edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare otirā e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā poutiaki o Papawai me Kaikōkirikiri oti noa ki a tātou katoa o Te Whare.[And so my appreciation to you Mr Assistant Speaker but at the same time it is fitting indeed that I accord a word of acknowledgment to the trustees of Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri and to all of us of the House.]At the first reading of this bill I spoke about a number of things including wanting to hear from submitters on this bill. I did not sit on the Māori Affairs Committee for this bill but I commend the Māori Affairs Committee for the work it did on this bill. There were only two submissions so I read those submissions. In my part of the world when you get only two kaikōrero on an issue it means that everything must be ka pai because if it was not we would have got a lot more submissions on this bill. So I just want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee because obviously although there were only two submissions—and the advice from the officials no doubt—I think it has come up with a very good position on the definition of tangata whenua o Wairarapa". I think it is a very good way of expressing whom this bill benefits but also the very inclusive nature of this part of the bill so I acknowledge that. My reading of the 1943 Act and the language it uses shows it to be very prescriptive and it is very paternalistic as well in the way it is written so it is well overdue for a review. I also acknowledge the member for Wairarapa Alastair Scott for the work he has done on bringing this bill to the House. I always believe that reviewing legislation like this should empower the whānau—the people—it benefits. Quite clearly the new governance arrangements—the new terms within this bill—do exactly that so it is very easy for me to stand in support of this bill. Like a number of others I thought I would add some whakapapa korero of my own to this debate. My grandmother—Kris Faafoi: You've only got 7 minutes.ADRIAN RURAWHE: That is just about enough time. My grandmother—my dad's mum—is from Ngāti Kahungunu and I am very proud about that part of my whakapapa as well—my dad's mum. It was very interesting listening to the contribution particularly of my colleague Kelvin Davis. He does not know this but I have Rōpiha whakapapa as well. I was really interested in the way that the Māori Affairs Committee dealt with the inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It was obviously within the drafting of the legislation an unintended fact that was placed in this bill and consequently the Māori Affairs Committee came to an agreement on how to address the concerns of the Attorney-General. It is always important in these pieces of legislation that they are fair and that they do not contravene this very important Act—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and in this instance the Māori Affairs Committee has done a very good job in addressing that. I do not have any more to contribute except that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Motions — Women's Peace Boat to Gaza—Support
Motions — International Day of Peace—Commemoration
Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting for silence and then I will hear the point of order.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member Te Ururoa Flavell is digging such a big hole I seek leave for the House to give him extended time. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The time for his speech has finished and the member cannot seek leave on behalf of another member.
Delahunty CatherineGaza—Women's Peace BoatCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate in support of the Women's Peace Boat to Gaza including New Zealand MP Marama Davidson to show solidarity and support to the Palestinian people.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The first purpose is the member seeking leave to move that motion without notice and without debate. I will put the leave. Leave is sought—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make the point that for some time now we have generally had an arrangement where whips' offices contacted one another to indicate whether or not there would be support for leave. It does not look good if members move motions of this nature that are then declined but there will often be good reasons why a Government cannot support some motions and I think it would be timely for all parties to agree that the arrangements they had previously accepted through the Business Committee are followed—unless of course this week's breakdown of the Business Committee arrangements are to be permanent.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from Catherine Delahunty.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: We circulated this motion this morning and were told by National it had declined it. So what is your issue?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the point that Mr Brownlee makes is that the Business Committee is a very important institution for the working of this Parliament. We have at times discussed the need for more cooperation and collaboration. Whether that has happened or not on this occasion the member has every right to seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate so I will put the leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I move That this House express its support for the Women's Peace Boat to Gaza and the International Coalition of Women on that boat including New Zealand member of Parliament Marama Davidson as it sails to Gaza to show solidarity and support to the Palestinian people and highlight the contributions of Palestinian women who have been central within the Palestinian struggle in Gaza and the diaspora.Motion agreed to.
