edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
11. Question No. 11—ImmigrationHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 11—Immigration11. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: What progress if any has been made with the currently suspended parent category visa which was temporarily closed to new applications in 2016?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): I am currently considering advice from officials on the timing and conditions under which the category may be reopened and queued applications selected for assessment.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was Mila Srobkova a recent arrival from the Czech Republic and mother of Karel Sroubek granted a parent category visa on arrival?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have absolutely no idea. If the member wants to put that down in writing go ahead.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister been asked for a special direction to grant Ms Srobkova a parent category visa?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the Minister is required to consider a special direction for Ms Srobkova will he ensure that the Court of Appeal judge's description of her involvement in the importation of ecstasy with her son will be taken into account?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I'm not commenting on a hypothetical application. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! This is a serious matter and the member deserves the respect of being heard in asking the question rather than having laughter from his colleagues.Hon Michael Woodhouse: What assurance can he give to the thousands of parents of hard-working recent migrants that any application by Mr Sroubek's mother to remain in New Zealand permanently would not be favoured over their own?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Oh I would imagine that immigration officials would consider every application on its merits and it would be dealt with appropriately.
10. Question No. 10—Research Science and InnovationANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 10—Research Science and Innovation10. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made regarding kauri dieback and myrtle rust research?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): Last week I announced surge funding for critical research that will provide new knowledge to help manage the impacts of these diseases protect our taonga species and deliver on our coalition agreement: additional new funding of $13.75 million over three years for kauri dieback and myrtle rust research and $8.75 million will be directed to kauri research and $5 million for myrtle rust research.Angie Warren-Clark: Why is new research necessary?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The current knowledge and tools are not enough to manage kauri dieback and myrtle rust and this Government is committed to an effective response to these diseases. Research is critical as it identifies and enables new ways of managing and controlling the pathogens. We need new knowledge and approaches if we are to slow the spread and protect our taonga species and ecosystems. The funding will go to the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge working in partnership with—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member was well finished answering the question.Angie Warren-Clark: What new areas of research will this funding support?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The funding will build our understanding of the pathogens that cause myrtle rust and kauri dieback and how they spread through New Zealand's forest ecosystems. Results will be applied to breeding programmes to enable disease resistance.
7. Question No. 7—Regional Economic DevelopmentDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 7—Regional Economic Development7. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements has he made?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): During the first week of the recess I had the pleasure of visiting the great province of Whanganui and Manawatū. Manawatū for the edification of the other side of the House means a rousing heart" and the hearts of the provinces were certainly roused in that part of the country when I announced a $48 million package which covered areas such as transport food beverage digital connectivity tourism and the neglected area—unfortunately attributed to the other side of the House—of training our people out in the provinces. Darroch Ball: What are some of the key projects that were supported?Hon SHANE JONES: I won't list them all for fear of not using the time of the House efficiently but the $40 million contribution to help KiwiRail build a new regional freight hub—and in fairness to members from the other side of the House this is something that although they have had a historical level of animus to KiwiRail they widely applauded it during the period of time I was up there. In addition to that Minister Faafoi and I announced an additional $40 million from the Provincial Growth Fund to address digital connectivity in areas such as Tararua and for dealing with historic problems. Mr Ken Shirley has congratulated me for turning my attention to a $2.8 million allocation for a national driver training centre so we don't rely excessively on migrant labour to fill up our trucks and other excavators.Darroch Ball: What further regional packages will the Provincial Growth Fund be supporting?Hon SHANE JONES: On Thursday we will be travelling to Te Tai Poutini—otherwise known as the West Coast—and this will be one of the most significant announcements to date. It deals with areas that have been neglected for a long period of time but after only several visits there and a tremendous amount of work undertaken by the civic leaders and a very sensible meeting where everyone was sensibly behaved in the deputy leader's office we will be announcing substantial allocations to Te Tai Poutini as evidence that work's happening on the ground—not only very popular rhetoric in the House.David Seymour: Has the Minister had advice in any form that some of his Provincial Growth Fund expenditure may have to be reported to the World Trade Organization as it qualifies as agricultural subsidies—the first time New Zealand would have reported such subsidies in 25 years?Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. Naturally advice has been sought from the foreign affairs department. However given that the adjudication and the appeals of so-said international trade body are in a state of disarray I'm not bothered by that at all."
