which was you know writing books. There was a period every now and again where I had to persuade somebody that it was a good idea to write a book about them which was effectively salesmanship. So would I be included in this? You can think of it from whatever—just about every enterprise there is involves an element of sale.So if the definition is "in relation to a proposed agreement"—say that agreement is salespeople—"performs work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement" that's a very broad definition. It says "or" so further on there are thresholds specified where you have to be spending a percentage of your time in that particular work which makes a certain sense. But under this definition in paragraph (a) you don't have to go down that threshold route; you can be included if you perform work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement.So is he confident that a large number of people wouldn't wake up one day surprised to find that they are part of a fair pay agreement because they do some work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement? I'd be interested in getting some clarity from him around that."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In amongst all of that there are a couple of particular questions about the purpose statement in Part 1 which I am happy to address. The member accurately points to the fact that there are changes before the Education and Workforce Committee in the purpose statement. It's important to note that those are changes which have been recommended by the select committee who have examined the legislation and the parliamentary paper and heard submissions from those people who have spoken with the select committee. The main change there as the member does accurately point out is that the purpose statement now does explicitly refer to the fact that fair pay agreements might set those sector-wide terms and conditions either through bargaining or through a determination process which the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) will undertake. It is worth noting of course that in the initial version of the bill the ERA did actually have a determination process in the event that bargaining broke down so that in itself wasn't a new addition to the bill. The additional pathway which is described through the parliamentary paper—now incorporated into the bill that is before the committee—effectively ensures that if one of the bargaining sides is not able to bargain or not willing to bargain and if a default bargaining party is not able or not willing to bargain then the Employment Relations Authority will then have a role. Ultimately that is important. The purpose of the bill clearly is to establish fair pay agreements in certain sectors and there can't be a situation where one or the other side for whatever reason just says Well we're not going to engage and therefore you can't have them". That is why the role of the Employment Relations Authority in issuing determinations in the event that occurs is important. I think what the select committee was getting at is that it is simply accurate and appropriate for that to be reflected in the purpose statement given that that will happen some of the time. My expectation is that it will be a minority of occasions because I think parties will by and large want to work through that bargaining process for themselves. The second part of the member's question goes to operational stuff a little bit outside of this bill and this part but it's effectively about the capacity of the ERA to undertake that function. It's worth noting of course that the ERA—I'm sure the member's aware of this—under the existing Employment Relations Act does already have a determination function for the settling of collective agreements where necessary. And in respect of their capacity and resourcing the Government has through Budgets 2020 and 2021 provided specific resourcing to the ERA to be able to fulfil these functions in an efficient way."
Rurawhe Adrian; O'Connor GregWEDNESDAY 19 OCTOBER 2022(continued on 20 October 2022)SPEAKER: Atamārie i runga i te tukunga iho o rātou mā te wāhi ngaro. [Good morning everyone under the guidance from above.]The House is resumed for the extended sitting. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill.FAIR PAY AGREEMENTS BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8 Preliminary provisions"; and Schedule 1 "Traditional savings and related provisions". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Wednesday 19 October 2022 - Volume 763
Plain Language Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Plain Language Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 9.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
6. Question No. 6—ConservationRACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 6—Conservation6. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: How has Jobs for Nature supported employment opportunities and conservation efforts across the country?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): Fakaalofa lahi atu Mr Speaker. Jobs for Nature continues to provide positive outcomes for our natural environment by employing New Zealanders up and down the country to plant trees build fences and restore habitats. Across all Jobs for Nature projects combined funding has been provided to support over 2.5 million hours of work to provide a positive and lasting impact on the social economic and environmental values of this unique region as well as create an enduring conservation legacy.Rachel Brooking: What milestones have been met by Jobs for Nature since it began?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Since the programme began in 2020 more than 2000 kilometres of tracks have been maintained. That's more than the length of the State Highway 1; 7000 hectares of riparian planting protecting New Zealand's waterways have been completed which is the equivalent to 7000 rugby fields; and 56000 hectares of weeding has taken place an area larger than the size of Wellington.Rachel Brooking: How has Jobs for Nature supported employment opportunities and conservation efforts in Southland?