Cunliffe DavidWEDNESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSInternational Day of Peace—CommemorationHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to commemorate International Day of Peace.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I move That this House recognise and celebrate the International Day of Peace by acknowledging and working collectively to address the serious threats the international community faces in progress towards peace including the ongoing North Korean nuclear test the appalling civil war in Syria large-scale displacement of refugees re-modernisation of nuclear arsenals and growing superpower tensions.Motion agreed to.
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 105New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill the Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bills read a third time.
Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill and Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill — Third Readings
12. Drugs Illegal—Customs' OperationsJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of CustomsDrugs Illegal—Customs' Operations12. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Customs: What reports has she received on Customs' collaboration with overseas partner agencies to intercept drugs destined for New Zealand?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): Customs works with law enforcement agencies around the world to identify drug-smuggling activity and trends to disrupt the supply chain early and to stop the flow of drugs to New Zealand. In the last financial year our work with overseas partners has prevented illicit drugs worth over $204 million in terms of potential social and economic harm from reaching New Zealand.Jami-Lee Ross: How does the New Zealand Customs Service support other countries to stop the importation of drugs and why?Hon NICKY WAGNER: By helping to protect other countries' borders we protect our own. New Zealand Customs works with overseas partners to insist on the stopping of importation of drugs and in doing so we develop relationships that benefit everyone. For example last month Australian authorities boarded a cruise liner when it arrived in Sydney from Auckland and they seized 95 kilograms of cocaine and arrested three Canadians. New Zealand Customs has worked with the Australian Border Force and other agencies in this operation which led to the seizure and the arrests.Mahesh Bindra: Does she understand that much more than $204 million worth of drug-related harm could be stropped if her department were to physically inspect or X-ray more than the current pitiful 5 to 10 percent of goods arriving in containers?Hon NICKY WAGNER: Obviously we cannot be confident that we stop everything at the border but when we look at the case of methamphetamine we find that Customs is seizing more meth that the number of meth users is going down—it used to be about 2.2 percent; it is down to 1 percent and meth users tend to be older—and what is more the price of methamphetamine tends to be stable and very high.Jami-Lee Ross: How much potential harm has been prevented by the interception of illicit drugs at the border?Hon NICKY WAGNER: Over the last 3 financial years our overseas partners have made 30 interceptions of illicit drugs mainly methamphetamine on their way to New Zealand. In the 2015-16 financial year over $875 million worth of potential harm was avoided by interceptions at the border. Combined with that $204 million—outside—that means we have seized drugs destined for New Zealand of over $1 billion worth of potential social and economic harm.
11. Youth Court—Rise in Access AgeDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of JusticeYouth Court—Rise in Access Age11. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes in the context in which they were given.Darroch Ball: Why is this Government even considering raising the Youth Court age to include 17-year-olds as she stated clearly on Q+A on Sunday when she said: We've got this issue. We're looking around whether jurisdiction should be included to 17-year-olds."?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well that was a recommendation that was made to the Minister for Social Development as part of the Child Youth and Family reforms. Cabinet has asked the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Social Development to investigate that and report back to it.Darroch Ball: Is she aware of the comment of the current Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections in regard to a bill in 2008 wanting to increase the Youth Court age in 2008 that "These people would just laugh at this bill and think we are a bunch of wusses."?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have no responsibility for another member's comments. However what I would say is that New Zealand's youth justice system is recognised worldwide.Hon Member: Who says that?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have just been to the UN and it has said that. What is more under this Government youth crime is down 38 percent since 2011.Darroch Ball: Is she also aware of the comment of the current Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections that "What we should not be doing is trying to say that a 17-year-old who smashes up someone is just a child and is not responsible for his or her actions. We believe that that person is." and even the Hon Chester Borrows' comment that "National believes that if someone is between 17 and 18 years of age then that person should be treated for the adult that he or she is."? [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well what I can tell that member is that the National caucus is a broad church and we have good discussions on a variety of issues. However the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Social Development are investigating the issue and will take a paper through to Cabinet. No decisions have been made.Darroch Ball: Is she aware that despite all the politicking around our obligations as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child when New Zealand signed that convention we did so with reservations and specifically that "the Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 37(c)"?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am sure that the Minister of Justice is well aware of that reservation given that this Government has just appeared in front of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child."