4. Question No. 4—Housing and Urban DevelopmentPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 4—Housing and Urban Development4. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will the Housing and Urban Development Authority accelerate the pace of building of affordable homes; if so how?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The Housing and Urban Development Authority is a new agency with cut-through powers to partner with local government iwi and the private sector to build quality State and affordable and market homes and create thriving master-planned communities. The authority will be a new Crown agency with two key roles: leading small- and large-scale urban development projects and being a world-class public landlord. It will consolidate all three essential centres of development capability within the public sector: Housing New Zealand its subsidiary HLC—the people who did Hobsonville—and KiwiBuild.Paul Eagle: How will the authority's cut-through powers speed up the construction of affordable and public homes?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The authority will undertake a range of large and small urban development projects throughout the country. For some large-scale complex projects it will have access to a range of statutory powers that will better enable development. These include streamlined resource management planning and consenting processes where project master plans replace local plans; the ability to build change and fund infrastructure; and the ability to purchase land.Paul Eagle: What response was there to the announcement?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well there have been a range of very positive responses from across different sectors. For example Stephen Selwood of Infrastructure New Zealand said the urban development authority (UDA) will be in a better position to manage wider and more complex national challenges around growth management homelessness and cumulative environmental impacts to name but a few." The Employers and Manufacturers Association was also supportive saying that the approach was good to speed up the brownfields development in cities experiencing strong population growth.Paul Eagle: What response was there to the announcement from potential partners of UDA developments?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well again there are a range of positive responses. Local Government New Zealand president Dave Cull said "This is a huge opportunity to massively increase the supply of housing in our fastest-growing cities that was not previously possible because of the regulatory logjam created by our planning laws." The chairman of the Independent Māori Statutory Board David Taipari said "Through our ongoing discussion with the Government on this we recognise considerable thought has gone into the UDA approach and how iwi aspirations will be respected and this is a credit to the Government's decision making and the work of agencies.""
1. Question No. 1—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In recent weeks I have seen a number of reports which indicate that the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are strong. We've got unemployment at a 10-year low of 3.9 percent the manufacturing and services industries are expanding and a number of economists have published new forecasts of strong economic growth. All of this good news I think was best summed up on Morning Report recently by a commentator who said I think we can all agree [that] there's serious momentum there whether it's the high employment the low unemployment the GDP …". On this matter I can only agree with that commentator the Hon Simon Bridges.Dr Duncan Webb: Has he seen reports about which direction the economy is heading?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen a report from Westpac economists where they upgraded their growth forecasts which show the New Zealand economy growing by about 3 percent a year over the next three years. This shows that the economy is heading in a positive direction a view endorsed by one commentator who said "it's not going to hell in a handbasket" and "we're not heading for a recession". If only that commentator the Hon Simon Bridges would pass that optimism on to Amy Adams.Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen about the ability of New Zealanders to secure employment in the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously we've recently seen those figures which show a 10 year - low unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. There are also more New Zealanders in work with employment growing 2.8 percent from a year ago. When it comes to the ability of New Zealanders to secure employment this situation is again summed up very well by a commentator who said "we're in a situation where almost anyone who wants a job today can get it" I thank Simon Bridges for his acknowledgment of the strength of the New Zealand economy."
Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Walker Hamish; Mallard TrevorHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It's an honour to stand tonight to talk to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 which aims to maintain—SPEAKER: I regret I must interrupt the member in full flow. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I rise to make a small contribution to the second reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and acknowledge the opening statements to this debate by the Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Megan Woods clarifying the intent of the bill but also pointing to the need to ensure that the policy intent was also a key consideration within the context of further work that would be done to look at the Crown Minerals Act.I also want to acknowledge the chair of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. It is evident that in undertaking their role to listen albeit to the 11 submissions the key submissions of the stakeholders who have interests in this industry to ensure that the range of further amendments that were agreed to—and by my understanding by majority—were ones that would add greater clarity to the way in which the bill is intended to operate.Just by summary—because I know that there are members of the select committee who do want to make a contribution to the detail of the bill—if we take the way in which the select committee has outlined the themes of the further improvements to the bill they include matters relating to offences regarding the change of control much of which has been commented on by the chair of the select committee; the issue of late applications for consent to change of control; consent to change of control of the permit operator; clarification of authorisation of geophysical surveys on adjacent lands; access to schedule 4 land: limit to common marine and coastal areas; and some transitional provisions.It's important to note that in considering the submitters' views—as I read the detail of the way in which the amendments were proposed—this could only have been done with industry experience and I believe it adds greatly to the way in which the bill is intended to help improve the operational aspects of its policy intent.I want to pick up on a comment that was raised by Jonathan Young the speaker before me around the way in which industry themselves are seeking to assure best practice in their operations during a very difficult period of transition and with a significant emphasis on the health and safety components but also assuring that best practice ultimately is at the forefront of their minds in the way that they undertake their role.I also want to draw on the reflection of the Minister who indicated that it was important to have a broader piece of work in relation to the Crown Minerals Act and as it relates to iwi interests in these areas. I come from the Waikato and there is a view in the West Coast—certainly in Taharoa and it's not petroleum but is the mining of black sand—that there is a further need to improve the way in which the Act can operate to enable development opportunities in this area. I welcome the next phase of work in relation to the Crown Minerals Act.
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you sir. I'm not a member of the Health Committee. I am by virtue of the fact I'm National's ACC spokesperson a member of our health caucus committee and in that capacity I've had the chance to sit on the Health Committee a couple of times in recent months but I wasn't party to the discussion of this particular bill.It would appear that there is unanimity in the House in support of its passage so I won't take long to delay its progress. But I do just want to acknowledge the work that the Health Committee is doing under the leadership of the chair Louisa Wall. It appears to me when I've sat on that committee that it's a very collegial approach.This is nevertheless a very important bill. I won't repeat a whole lot of things that have already been said but in studying it just for the benefit of those who may be listening as the previous speaker and others have noted it does essentially arise out of two reviews that were undertaken in 2009 and again in 2012 so during the time of the previous National-led administration. It is a procedural bill tidying up 14 provisions in an Act that appears to be working well.I've just noted looking through the report of the committee that there are some significant recommendations that come from it that I think would be of interest to the public such as clarifying the power for the revocation of the accreditation of an educational institution. I'm sure that everybody in the public who might from time to time need to make use of our public health system would want to know that responsible authorities could revoke the accreditation of an educational institution if in some way it was failing to meet the requirements of a first-world health service. Authorities I note could revoke accreditation when concerns about the quality of education are not being addressed and the committee expected that authorities would consult appropriately before deciding to revoke an accreditation. It almost sounds too obvious for words but it's good that it has come through as a clear recommendation of the committee and I certainly endorse that.There's also a recommendation about essentially ensuring that the most modern forms of communications are available. We live in an increasingly digital electronic age and the committee is recommending amending the bill to reflect the common use of electronic communications such as respectively providing for practising certificates to be issued electronically.There are other provisions in there—the options for dealing with practitioners who've been found guilty of an offence. That would certainly be something that I would think that any member of the public would want to ensure was adequately provided for in the legislation. There's a provision for the temporary suspension of practising certificates and so on. I can see that these are all very sound common-sense initiatives coming out of two thorough reviews and a committee that has clearly done its job and I'm very happy to support its progress at this stage through the House.