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The Jobs for Nature project Te Tapu o Tāne is supporting the Southland economy by setting up three native plant nursery businesses providing an ongoing environmental resource for the region through enhanced native tree supply greater skilled labour and wider knowledge of restoration practices.Rachel Brooking: What other Jobs for Nature projects have supported employment opportunities and conservation efforts in the regions?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Jobs for Nature has been instrumental in retaining talent in our regions. On the West Coast Jobs for Nature has leveraged off the existing restoration work at Bullock Creek by expanding the work further with a focus on wetland restoration. The project will create up to 40 employment opportunities and planting an estimated 478000 native trees over 153 hectares of land.Hon Eugenie Sage: What benefits if any does she see in extending Jobs for Nature beyond its June 2024 end date and what advice has she sought from the Department of Conservation on extending it?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Sustaining the benefits and outcomes created by these projects is now a key focus area of the department. Prior to being allocated funding projects are assessed against an investment framework which included sustainability of outcomes. Many project partners have built this into project planning already with iwi council community or other groups committing to undertake maintenance work in future years or active plans in place to secure future funding.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Finance: Fakaalofa lahi atu Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand has recently reported that the number of filled jobs rose by 10312 or 0.4 percent compared with the previous months to a record high of 2.32 million New Zealanders being in work. This sits alongside near-record low unemployment. The gains have been broad-based across our economy on an annual basis. The biggest increases have been in professional services construction manufacturing retail and public administration and safety. And by age group 15- to 19-year-olds made the largest contribution to the increase in filled jobs making up 17.2 percent of the increase. Glen Bennett: What other reports has he seen on job growth in the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Earlier this month the SEEK NZ Employment Report reported that job ads are up 22.4 percent on the same month a year ago while the trend measure remains near record highs and is around 50 percent above the pre-COVID benchmark of December 2019.Glen Bennett: How does New Zealand's employment rate compare with the rest of the world?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand's employment rate is among the highest in the OECD at 79.2 percent—the fourth highest among the 38 nations. This compares with Australia in seventh the UK in 12th Canada in 13th and the US in 22nd place. In terms of unemployment New Zealand ranks sixth equal out of the 38 nations in the OECD. Glen Bennett: How do the employment reports impact on households facing higher inflation in the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We know that New Zealanders are doing it tough when it comes to dealing with cost of living pressures but critically they do this while they are in work. With a record number of New Zealanders in paid work this helps take pressure off their day-to-day living costs in what is a challenging environment. The Government is of course also doing its bit by supporting New Zealanders with cost of living pressures such as through the fuel tax cuts and the half-price public transport fares as well as the increases that we've seen for seniors those getting Working for Families and those on benefits. Having New Zealanders in work in this time of an inflation crisis is critically important to their wellbeing.
Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Plain Language Bill. I too want to start by thanking Rachel Boyack for her hard work in bringing this important bill into the House.Plain language is easy for everyone to understand. Obviously as someone who comes from a migrant and refugee background I understand how it feels to struggle with complicated language in legislation and documents. As a member of a couple of select committees I see every day people who very passionately feel about specific issues. They want to submit they want to understand the issue they want to discuss it but there is a barrier and that's because all the documents and legislation are written in a language that they can't understand or they find difficult to understand.Obviously the bill went through the select committee. It's been scrutinised and the select committee couldn't find the middle ground and we thank them for their diligent work. Quite a few people submitted in support of this bill and they expressed very strong support for this bill. It's very surprising that none of the Opposition MPs who actually spoke on this bill recognised those who submitted on this bill.I've just come back from the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference which was a global conference where about 1500 members of Parliaments from all over the world with their supporting staff gathered with different levels of English obviously. Some came from English speaking countries and some came with very limited English. Because of the level of English because of the plain language that was used to facilitate the conference everyone could understand each other and the conference was at the end a full success. It's no different in New Zealand as well because about 20 percent of the New Zealand population are from migrant backgrounds. We are increasingly getting diverse; we're a multicultural nation and we have to be accommodating. We have to be inclusive and we cannot stop people from participating in democracy on things that affect their lives. Obviously this bill is a very good bill. It's going to change a lot of lives. It's going to give people clear access and participation. Once again I want to thank Rachel Boyack for her hard work. She's someone who works hard for her community. She comes from a very diverse community. I've been in Nelson quite a few times and in her community there are a lot of newly arrived refugees and immigrants who struggle with the English language and this is going to help a lot of them. I thank you Rachel on behalf of those people for the good work that you have done. This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.
McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker thank you very much. Listening to the last intervention from the Labour Party it reminds me of their approach to crime: penalties are not important; people will just do what is best.The problem is for the last speaker every example she gave as to why there was no need for consequence in this legislation—actually driving your car too fast has a consequence; whether you choose to do it or not it has a consequence. Each of those examples has a consequence.Very few members in this House have the privilege of having a bill drawn out of the member's ballot. It's a great great shame that this member for Nelson in the only short three years she'll be a member of this Parliament has chosen this piece of legislation which is well-meaning at best—well-meaning at best—but actually achieves nothing at all. When she jumps on the plane tomorrow to fly back to Nelson and says to those people Ah ha! In the last two years as your representative I have achieved the following for you: all plain language has arrived—well no it really hasn't and I could have done that with a press release." What an absolute waste of time of this House and hundreds of thousands of dollars. That member had an opportunity to actually make a difference to do something important and she's chosen not to; she's come up with something that could just have been a press release that says "Don't use complicated language if you don't want to but if you do it's OK."—a complete and utter waste of time.In an essence we don't have an issue in this country of people not understanding the law—at least not for the majority of members of Parliament or the majority of our constituents. When it comes to plain language this member has it partly right: this is a very plain bill—that will achieve absolutely zero nothing at all. It won't be remembered. It won't have to be repealed because it's going to sit on a shelf somewhere gathering dust. The so-called plain language officers that will be appointed are not likely to take much notice of it because hopefully sitting in their ministries they have much much more important things to do.I feel for this member. She's going to be known for this piece of legislation. It does nothing for a single one of her constituents. It would never have been raised by a constituent with her. She won't be getting letters about it. It's not going to help her come the election next year. We've already seen one change in her city: a move away from silly ideas to sensible ideas in her council. I fear this will be one of the last things she does and she will be known for it for ever."
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well that was an interesting speech about lawyers and I think Emily Henderson might get a letter from the Law Society and perhaps they'll disbar her for bringing the profession into disrepute but in any case.There's always an opportunity cost with Parliament's time so it could be worse. Maybe it's a good thing that we're doing this and spending time on this instead of watching the Labour Party create laws that New Zealanders don't like and will very likely punish them for in the next general election. This bill has no teeth no particular enforcement—which is a good thing—but it is going to be enormously costly up to the point at which we get rid of it next year. This bill epitomises the Government's insatiable appetite for creating bureaucrats that the public sector simply just does not need and in fact I think they'd have a very hard time actually hiring for. I think the recruitment people are probably quite worried about this.Again the experiences of migrants dealing with presumably the immigration system but perhaps other aspects of our law has been talked about; those with English as a second language. For sure there are some difficulties there though I think I'll just repeat what I said in a previous reading of this bill—can't remember if it was the first or the second—look if the Government particularly wants to help migrants in that space in that context just remove English language requirements from the immigration system. I'd totally support that. I know they won't but you know actions speak louder than words.There was some seriously dubious commentary about cost savings in the first speech of this reading and it just sounds like a—something to do with printing material or revisiting material I think; a dollar amount in the millions was mentioned as one example. This just sounds like a hilariously bad attempt to justify the cost that will be imposed on the taxpayer for this bill.This bill is totally unnecessary. It is probably going to create a myriad of problems rather than solve problems. It is a total waste of time and I'm not going to spend any more time on it. We're going to get rid of it we're going to repeal it and if the plain language officers want to put a jihad on us then so be it. We're opposed. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Holy thesaurus it's the Plain Language Bill. I'm not usually the person that speaks on behalf of the Plain Language Bill but I'm what you've got tonight. I also wanted to acknowledge that people started talking about Shakespeare earlier in the debate but I was disappointed in the delivery because no one came up with any of the quotes. The thing about a debate is that the world is a stage and we all must play our parts. There are entrances and there are exits and that's what makes the debate so fruitful.I feel that this bill will pass tonight. To be or not to be that is the big question but on the be" side they have got 65 votes and so that's probably going to happen.Simon Court: 64.TEANAU TUIONO: 64—oh sorry. Plain language; I need plain maths. Thank you very much the guy in the corner here.We will be supporting this bill because what I see in this bill is that it creates transparency around guidelines around plain language. There will be reporting to the Minister and reporting to Parliament around progress that makes it far more transparent and inclusive as well so that's a good thing. We think that's a good thing and as much as I love a good word salad it is not the vernacular diet which will actually get what we need to communicate over the line.That's the job of the House of members in the House as well. I don't know how many meetings I've been to where people have waffled on with big long words—"jargony" words that just don't land at all. It's actually in my view very easy to be long-winded and complicated and to drag it out with all the big words and so on and so forth but it's a lot more complex actually to get things down concisely and for them to land with people and that's really important. So the principle of that is very important.I wanted to acknowledge comments from Mr Ian McKelvie. He spoke to the hard work of the member that brought this bill to the House Rachel Boyack—that she has engaged in a good way to actually make this bill fit for purpose to get it in such a way for it to do the things that we need it to do.So plainly and not so plainly the Greens will be supporting this bill. Thank you very much."