9. Mental Health Services—Work to Wellness TrialSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentMental Health Services—Work to Wellness Trial9. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made regarding supporting people with mental health conditions into work?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Our new trial for beneficiaries with diagnosed mental health conditions called Work to Wellness has started this month and will see providers working with clients to support them into employment. Just over half the people receiving a main benefit have a health condition injury or disability and we know that a lot of them would like to work but may just need a little bit of extra help or support. Work to Wellness providers will work alongside about a thousand people a year to identify their individual needs and any barriers they face in gaining employment. This may include referring them to services such as counselling additional GP visits or skills training. This Government is committed to helping people who want to work and achieve greater independence to do so. Sarah Dowie: Who will be eligible for the Work to Wellness trial?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: People receiving a main benefit who have a diagnosed mental health condition will be eligible to participate in this trial. The 2-year trial will be available in the Auckland Waikato Central Canterbury and Southern regions. Beneficiaries will be able to opt in through Work and Income a referral from their GP or by self-referring directly to the provider. Delivery of this service has commenced with 102 people currently enrolled and I would encourage anyone who may be interested in participating in the trial to talk to their case manager or GP about taking part. Sarah Dowie: What are some other initiatives the Government has to help people into work?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is recognised globally that work is generally good for people's health and well-being and that the longer people stay on a benefit the less likely they are to return to work. This Government is committed to breaking the cycle of long-term welfare dependency and helping people into employment. We have a range of assistance designed to do this including intensive work-focused case management the Youth Service for teen beneficiaries Project 300 and the EmployAbility programme as well as skills training and in-work support. The latest figures show that the Government's approach is working with the number of people receiving a main benefit continuing to fall year on year and currently at its lowest for any June quarter since 2008.
7. Housing Auckland—Northcote Redevelopment Project and Auckland Unitary PlanMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister for Building and HousingHousing Auckland—Northcote Redevelopment Project and Auckland Unitary Plan7. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister for Building and Housing: How many new homes will be built from the $750 million Northcote housing redevelopment project being led by the Hobsonville Land Company and when will the first homes be completed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Twelve hundred homes will replace the existing 300 so there is a net increase of 900 homes. The first new homes will be completed in 9 months by June next year but the complete redevelopment will take until 2021.Mark Mitchell: How will the new Auckland Unitary Plan assist redevelopments like Northcote to provide an additional supply of housing in Auckland?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new plan makes a huge difference to the development for Housing New Zealand (HNZ) land. Currently there are 28000 HNZ homes in Auckland but that could be increased by only 10 percent under the existing planning rules. Under the new plan those 28000 homes can be developed out to 60000 homes. The Northcote project is one of a number of opportunities Housing New Zealand can now take. It actually illustrates how important the new unitary plan is to resolving Auckland's housing issues.Mark Mitchell: How does the Northcote project contribute to the Government's objectives of providing better quality and an improved mix of housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Northcote project positively contributes to Auckland's housing in four ways. Firstly it adds 900 new homes; secondly it provides improved quality by replacing older damp housing with warmer drier and healthier homes; and thirdly it provides a better mix. We are wanting to move away from old-style concentrated State housing estates to communities with a mix of social affordable and open-market housing. The redevelopment also has a better mix of house sizes in that there is a greater number of smaller one- and two-bedroom homes which better meets demand. The fourth contribution that the Northcote project makes is moving to more intensive housing. That is actually an important part of the change that Auckland needs to make.Phil Twyford: Why is he selling two-thirds of the publicly owned land into private ownership while adding only another 100 State houses?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For two good reasons. The first is actually we want to tag—just as we have at Hobsonville—homes for homeownership because we on this side of the House believe in homeownership and want to provide more families the opportunity to be able to own a home and I find it ironic that Mr Twyford would criticise that. The second feature is that we do not believe that old-style concentrated State housing areas work for our communities. We want to move to mixed estates where there is a mix of social affordable and market housing which is exactly what we are doing in places like Tāmaki and Northcote and it makes damn good sense.
1. Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill—Protection of Property RightsMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSKermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill—Protection of Property Rights1. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Prime Minister: When referring to concessions needed on the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill what did he mean when he told Radio New Zealand yesterday I think if you did it again you might do it a bit differently"?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): I meant what I said but I do not intend to relitigate those negotiations. In our view all parties want to achieve the sanctuary but we are going to take time over the coming weeks and months to work through the issues that came up during the process and of course we welcome the Māori Party's involvement in those discussions.Hon David Parker: You ignored them at select committee. Marama Fox: What steps if any will he take to ensure that property rights are protected?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As one of the members pointed out this came up in the select committee and in negotiations. Of course it is one of the more challenging issues related to not just this sanctuary but any marine protection—in fact conservation of land-based conservation values raises all the same sorts of issues. So it would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt those discussions because finding a way through does involve balancing competing sets of rights.Marama Fox: Does he agree with the Māori Party that it is possible to achieve a sanctuary and to protect property rights that have already been secured in the fisheries settlement Act 1992?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do not always agree with the Māori Party. In this case I would hope that we can get to a position where the sanctuary can be achieved and everyone is happy about it.Kelvin Davis: Does he accept that he erred in labelling allegations of inadequate consultation with Māori over the Kermadecs as "weak" and "mistaken" given that the supporting legislation has now been put on hold and the sanctuary is unlikely to be operational by the planned November 2016 start date?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No."
Cosgrove Clayton; Borrows ChesterHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I have to say two things before I begin. I want to commend the chair of the Commerce Committee for her diligence in trying to transact this piece of legislation given that it was a Government bill that came to the committee and then was reversed halfway through the committee.The second thing that I have got to say is that I actually feel sorry for the Minister and I say this in a non-partisan way. It is rare in this House that one is critical of officials but I have to say—and I do not set up the chair of the Commerce Committee in doing this—I suspect the chair of the Commerce Committee agrees with me that the analysis behind this bill was totally flawed. We will support it. It is actually a reversal of the Government's primary proposition. In the 58 seconds that I have—and we will return to this another day—I have got to say that when we asked officials for the costings we were greeted with the following explanation which I wrote down: Our analysis was back of the envelope our best guess." I have got to say I responded to the officials by saying that I feel sorry for the Minister if that is the depth of the analysis that has been put up to a Minister from officials.So I have got to say to the Minister this is a debacle. We will support it. It has been reconstructed through the select committee process. My biggest criticism—in the 16 seconds I have left—is that the innovative community that relies on this sort of legislation was never consulted. It was never consulted. The big end of town was the patent attorneys said "Life will end as we know it." but the innovative community was never consulted—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is tragic to interrupt the member. I am afraid the time has come for me to leave the Chair. I thank members for their contributions this evening their humour and their goodwill. The House will resume at 2 p.m. tomorrow. Nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on this bill but I think it is also an honour to be in the House tonight to witness what is surely the best speech in 50 years on the wrong bill. I am sure the Rt Hon Winston Peters who would be the best person to make a judgment on that would agree with that.This is a serious bill repealing statutes. I would like to point out that the legislation on mortgages during the Depression that is being dealt with in this bill actually had a significant impact on a lot of New Zealanders. Lower-order mortgages were written off and families who had invested all their savings in mortgages lost everything at a stroke of a pen so I think it is good to see that one disappear. Also the Y2K legislation—I know that the hysteria that was around the country at the time of the millennium when all sorts of things were going to stop working when the millennium ticked over came to be little more than scaremongering. Some people I suspect made money out of it but it really did not have any impact whatsoever.This is a good bill and I have pleasure in commending it to the House. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Statutes Repeal Bill — First Reading