Wagner NickyHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to rise and speak to this bill at its second reading. The select committee has worked hard at it and I think we've got a good outcome. The bill is significant because it does provide a mechanism for ensuring that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their professions which of course is relevant to everybody who wants to have confidence in our health system. It also provides for appointed authorities to be responsible for the registration and the oversight of health practitioners. This is to give confidence to New Zealanders that if something goes wrong in a medical treatment there is an authority that can be approached that can look into the incident and can take action if appropriate.The original Act the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act came in in 2003 and there have been a couple of reviews since that time and it's from those reviews that the changes have been made. But most of the changes really are procedural. There have been 14 different parts of the Act that have been changed but otherwise the Act has worked pretty well. I think one of the most important changes has been an increase of accountability of health practitioners to patients to their families and to the public.It's something that has been actively sought by a recent petition that the Health Committee has been working on. So it's particularly relevant. In clause 27(1) of the bill it widens the opportunities for concerns about competence of a practitioner to be taken to the responsible authorities. In the past only health practitioners employers or the Health and Disability Commissioner could take a complaint. Now anybody—a patient a patient's family a member of the public—can take a complaint to the relevant authority. I think this is a huge improvement. It will give the public more confidence in the process and it will allow them to take direct action to have their concerns heard if they feel that a health practitioner has not delivered appropriate services or appropriate care. I think this is a timely and significant amendment to the legislation and it does reflect on the petition that we were looking at. So I thank the petitioner for her comments that reinforced the need for this amendment.So overall the bill is designed to ensure a sustainable integrated more convenient and people-centred health system and that's a good thing. It's a good thing for all New Zealanders whether they work in the system or whether they're patients or they're families of patients that use the system. So National supports this bill. It believes that the amendments will improve the processes of registration of practitioners and the oversight of this work. I commend the bill to the House.
Reti ShaneHEALTH PRACTITIONERS COMPETENCE ASSURANCE AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 8 November.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on this the second reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill a bill that the Health Committee worked very collaboratively and diligently on and reached some good conclusions. We come to this bill with two previous reviews over the past 10 years and these recommendations are included in the bill both from the first review and this the second. We had 49 written submissions and 24 oral submissions from a wide range of submitters which is always good and as always improves the bill. We had 16 responsible authorities 10 medical professional bodies 17 other professional groups two individual health practitioners one provider of health services two interested organisations and two Government agencies.The committee reported back on 13 aspects of the bill. I'm not going to outline them all—it's in the committee's report—but the first two I will offer brief comment to. They were the ones revoking the accreditation of an educational institution and this was previously under the Nurses Act as a provision and the committee agreed that it should be amended to the bill so that the responsible authorities could have that jurisdiction. The second of the 13 points I wanted to talk to is electronic communications. There was almost unanimous support for responsible authorities being able to send and receive their annual practising certificates in an electronic fashion.I think really the only other thing that I wanted to add to this short call tonight was to speak to the submission from the occupational therapists which was very thoughtful and proposed a different mechanism. Rather than going straight to a professional conduct committee—that adversarial approach—what the occupational therapist said to us was this: they quite liked the idea and wanted to propose the concept of facilitated resolution. Rather than setting up a formal professional conduct committee maybe we could have facilitated resolution. Both the officials and the committee thought that this was a very good idea and that some further work could be done on that and that it was likely to receive the consent and approval from everyone around the table.So again just concluding this short call—unanimous support from the committee a review that had been in progress over 10 years 13 recommendations coming back from the select committee and all of them will help strengthen up the professional responsibilities that the medical practitioners have. I commend this bill. Thank you.