McAnulty KieranSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Thursday 20 October for consideration in committee of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill.
Urgent Debates — Oranga Tamariki—Murder of Malachi Subecz
Waititi RawiriRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kai kinikini ai te mamae i ahau e tōtatatia rā ki wawe au te mate.[The pain within me gnaws on hasten that death may soon come.]I stand as a father of a five-year-old and I've found it quite difficult to sit here and listen to the kōrero about this young boy Malachi. I find it difficult that someone who was entrusted to the State to ensure that they were safe has lost his little life due to the abuse due to the neglect and due to being ignored by the State. I've heard the statistics today that a child dies every five weeks. That is absolutely appalling. If I look in the history of my people—not Once Were Warriors; once were gardeners once were fishermen—there is nowhere in our history where children were treated abused and ignored. It is the contrary. For someone who has been brought up with oriori which is our version of how—I don't know how to explain it in English; a lullaby but it's not a lullaby. These were the downloads of our ancestors of our tīpuna of grandparents of parents to their children about who they were what their whakapapa was who they connected to the taonga that they were te taonga o taku ngākau ko taku mokopuna e. [My heart's greatest treasure is my grandchild.]We have waited far too long for these reviews. Oranga Tamariki has failed 14 reviews. How many more reviews do we wait before something is done? A review after review after review—14. When will the devolution happen? I heard about devolution when will that happen? When will our people be entrusted to look after our tamariki mokopuna? Somebody must pay. Somebody must be accountable. Not an education facility. It starts at the Minister Kelvin Davis. I asked today that the Minister resign or lose that position because we have for far too long waited to get justice for these types of incidents and at the end of the day for our tamariki mokopuna. I've got a whole lot of kōrero here but I'm just going to speak from my heart.So we need action. There has been no action. There has been no accountability. Who is accountable for the death of Malachi and the many other deaths that have come out of the failing system that these tamariki are entrusted in? Come on e hika mā we must put the politics aside. Is this our tomorrow? Is this what Ngāti āpōpō looks like? If we must take the example of how to look at mokopuna we must look at oriori. We must look at the way our tamariki mokopuna were treated in those villages. Colonisation has had a huge part in the way that our tamariki have been treated. To be abused in school for speaking te reo Māori was absolutely something our people had never seen before. And so we must prioritise our babies.Ko ngā taonga o te iwi ko ā tātou tamariki mokopuna me ō tātou pakeke.[The treasures of the people are our children grandchildren and our elders.]And those in between have an obligation to look after our mokopuna and to look after our pakeke. Kia ora tātou.
McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianHon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): Point of order Mr Speaker. I move That the sitting of the House today—SPEAKER: No that will be done at the end of the urgent debate.