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I hope I am not confused. I believe that we are talking about the Statutes Repeal Bill at its first reading are we not? Somehow I have heard three speeches from members of the Opposition talking about the Statutes Amendment Bill at its second reading—not the first the second. And all this continued reference to my good colleague Mr Nuk Korako about his bill—well actually it is covered as I understand by the Statutes Amendment Bill which is not the one we are currently discussing. Anyway Mr Deputy Speaker I do feel sorry for you tonight.This bill is a good bill. It removes 124 laws and I do note that that is up from 120 the number with which the bill was initially contemplated and introduced. That is a massive 10 percent reduction in the number of laws currently in passage. That is 1200-odd laws that apply to New Zealand which I find quite fascinating and this is a 10 percent reduction. The key feature of this bill—and I have listened to some of the Opposition members—is that this is a bill designed to do this in one big hit. It is a very efficient method and I do note very unusual. I do note that the last time such an omnibus bill was passed in this House was in 1907 although overseas it is a bit more common. But I have just listened to some of the Opposition talk tonight and you would think that this is a bad thing. Well actually this is an exceptionally efficient way to deal with reducing or removing 124 Acts of Parliament. Most of the Acts of Parliament that we are dealing with and that we are going to remove actually date back to when we made major structural reforms in New Zealand to the public sector between 1985 and 1993. I do note that there was an 8-week consultation process.I think this bill is all about continuing to enhance New Zealand's position as a great place to do business and on that basis I commend the bill to the House.
Sepuloni CarmelCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I not going to take a very long call on this one. I just want to explain it a little bit and then also just point out a couple of things that have been highlighted by a few of my colleagues. This bill is an omnibus bill introduced under Standing Order 263(a). This Standing Order provides that An omnibus bill to amend more than one Act may be introduced if … amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy" and I guess the big issue for us is actually we have had members' bills in particular go through this House that could have been included under the Statutes Repeal Bill. Unfortunately the National Government would prefer that we waste our time on bills like Nuk Korako's member's bill the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill which could have been included here. It would have saved us a lot of time. It would have saved the country a lot of money. It has been brought up through the media and the public are starting to ask questions about what the National Government MPs are actually doing in respect of the members' ballot. I do want to point out that that is not the only bill in recent times that has been questioned with regard to the point of it and whether or not it is actually something that is important to New Zealand and New Zealanders; it is only one of many. I want to just highlight two others that actually ended up being dumped. They took up valuable places in the members' ballot. The first was the Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill which was put in the ballot—a valuable place—by Matt Doocey and was drawn out and eventually dumped actually. It was badly criticised by the officials. I was on the select committee on that one—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And not part of this bill so let us move on.CARMEL SEPULONI: —and it was dumped. Going back to Nuk's bill—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No because that is not a part of the bill either.CARMEL SEPULONI: —this is another good example of a member's bill that actually could have been folded into the Statutes Amendment Bill but has not been. It is a wasted opportunity for the National Government and a complete waste of time and money for New Zealanders. That is all I have to say."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): After the earlier and somewhat unexpected segue to another omnibus bill on the Order Paper—that being the Statutes Amendment Bill—I think I will return right now to the omnibus bill that is the Statutes Repeal Bill which is the one that is actually set down on the Order Paper for this evening. It is a bill that will reduce and eliminate unnecessary and redundant legislation. By doing so—by having better and less regulation—we help to make our country more productive to help our international competitiveness and ultimately to actually improve our living standards. Making the body of existing legislation easier for users to navigate and also actually easier for departments to administer—and in this bill we will remove some 128 laws reducing the number of public Acts by something around 10 percent and along the way we also will remove parts of eight other Acts—is well worth doing to help us to be a more productive and efficient body of law.Mr Mark—Ronnie Mark as he referred to himself—raised some concerns about which Acts are included or omitted from the Statutes Repeal Bill. Well when considering what you might or might not include in the bill one could consider that a way to make sure you get it right is to consult which is exactly what the Government did. In October 2015 a draft of the bill was put out for