Conservation (Infringement System) Bill — Second Reading
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Well you know it's somewhat perplexing to listen to the other side say that non-government agencies should not be given the power to fine. I heard that with some surprise and on my laptop I had a bit of a look. So here's some non-government agencies that do have the power to fine already set out in legislation: the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board the Institute of Chartered Professional Engineers the Registered Architects Board the New Zealand Law Society's standards committee the Veterinarian Council the real estate agents conduct committee the Judicial Control Authority of the Racing Board—Hon Phil Twyford: Racing Board.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —the valuers institute. The Racing Board Mr Twyford—I know. And look that was five minutes on my laptop. The list goes on and on. Here we have numerous authorities whom we trust to use quasi-judicial powers to impose sanctions on various members of the public for breaching rules of conduct—entirely appropriate. What's more every single one of them has an appeal procedure to some further tribunal authority or court. Hon David Parker: Like a court.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Exactly Mr. Parker Mr Attorney-General. This is no more and I find it astounding that the National Party doesn't trust some of their best friends the Fish & Game Council—Hon David Parker: Former.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Former best friends—absolutely right. Here we have nothing more than people who are embedded in the community they are policing imposing sanctions for breach. It is absolutely wrong that they should suggest that the Fish & Game Council should have to prosecute not only because it's an utter waste of prosecutorial resources but also because it's entirely disproportionate to the wrong. Getting some trout without a licence doesn't require dragging someone before the courts. All it requires is an infringement offence if education isn't enough.So I am absolutely astounded at the Opposition by those lot over there especially because it's a bill that came from them when they were in Government. It has been improved and here we have an Opposition who is opposing for the sake of it. Let's get on with this. Let's make life workable. Let's ensure that we can protect our conservation estate at the same time as giving the people who need it the powers to look after what's going on there. I don't think I need to say any more than I have already to show the utter incoherence of the position of the other side. I commend this bill to the House.Amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its second reading which was a National Party bill introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry until the other side decided to try and mess with this excellent piece of legislation which was progressing through the Parliament and going to make a really important change. We've heard the arguments put forward as to why the infringement system needed to be put in place and I endorse the statements which have been made. But the worrying thing which I just heard from Angie Warren-Clark the member who just sat down was that she thinks that these Fish & Game Council members will do a good job. She thinks they'll do a good job. So we're really hope—and this is the problem with the current Government. They think things they hope things and they're feeling things but the problem with what we're doing here in Parliament is we're legislating. We are actually making the law for the land and I think it's important that when we make the law for the land we actually take into account the important constitutional principles in terms of how we actually make law who is actually delegated with responsibilities to do certain things and how that interacts with other pieces of legislation. I think this is an example of a piece of legislation where the good intentions and the hopes and dreams and kindness and all the rest of those flowery terms that have come from the other Government—they've put their fingers all over this piece of legislation and they've unfortunately put us in a position where this Parliament is legislating something which wasn't the original intent of what the Hon Maggie Barry was trying to put forward. So the key issue here is that this bill will give a non-governmental agency the power to issue infringement notices unabated by the State. Fish & Game staff are not State sector employees and therefore are not subject to the same codes of conduct and minimum criteria or minimum standards as to the integrity of departmental rangers. This is the key issue here: who should be entitled to be able to issue an infringement notice in the conservation estate in the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate. On this side of the House we firmly believe that it should be the DOC officers who are doing that and not then delegating their role off to other people in other organisations which don't meet the same important standards which the DOC rangers are expected to. They also have legal obligations and responsibility under the State Sector Act as well. So we will be opposing this piece of legislation. It's a shame that the Government got its tentacles all over this one but we'll be back in Government soon and we'll have to fix up all this mess. Thank you.