Rurawhe AdrianURGENT DEBATESOranga Tamariki—Murder of Malachi SubeczSPEAKER: Yesterday I received a letter from Jan Logie seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the opinion of the Ombudsman on the murder of Malachi Subecz. I indicated to her that I would consider that application today since I had already determined yesterday that an urgent debate would be held on the matter raised by Brooke van Velden. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Ombudsman is an Officer of Parliament and responsible to the Speaker not to the Government. However the opinion deals with matters involving Oranga Tamariki which are the responsibility of the Government. Public confidence in our child protection system is of great importance and warrants setting aside the normal business of the House. I call on Jan Logie to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Motions — APRA Silver Scroll Awards 2022—Congratulations
Waititi RawiriMOTIONSAPRA Silver Scroll Awards 2022—CongratulationsRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate that this House congratulate all the nominees and recipients of the awards at the APRA Silver Scroll Awards 2022 last night in Tāmaki-makau-rau.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.RAWIRI WAITITI: I move That this House congratulate all nominees and recipients of awards at the APRA Silver Scroll Awards 2022 acknowledge them for their extraordinary contribution to the culture and creative fabric of Aotearoa celebrate their unique ability to reach and uplift communities right around Aotearoa and the world acknowledge the significant contribution of Tuini Moetū Haangū Ngāwai and Te Kumeroa Ngoingoi Pēwhairangi who were inducted into the New Zealand Music Hall of Fame and congratulate Rob Ruha Kaea Hills Te Amorutu Broughton Ainsley Tai Dan Martin Whenua Patuwai and Ka Hao who won the 2022 APRA Silver Scroll Award for their waiata State Highway 35".Motion agreed to."
Letter of Resignation — Dr Gaurav Sharma
Rurawhe AdrianSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: The petition of Aida Tavassoli requesting that the House condemn the treatment of the young Iranian Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini who died recently while in morality police custody; and condemn oppressive and discriminatory treatment of women in Iran.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2022:Vote Environment (Environment)Vote Environment (Climate Change)Vote Educationthe Treasury annual report 2021-22 with the Minister of Finance's report on non-departmental appropriations 2021-22Government Superannuation Fund Authority Statement of Performance Expectations 2022 and reports and financial statements for the year ended 30 June 20222022 annual reports for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Transport and Oranga Tamariki.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been presented. No bills have been introduced.
Rurawhe AdrianRESIGNATIONSDr Gaurav Sharma Hamilton WestSPEAKER: Members I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Dr Gaurav Sharma resigning his seat in the House with effect from midnight Tuesday 18 October 2022.
Rurawhe Adrian; Leavasa Anae NeruWEDNESDAY 19 OCTOBER 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Members in celebration of the Niue Language Week I've asked Dr Anae Neru Leavasa to say the prayer in Niuean. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Ko e Atua mua ue atu fakaaue atu ke he tau fakamonuinaaga kia mautolu. Kia tuku kehe e tau fekovikoviaki ka e o mai ke fakamanatu e patuiki mo e liogi ke he Atua ke lagomatai mai ha tautolu a tau fakatutalaaga ke moua e tau lotomatala tau tonu tau loto holoilalo ke leveki atu mo e moua e mafola ma ha Niu Silani. Amene.
Tuesday 18 October 2022 - Volume 763
Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Fair Pay Agreements Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — Second Reading
8. Question No. 8—Education (School Operations)MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)Question No. 8—Education (School Operations)8. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What reports has she seen on the delivery of the free healthy school lunches programme?Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): Nine hundred and ninety five of New Zealand's schools with 220000 students receive a free healthy lunch each school day thanks to the Government's investment in the Ka Ora Ka Ako programme. Evidence shows that as a result of this programme kids are experiencing a better quality of life and learning outcomes as well as physical social and emotional functioning.Marja Lubeck: What other benefits has the programme offered?Hon JAN TINETTI: Research on the students who have accessed the programme since its inception in 2020 is showing excellent progress in improving the nutrient intake of these kids by providing high-quality nutritional meals. We know that when kids are fed and healthy they learn better.Marja Lubeck: What feedback has she heard from whānau and families?Hon JAN TINETTI: Globally times are tough for many families and New Zealand families are not immune. Knowing that their kids are getting a healthy lunch at school eases financial pressure for many families especially those with multiple tamariki and many mouths to feed. It means that their kids can go to school regularly and thrive in a learning environment without barriers to education.Marja Lubeck: What other benefits has this programme brought for New Zealanders?Hon JAN TINETTI: At the beginning of 2022 2361 jobs had been created and retained as a result of the programme. In addition to 153 lunch providers we've engaged 13 iwi and hapū through a social procurement process. These iwi and hapū have partnered with 16 schools and kura from Te Tai Tokerau to Bluff to deliver lunches.