public submissions giving people the opportunity to comment on what was proposed to be repealed and on what potentially was not included. So what is before the House has been tested in the public and therefore we can conclude it has some degree of support already.The other thing that Mr Mark mentioned was something about camps. He waxed lyrical about his enjoyment as young Ronnie Mark in the said camp—and how it was terrible that this Government did not seem to appreciate them. But being a little confused he seemed to miss the point that he was actually referring to a dissolution Act. So while talking about how much he loved the camps he was actually talking about why we are repealing an Act that dissolved those boards in 1999. Well I have got good news for Mr Mark because one could ask oneself: in repealing some Acts what implications are there for those Acts and provisions that are removed? Will they force some Acts to come back into force? The answer is no. The Interpretation Act 1999 has a number of provisions that deal with the effect of repealing legislation and it confirms that the repeal of an enactment does not affect the validity invalidity effect or consequences of anything done under the enactment nor any existing right interest title immunity duty status capacity or an amendment made by the enactment to another enactment or similar matters. So Mr Mark this Statutes Repeal Bill should it be passed in this House will not affect the dissolution Act that you so fondly refer to. On that note I commend this bill to the House.
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Mr Deputy Speaker I think that it was almost inhumane and cruel of you to wait until Hon David Cunliffe only had a minute left to point out the fact that he had brought the wrong bill to the House. But I am very happy to take a call on this—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the fact that it took members opposite 9 minutes to work that out.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just like to suggest that there are lots of things that the other members of the House could have taken offence at and did not.MARK MITCHELL: I have to say that it is not uncommon for this side of the House to always be puzzled about what that member is speaking about in the House. I am very happy to take a call on the Statutes Repeal Bill. I would just like to highlight the fact that the Productivity Commission's report made it very clear that it felt that the Government should be focused on our large stock of regulation and making sure that we keep updating that to stay in line with a changing world. I think that as a country we should be very proud that we actually rank second in the world in terms of ease of doing business at how good our regulatory platform is and that we remain focused on keeping red tape and compliance costs to a minimum. A big part of being able to do that is bringing omnibus bills like this to the House to make sure that we keep modernising and we keep our statutes up to date. I know that the Hon Damien O'Connor would agree with these comments. I look forward to him taking a call and supporting the bill. Being a good West Coast man he understands how important it is support our private sector and businesses with good legislation. I would just like to highlight that there is a wide range of legislation in this omnibus bill. I think the Hon Steven Joyce highlighted the fact that we have got legislation dating back to the 1930s when we had to deal with an earthquake in Hawke's Bay right through to 2011 dealing with the Rugby World Cup. I am very happy to take a call in support of this bill. Thank you.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua mauri ora tēnā koe ā tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema.[Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker and a vibrant life to you and to you all the members.]At least the Hon David Parker did make a few fair points particularly around those that agreed that this bill has some useful measures and at least he had the courtesy to pronounce my colleague Nuk Korako's name correctly. It is a proud name that that member carries and his bill the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill actually does do something useful. Actually repealing the entire Airport Authorities Act is something that this House does not want to do. Nuk Korako's bill makes a useful modification modifying one small provision so I congratulate Nuk for that good work that he is doing.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well do not spend more money justifying it.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: This is a useful bill. Unlike states like Singapore which regularly and routinely include sunset clauses in their legislation we have not had a tradition of doing that so the statute book does become over time somewhat clogged up with bills that have outlived their usefulness. This Statutes Repeal Bill does much to correct that situation. It provides also a timely and very cost-effective way of doing this. It is an omnibus bill as others have pointed out and this particular omnibus bill removes 124 pieces of legislation—that is actually 10 percent of the total New Zealand statute book that we are repealing here.Some members have referenced legislation that is being repealed. One interesting example that I would draw on is the 1931 Hawke's Bay Earthquake Act. We have heard caterwauls from some people in this House that it has taken a few years to repeal the emergency legislation for Canterbury and to transition from that recovery into regeneration as this Government has been progressing—yet it has taken us the better part of 80 years to consider repealing the Hawke's Bay earthquake emergency legislation from 1931. We also have one bill that covers Depression mortgages from the 1930s. We have one that deals specifically with the Y2K bug—which one can only assume was a Labour-manufactured crisis because it never eventuated and that legislation is no longer required. We also have the Seamen's Union Funds Act from 1971 and many pieces of legislation that were passed during the reform period of the fourth Labour Government that have outlived their usefulness—although at the time they were necessary. This is a very good sensible timely and efficient way to fix up our statute book and I commend it to the House.