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Every now and again the mask slips does it not? We saw it before when David Parker gave his contribution on this piece of legislation. We were reflecting on the appropriateness of expanding Department of Conservation (DOC) powers to issue infringement notices—and obviously that was the genesis of the bill—and then of course the far more controversial view from our perspective that that power should be expanded to Fish & Game rangers.The Attorney-General or Minister for the Environment stands up and he's all but frothing at the mouth calling us statists suggesting that Fish & Game should be seen as—and I will quote him: that They are the Law Society for the protection of trout. They're the council for ecological protection." But more critically as his mask slowly slipped because he got all excited was that he started almost salivating at the thought of the power of these Fish & Game rangers to—and again I quote—sheet back some accountability for the farmers particularly those farmers who have broken the law.You see under the thin veneer of an environment Minister who is seeking to support this piece of legislation is an inherent dislike—in fact in my opinion it's more than dislike—of the agriculture sector and of the farmers and the contribution they make to the community. He looks to every single opportunity to stick it to them; to say "Look the way you have operated in the last 20 years is going to finish under my watch because me David Parker—I've got a vision for you and it's all going backwards and it's all hell in a handbasket." He couldn't help it. He then realised that he was actually on national television and had to wind back the face but the mask slipped and we saw the true intent: that he wants to take it to the farmers.Any farmer out there listening to this at the moment you rewind and listen to David Parker's speech and you will see his true intent lurking not too below the surface when we are talking about extending the powers beyond the DOC rangers—which of course as we've signalled the idea of including an infringement regime for the Department of Conservation makes sense. Indeed it was our idea. Indeed we put it in the original legislation. But of course as you've heard tonight this Government did not see that as suitable ring-fencing of and a solution to the problem but actually saw a need in their view to expand those powers to Fish & Game to enable them to be a further arm of the State with respect to prosecuting those people who break the law.As I said you could see the glint in David Parker's eyes because it's yet another twist against the sector he's been hunting for a long time and it's one day closer. We can see that this legislation at its core had some value. This Government has taken it in a direction we can't support and that's why on balance we think it deserves to be rejected and I very much look forward to the contributions from our side on this debate. Thank you very much."
Tinetti Jan; Rurawhe AdrianJAN TINETTI (Labour): I think that was such a sad contribution that I'm almost feeling sorry for that member Jacqui Dean—almost not quite. I will give this piece of advice though for the people that were interjecting during Jan Logie's contribution and on the previous member just in case anyone else thinks that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand made some big revelation about their stance over 90-day trials today. I'll just give the piece of advice to the other side to read the bill because it's in the commentary what the Green Party's stance is on it and what they've said. So instead of reading your speech notes from their advisers perhaps they should take some time to read the actual bill.We've heard here today that there is no crisis in employment. We've heard a whole lot of things. Perhaps again I should say to those people: go and read the submissions—or listen to the submissions because they were videoed most of them. Listen to the workers who told us—Dan Bidois: How many were against?JAN TINETTI: —about how bad the 90-day trial was for them. I will tell you how many submitters were opposed to this bill. There were actually 249 submitters opposed Mr Bidois. When National had their bill in 2014 which sort of put this legislation into place in the first place that we're actually reversing again there were 16500 submitters opposed to their bill—16500 to 249. There's not much of a crisis in employment is there.I'm really disappointed that they are creating or trying to create some sort of pretence around this massive opposition to this bill. This bill restores workers' rights. It is fantastic for our workers out there. We heard from those workers. We heard how disempowered they feel. Anything that makes our workers feel more empowered and starts to restore that balance in that workplace is a good thing.We did hear from employers and we heard from employers that they are good employers. In fact it was amazing how many good employers we heard in front of the Education and Workforce Committee—that's fantastic. This bill will not hurt those employers. This bill will help bring those people up who are not the good employers and we will restore workers' rights to the workplace. That is a good thing and so I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Nicola Willis—five minutes.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Throughout that contribution the member referred to the Hon Paul Goldsmith as Goldstein". I don't want to suppose that that was a slur potentially an ethnic slur to those of the Jewish faith who share the name Goldstein. I will not suppose that but it is a—Hon Willie Jackson: It's OK—it's all right.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.NICOLA WILLIS: —breach of the Standing Orders to not refer to members by their proper names.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I absolutely agree. That is correct. I wondered about interrupting the member. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that it was a slip of the tongue—I hope it was. If it happens again he might find himself apologising for that at the very least."
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): I thank the member Marama Davidson for the question. I wouldn't categorise it as a weakness. What it is is that there are three particular areas that the United Nations—or United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC)—has inside that they would like New Zealand to ratify. One of those for example is that there be no child labour. One of the reasons why New Zealand for example has chosen not to take on board that particular UNCROC suggestion is because of paper boys and paper girls. There has been a tradition in this country that school children have been able to do after-school work. So it's things like that. There are a couple of others that we also at this stage don't feel that New Zealand is able to move forward on. It's a work in progress I would suggest but I certainly wouldn't categorise the phrasing inside the piece of legislation now as a weakening". It identifies those three that we still have that we still believe suit New Zealand's purpose or they are a work in progress for New Zealand and as we move further down that pathway we'll be able to address them. Kia ora.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 157 in the name of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern to clause 45 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Schedule 4 agreed to.Schedule 5 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.The committee divided the bill into the Child Poverty Reduction Bill and the Children's Amendment Bill as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 158.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted."
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Just a really quick genuine question and particularly with the Minister in the chair I was wanting to bring up Part 3 clause 45 which then goes into section 6AA(3) of the Act. Just asking a genuine question around a sort of conditional clause added in. So firstly you have you know subsections around New Zealand meeting its international obligations relating to children and then it seems to put in However this Part does not in and of itself give domestic legal effect to or implement in New Zealand law any of those obligations." So it seems like a weakening and I just thought I'd genuinely put that question on the floor."
Williams PotoPart 3 Amendments to Vulnerable Children Act 2014CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members we come to the debate on Part 3—clauses 40 to 47—and schedules 4 and 5.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I just want to explain to the committee that I would never compare myself with Kate Sheppard but I just wanted to make the point that this Prime Minister's a wee way off too if she's only going to use the justification of policy as other people overseas do something similar". That's the fact. I'd also just make the point that when I challenged the Prime Minister that the statistics of this bill are already available she accepts that's true with the exception of persistence. Well she's going to need a lot of persistence in a lot of things but the fact of the matter is that persistence is simply concatenating multiple years together. So to say that somehow persistence is not measured—and look if I'm being arrogant it's OK turn around and ask the officials—is simply not true. Persistent poverty is simply poverty over several years and if poverty measures are being collected each year then I think we can work out what the persistence of it is without any great difficulty. I want to correct the Minister in a massive misapprehension about the amendment that I've put forward. She thinks that 200 people will be surveyed every year. It's only needed to read as the Minister is doing now the Supplementary Order Paper—it's less than three pages—and find the bit where it says "200 per cohort from 6 to 17". That's actually 11 years 11 cohorts and 11 times 200 is 2200. You can make arguments about sample sizes and accuracy but the fact is that if you've got 2200 people as a sample then you've got accuracy down to 1 and 2 percent on the measures at the top level and between 3 and 4 percent even if you go two or three layers down—so you break people up into different groups. To say that that's not statistically significant shows that she's not thinking about statistics. Actually to say that a piece of paper that says clearly 2200 people is actually only 200 is not giving the amendments put forward in this committee due respect. So with that in mind I'll give a going going gone one last time. If the Prime Minister wants me to be the last person to vote for her misguided bill then I'm going to invite her to be the first person to join me—and who knows maybe we could join in with Kate as well—to actually support some world-leading common sense of legislating to measure child welfare in a practical way that tells the people of New Zealand if the kids are really all right. Thank you Madam Chair."
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you. I just think I might not be as fun as the member at my side here but I did want to pick up—and it goes to my previous talk—clause 34A which particularly picks up indicators. And I actually did want to mention that that goes to looking at all of the other related issues that absolutely impact on child well-being. It mentions here for example (1) The Minister must identify for monitoring reports 1 or more child poverty related indicators related to all or any of the following areas;". I want to go through them if Madam Chair would please: "(a) income and employment: (b) housing: (c) education and development: (d) health … and disability: (e) any other areas." So of course that helps us to remain linked to the systemic causes and other factors and indicators of child well-being. Thank you."