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill in its second reading. As the previous speaker David Cunliffe talked about tonight those who spend the research money get the ability to get a return and they get a better chance of that with the proposals that are put forward under this piece of legislation. We in New Zealand particularly in our agricultural industries want to encourage innovation and the way this is set up now it is actually starting to stifle innovation. So this bill strikes the right balance between incentivising the registration of products in the primary sector and encouraging competition in the agricultural market space.We have heard a few arguments particularly from members of the Green Party about corporates and having them taking over and all the rest of it but actually I think this is more about smaller players than it is about bigger players because if you are a smaller player and you have got a good idea is it not just a better idea for us to hold on to their data for longer until they get to a point of getting an advantage out of the money that they have invested into the research and development of that product? It is designed to encourage businesses to register new products.The current case at the moment is fairly marginal under the legislation that we have. It impacts on the ability of Kiwi businesses to access the latest agricultural products available. I have to make mention of the fact that we talk about chemicals and that sort of raises people's heckles but actually there are chemicals that are involved in organic farming as well. There may be some breakthroughs that we can find in technology in our future that can make a huge difference to the way we farm environmentally and that people might want to invest in now if they know that they can have a period of time where they can prove their data and make some money from it. So we would not want to stifle any investment that was coming our way in terms of environmental chemicals and products.The other example is that if a new product is registered for use on species A and then it is registered for use on species B—so for example we find another use for it—then it will get an extra year of data protection and then again if that new product is then registered for species C and species D there will be another 2 years of data protection. During this new period if another applicant tries to register a similar product they will need to go and develop their own supporting data which I think is fair. I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.
Tisch LindsayAGRICULTURAL COMPOUNDS AND VETERINARY MEDICINES AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 15 September.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members when we were last debating the second reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill Eugenie Sage had the call. She has 4 minutes remaining—[Interruption] She does not wish to take those. I call the Hon David Cunliffe—5 minutes.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call on these pieces of legislation. I have not been part of the Law and Order Committee so I have not been able to hear the submissions as we have gone through but I have been listening to what has been happening tonight. I really would support what the last speaker Louisa Wall said in terms of actually helping these people rehabilitate back into the community. This is one of the tools that we can use. Having been at the corrections facility recently in Te Awamutu looking at some of the projects that some of those people are starting to do in our community I would certainly support this as part of their rehabilitation. It is about keeping our communities safe but it is actually about how when our offenders are back in our community we want to support them to stay away from the drivers of crime and help them to become rehabilitated. Often it is temporary release. They are people who want to attend funerals or they need to attend medical treatment or as I mentioned before work experience. It is partly about temporary release but it is also about people who are permitted to reside outside the perimeters of the prison. It is giving that extra effective tool to those people so that we can help them keep safe. Monitoring can improve public safety by making authorities aware that offenders have failed to comply with their conditions as it relates to their whereabouts. There are a lot of things that we can do now with GPS that we were not able to do in 2000 2002 and 2004 in these old pieces of legislation. It really makes sense to use modern technology to help our prisoners rehabilitate. So it is my pleasure to commend these bills to the House. Thank you.
Mathers MojoMOJO MATHERS (Green): It is my pleasure to take a short call on the legislation arising from the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. What this legislation does is provide an extra option when decisions are being made around sentencing parole and bail. In that sense we support it as a management tool particularly if it helps people to stay out of prison. Obviously as a management tool it can be used either fairly and appropriately or not. What we expect is that this management tool will be used fairly and appropriately. In particular we would hope that this would enable the early release from prison for some prisoners who qualify by providing extra reassurance that parole conditions will be observed and by also allowing for sentencing to electronic monitoring instead of the very restrictive home detention that is often imposed when there is no other management tool available. So we do support it but we do want to be able to be reassured that it will be used wisely because if it is not used wisely it could be counter-productive. We do acknowledge the concerns that some submitters made around the fact that it could actually be counter-productive. For example we do not want to see minor technical infringements resulting in a mass sending back to prison of offenders. So it is important that how this law has been used and applied is reviewed because what is really important is to see whether it does actually end up with assisting with the reintegration of prisoners back into society and with reducing reoffending. If it has these outcomes it will have been a really positive effect but if it does not then we need to review it. What we really want to shift to is true restorative justice rather than just simply locking up everybody in prison where they do not learn the skills for becoming part of a wider society and building a safer community. It is only through restorative justice that we will we see that outcome and that is the long-term focus for us in the Green Party. We support this legislation but we do not see it as the full and final answer to the problems that face us around addressing crime and injustice. There is a lot more that needs to be done and we have a long way yet to go. Thank you.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand in support of this legislation in its third reading. There are a number of bills that it has been broken up into now. I just want to acknowledge the comments of my colleague Peeni Henare across the House and say that he has identified some very positive aspects around this piece of legislation. It would be obvious to see even for any casual observer that there is a tremendous amount of work being done by the Department of Corrections around the reintegration and rehabilitation of offenders. We see that the levels of literacy and numeracy are increasing. We see that there are a number of working prisons where prisoners are being trained in all sorts of good occupations and trades. This piece of legislation is enabling a number of I think very positive measures. One of the things it means of course in terms of being able to have surveillance around offenders or prisoners who have been released from prison sentences of 2 years or less—prior to that they would not have been able to have electronic monitoring—and those under intense supervision and post-detention conditions that may apply at the end of a home detention is we will see a reduction in the number of ongoing victims of crime. We will see and know where offenders are and there will be areas where they cannot be and instead of finding out about that later when they break those boundaries they will be seen sooner and there will be a response by the authorities around that. What that will do is not only will it keep people safer but also it will engender a higher level of compliance with those conditions. One of the things that we know in New Zealand society is that except for a very few every person who enters a prison will come back out and live on the streets of our cities and towns and in our neighbourhoods. So it is very important that there is this developing behaviour of the respect of law. This legislation will enable that. Another very important and positive attribute of this piece of legislation is that with the availability of electronic monitoring under intensive supervision this could in fact reduce restrictions on offenders and improve their opportunities for employment and participation in our communities simply because there is greater and closer contact between the probation service and offenders. In the past that level of contact and observation may not have occurred and because of that there would have been tighter restrictions placed upon these people. But now because of this those restrictions without compromising the safety of the public can be relaxed to a measure so that there are greater employment opportunities and a greater ability to interact and engage and reintegrate in our communities. So I am very grateful to be able to stand in support of this legislation. I am very grateful to hear that parties across this House by and large are supporting this piece of legislation and I think it will progress the work that the Department of Corrections does in reintegrating people into our society. Thank you.