Ardern Jacinda; Williams PotoRt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): This being my first time in the chair I'm learning some of the nuances of being in the chair and one of them is the immense frustration one can feel at not being able to yell an interjection across the room during some of the more arrogant statements made by the last member David Seymour. Of course being the Minister for this bill I couldn't possibly know that there is currently no information for persistent poverty currently available as contained in the bill! If the member would like to know what I was turning around to officials to say it was exactly that: there is no measure for persistent poverty which is what this bill legislates. Through the legislation and through the independence of the Government Statistician we have to develop up the persistent poverty measure and provide data for it. It is a primary measure though that we will have to wait a little bit of time to be able to develop and report on. But of course how could I possibly know that without relying on the officials behind me!David Seymour: Well why did the Minister turn around?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Secondly I'd like to refer as well—because I'd like to turn around and have someone that I can bemoan the fact that you didn't know that. Secondly I'd like to point out that if the member needs another reason why we can't support his Supplementary Order Paper 155 he of course is suggesting that we would survey 200 children. That would be statistically not a robust way to undertake any kind of survey work. The member would know that of course if he'd looked at the household income survey which doesn't give us enough robust data as it is now. That's why we've funded Statistics New Zealand to be able to survey 20000 in order to give us the kind of data that we can rely on to make significant decisions.Finally the debate around whether or not measures that capture relative incomes—most members of the House think inequality matters. Most members of this House do. Now if that member wants to argue that inequality doesn't matter and it doesn't have an impact on society then he is welcome to make that argument; he just won't find any support from this quarter.Finally the idea that rebelling against the Child Poverty Reduction Bill means that he's the same as Kate Sheppard—I don't think I even need to speak to that so I'll just take my seat.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Um—I'll call Marama Davidson.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd just like to speak to Part 2 of this bill because I'd like to sum it up by saying that really no one wants to live in a rich country that's full of poor people. And I think even the previous speaker David Seymour mentioned that before about living in a very wealthy age when we've never been better off. But there are many people in our society who are a lot worse off and one of the problems with the gap is that those people are never seen. It's so easy in the modern world to travel through and not actually have to see those nasty bits of society. We read about them in the paper perhaps and tut tut as we read them. We may even like watching the television shows that focus on poverty and we sit there and enjoy somewhat perversely those things.What this bill does—and I see you Madam Chair looking at me wanting to know where I'm going—and what is important about this particularly in Part 2 is that it focuses on that moment each year when statistically we are the focus of the media when we have people lined up in the gallery here when we have people sitting watching televisions: Budget day. At the moment Budget day is just about the money. It's about how we've gone and we have those little measures that go through—what gets measured gets done. We have all that tick-box legislation. We tick off what's been done but really those who are watching aren't forced to look at things they don't want to see.What we all need to look at is the effect of inequality and what this bill means is that for at least one day a year those who are focused on nothing else but the economy will be forced on Budget day to look at it. If you look at the clauses here 29 through to 36—where we focus on how we're actually going to bring our real performance as a society our real performance as a Government—somewhere one day this year whether it be 3.30 in the afternoon we're going to look and see how we've done. We may go on with our business till next year but at least next year once again we'll be reminded as to how we're doing as a society—that rather than the devil take the hindmost we will actually ensure that those hindmost are brought to our attention.So I'd just like to take this brief offering to say that this is an excellent piece of legislation and that this particular section—Part 2 of the bill—ensures that whatever we look at on that one day of the year society is going to have to be forced to look at how we are treating those at the tail end. Thank you Madam Chair.
Kuriger Barbara; Mitchell ClaytonThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of David Seymour to clause 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question that the amendments be agreed to.BARBARA KURIGER (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could I please correct my vote while it's still running?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes you may.BARBARA KURIGER: Sorry—55 votes opposed.CLAYTON MITCHELL (Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I'd like to change the Jami-Lee Ross vote please to one vote in favour. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Now let's take that again. Actually could I just ask the indulgence of the committee? Could we take all of the votes again on this? Thank you.
Ministerial Statement — NZTA
Visitors — Parliament of South Australia
Obituary — Gordon Copeland
Message from Governor-General — Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill